Youmans Case State Responsibility

STATE RESPONSIBILITY Thomas H. Youmans v. United Mexican States (November 23, 1926) RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF FORCES.—DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY.— MOB VIOLENCE.—DENIAL OF JUSTICE.—FAILURE TO APPREHEND OR PUNISH. —FAILURE TO PROTECT. Mexican military forces, under command of officer, instead of protecting American citizens attacked by mob, opened fire on Americans, as a result of which all were killed either by armed forces or by mob. No one appeared to have been punished for the crime, though some prosecutions were begun. Claim allowed.

FACTS: 1. Claim for damages in the amount of $50,000.00 is made in this case by the United States of America against the United Mexican States in behalf of Thomas H. Youmans, the son of Henry Youmans, an American citizen, who, together with two other Americans, John A. Connelly and George Arnold, was killed at the hands of a mob in Mexico. 2. Henry Youmans, Connelly, and Arnold were employees engaged in the construction of the San Hilario Tunnel in the town of Angangueo in the State of Michoacán, Mexico. The construction was being done by Mexican laborers resident in the town under the supervision of the Americans. 3. On March 14, 1880, Connelly, the Managing Engineer in the construction, had a controversy with a laborer, Cayentano Medina, over a sum of money the latter insisted was due to him as wages. Connelly, however, ejected Medina from his house. 4. Subsequently after, Medina, along with several companions began to throw stones at Connelly and approached him with a drawn machete. Connelly, trying to frighten the assailants, fired shots in the air and then went inside his house where Youmans and Arnold also reside. 5. Medina and his companions attempted to enter, and Connelly thereupon fired at Medina wounding his legs. Soon, the house was surrounded by threatening mob.

6. Connelly undertook to surrender to police authorities but failed to do so as he was driven back to the house by the mob. 7. Their employer then requested the Mayor to endeavor to protect the Americans, but he was unable to quiet the mob. The Mayor then ordered the Lieutenant of the Michoacan forces to quell the riot. 8. However, the troops, upon arriving at the scene, instead of dispersing the mob, opened fire in the house, causing the death of Arnold. 9. The mob renewed their attack against the Americans and set fire to the roof forcing Connelly and Youmans to leave, and as they did so, they were killed by the troops and members of the mob. 10. Their bodies were dragged through the streets and left under the pile of stones by the side of the road so mutilated as scarcely to be recognizable. 11. CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT: It is not proved by evidence in the record that the Mexican authorities were chargeable with negligence in the matter of protecting the men who were killed; or that soldiers participated in the assault on the men; or that proper efforts were not made to apprehend and punish the persons participating in the attack. 12. However, as per the communications sent to the Legation by the Director of the company, there had been witnesses who saw the soldiers later on fire on the Americans. Moreover, the American Consul General, who concealed his official character and conducted an investigation, obtained evidence from eye witnesses, and established that the appearance alone of the soldier troops have been sufficient to have quelled the riot but instead they opened fire on the Americans in the house which then encouraged the mob to reopen their attack. 13. The Department of the State called the attention of the Mexican government stating that on the plainest principles of international law and independent of the treaty stipulations between the two nations, which are contravened by such proceedings, renders the Government in whose services they

(soldiers) are employed, justly liable to the Government of the men who were murdered. 14. The Minister of Foreign Affairs challenged the right of the United States to intervene in the cases on the ground that the murdered men had not been matriculated (registered) under the Mexican law. The Minister, in his reply, stated that the soldiers confessed to having participated in the riot, alleging in excuse that they feared the vengeance of the mob had they acted otherwise. ISSUE: Whether there is liability on the part of the Mexican Government

Apart from the question whether the acts of officials referred to in this discussion have any relation to the rule of international law with regard to responsibility for acts of soldiers, it seems clear that the passage to which particular attention is called in the Mexican Government's brief is concerned solely with the question of the authority of an officer as defined by domestic law to act for his Government with reference to some particular subject. Clearly it is not intended by the rule asserted to say that no wrongful act of an official acting in the discharge of duties entrusted to him can impose responsibility on a Government under international law because any such wrongful act must be considered to be "outside the scope of his competency.”

HELD: YES. The liability on the part of the Mexican Government was sustained by the evidence in the record. The record shows a lack of diligence in the punishment of the persons implicated in the crime. Citations have been made to evidence with respect to the participation of the soldiers in the killing of the three Americans. The judicial record also shows that some soldiers were arrested but were not sentenced. Evidence before the commission does not disclose whose weapons killed the Americans, but the participation of the soldiers with the members of the mob is established.

Citation is also made in the Mexican brief to an opinion rendered by Umpire Lieber in which effect is evidently given to the well-recognized rule of international law that a Government is not responsible for malicious acts of soldiers committed in their private capacity. But the General Claims Commission do not consider that the participation of the soldiers in the murder at Angangueo can be regarded as acts of soldiers committed in their private capacity when it is clear that at the time of the commission of these acts the men were on duty under the immediate supervision and in the presence of a commanding officer. Soldiers inflicting personal injuries or committing wanton destruction or looting always act in disobedience of some rules laid down by superior authority. There could be no liability whatever for such misdeeds if the view were taken

With respect to the question of responsibility for the acts of soldiers there are citations in the Mexican Government's brief of extracts from a discussion of a subcommittee of the League of Nations Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law. The passage quoted, which deals with the responsibility of a State for illegal acts of officials resulting in damages to foreigners, begins with a statement relative to the acts of an official accomplished "outside the scope of his competency, that is to say, if he has exceeded his powers." An illegal act of this kind, it is stated in the quotation, is one that cannot be imputed to the State.

The Commission therefore decides that the Government of the United Mexican States must pay to the Government of the United States of America the sum of 520,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) without interest on behalf of Thomas H. Youmans.