On June 27, , the ICJ, rejecting all of the United States’ arguments, ruled in favor of Germany. The ICJ held that the Vienna. 1 LaGrand (Germany v United States of America) (hereafter ‘LaGrand Case’) may Not only did the ICJ state, for the first time in the history of its existence, the. The German’s (P) case involved LaGrand and his brother who were executed before the matter came to the I.C.J. the Court found that the U.S. (D) had breached.
|Published (Last):||12 September 2015|
|PDF File Size:||5.9 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.70 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It found that the dispute between the parties as to whether paragraph 1 ifj created individual rights, and as to whether Germany was entitled to espouse the claims of its nationals with respect to them, did relate to the interpretation and application of the VCCR. Furthermore, the original International Law Commission draft Article 36, paragraph 1 bmakes mandatory the obligation of the receiving State to inform the competent consulate of the sending State in case of detention of a national of that State.
A Functional Approach The United States concludes that Germany’s second submission must be rejected “because it is premised on a misinterpretation of Article 36, paragraph 2, which reads the context of the provision — the exercise of a right under paragraph 1 – out of existence”.
By letter of 26 Octoberthe Agent of Germany expressed his Government’s desire to produce five new documents in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules. The United States acknowledges that “there was a breach of the U.
Any communications addressed to the consulate by the person in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without undue delay” Yearbook of the International Law Commission,Vol. IcelandMerits, Judgment, I. This certainly met the requirement of the second of the two measures indicated. In State practice the assurances of non-repetition have been expressed by verbal assurances not to repeat the wrongful act.
The dispute between the Parties as to whether Article 36, paragraph 1 a and cof the Vienna Convention have been violated in this case in consequence of the breach of paragraph 1 b does relate to the interpretation and appli-[p ] cation of the Convention. It calls into question Germany’s assumption that German consular officials from Los Angeles would rapidly have given extensive xase to the LaGrands’ defence counsel before the sentencing, and contests that such consular assistance would have affected the outcome of the sentencing proceedings.
Turning now to the “procedural default” rule, the application of which in the present case Germany alleges violated Article 36, paragraph 2, the Court emphasizes that a distinction must be drawn between that rule as such and its specific application in the present case.
The Court would have taken lagranc factors into consideration had Germany’s submission included a claim for indemnification. Do binding provisional measures ordered by the ICJ offer greater promise as a mechanism for protecting human rights? In relation to the jurisdiction of the Court, the United States, without having raised preliminary objections under Article 79 of the Rules of Court, nevertheless presented certain objections thereto.
Furthermore, having examined the relevant United States jurisprudence, Germany contends that the procedural default rule had “made it impossible for the LaGrand brothers to effectively raise the issue of the lack of consular notification after they had at last learned of their rights and established contact with the German consulate in Los Angeles in “. He emphasized laggand the claim made by Germany in its third submission did not arise out of the interpretation of the VCCR but of Art.
The programme in question certainly cannot provide an assurance that there will never again be a failure by the Lagrrand States to observe the obligation of notification under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.
According to the United States, this rule: View translated passages only.
In no way could it be said that the ICJ was converted into an appellate court in relation to domestic criminal proceedings. However, the United States has emphasized that both had the demeanour and speech of Americans rather than Germans, that neither was known to have spoken German, and that they appeared in all respects to be native citizens of the United States. In doing so, it rejected the German arguments based essentially on the Order of the International Court of Justice on Provisional Measures.
In these circumstances, a seventeen-States amendment to paragraph 1 b was put forward before the Conference.
LaGrand case – Wikipedia
In order to ensure that the system remains workable, the ICJ will need to consider proposals such as that by its former Registrar, Thirlway, for imposing conditions on the grant of such measures so as to protect the rights of respondent states. Public hearings in the case were held from 13 to 17 November The Court need not decide whether this argument of the United States, if true, would result in the inadmissibility ick Germany’s submissions.
Don’t have an account?
In its view, the context of Article 36 supports this conclusion since it relates to ijc the concerns of the sending and receiving States and to those of individuals. It has now found itself to possess an essential incident of an effective judicial body: In short, it is clear that none of the sources of interpretation referred to in the relevant Articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, including the preparatory work, contradict the conclusions drawn from the terms of Article 41 read in their context and in the light of the object and purpose of the Statute.
Oxford Public International Law: LaGrand Case (Germany v United States of America)
Moreover, the Court cannot accept the contention of the United States that Germany’s claim caes on the individual rights of the LaGrand brothers is beyond the Court’s jurisdiction because diplomatic protection is a concept of customary international law. By an Order of 5 Marchthe Court, taking account of the views of the Parties, fixed 16 September and 27 Marchrespectively, as the time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by Germany and of a Counter-Memorial by the United States.
Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. Further, the choice of means by which full conformity of the future conduct of the United States with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention is to be ensured, may be left to the United States.
Applications lageand provisional measures have been made to the ICJ in 22 cases. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
Contentious cases organized by incidental proceedings. On the same date, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the motion by Germany, on the ground of the tardiness of Germany’s application and of jurisdictional barriers under United States domestic law.
This case comes before this Court not under Article 36, paragraph 2 of its Statute, but under Article 36, paragraph 1. Subsequent federal legislation overrides prior self-executing treaty provisions, Whitney v. Supreme Court in order to reach a stay of the execution of Walter LaGrand, in accordance with the International Court’s Order to the same effect.
Walter LaGrand was executed March 3,by lethal gasand currently remains the last person executed by that method in the United States. Invoking its right of diplomatic protection, Germany also seeks relief against the United States on this ground.
Moreover, Germany contends that its third submission also implicates “in an auxiliary and subsidiary manner. Articles lacking in-text citations from February All articles lacking in-text citations All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from November All articles with dead external links Articles with dead external links from December Articles with permanently dead external links United States Supreme Court case articles without infoboxes. In operative paragraph 3the Court finds that “by not informing Karl and Walter LaGrand without delay following their arrest of their rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 bof the Convention, and by thereby depriving the Federal Republic of Germany of the possibility, in a timely fashion, to render the assistance provided for by the Convention to the individuals concerned, the United States of America violated its obligations to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the LaGrand brothers under Article 36, paragraph 1”.
According to the United States, these submissions are inadmissible because Germany seeks to have this Court “play the role of ultimate court of appeal in national criminal proceedings”, a role which it is not empowered to perform.
The Court concludes therefrom that on the facts of this case, the breach of the United States had the consequence of depriving Germany of the exercise of the rights accorded it under Article 36, paragraph 1 a and paragraph 1 cand thus violated these provisions of the Convention.
The United States acknowledges, and does not contest Germany’s basic claim, that there was a breach of its obligation under Article caes, paragraph 1 bof the Convention “promptly to inform the LaGrand brothers that they could ask that a German consular post be notified of their arrest and detention”.