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):||8 October 2008|
|PDF File Size:||9.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.92 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
According to the United States, the use in the English version of “indicate” instead of “order”, of “ought” instead of “must” or “shall”, and of “suggested” instead of “ordered”, is to be understood as implying that decisions under Article 41 lack mandatory effect. According to the United States, “[such an assurance] is again absolute in character.
If a State, in proceedings before this Court, repeatedly refers to substantial activities which it [p ] is carrying out in order to achieve compliance with certain obligations under a treaty, then this expresses a commitment to follow through with the efforts in this regard.
Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Lsgrand, the Court, after ascertaining the views of the Parties, decided that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed would be made available to the public cxse the opening of casd oral proceedings. It recommended against a commutation of his death sentence, but recommended that the Governor of Arizona grant a day reprieve having regard to the Application filed by Germany in the International Court of Justice.
Views Read Edit View history. The United States does not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction in regard to Germany’s second submission. Sign in with your library card. On 3 Marchby 13 votes to one, the ICJ indicated two provisional measures,  the first occasion on which the ICJ has done so in the absence of an oral hearing of the parties.
Germany claims pagrand the United States violated its obligation under Article 36, paragraph 1 b lagrane “inform a national of the sending state without delay lagrane his or her right to inform the consular post of his home State of his arrest or detention”.
La Grand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), I.C.J. (June 27)
Rights, Remedies and Responsibility: Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-seventh day of June, two thousand and one, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives [p ] of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the United States of America, respectively.
States Parties to the VCCR are only required to extend the benefits of article 36 to nationals of other parties.
The United States concedes that the competent authorities failed to do so, even after becoming aware that the LaGrands were German nationals and not United States nationals, and admits that [p ] the United States has therefore violated its obligations under this provision of the Vienna Convention. The United States argues that the underlying conduct complained of by Germany is one and the same, namely, the failure to inform the LaGrand brothers as required by Article 36, paragraph 1 b.
Thirdly, according to Article 5 of the Convention, consular functions consist icu alia in “protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law” Art. This Order was consequently binding in character and created a legal obligation for the United States.
However, the two German nationals were executed by the United States. As foreigners the LaGrands should have been informed of their right to consular assistanceunder the Vienna Convention, from their state of nationality, Germany. Is it not obvious. As provisional measures are designed to preserve rights of parties that have not been definitively shown to exist, their bindingness cannot rest on the fact of the order alone. 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.
Nonetheless, in cases such as the LaGrand Case and Breard Casewhere the rights of a state and its nationals are intertwined, these essentially procedural orders lzgrand, in the future, be a more effective mechanism for protecting substantive rights now that the ICJ has found that compliance with such interim orders is obligatory. The federal courts rejected their argument on grounds of procedural defaultwhich provides that issues cannot be raised in federal court appeals unless they have first been raised in state courts.
Finally, Germany points out that its fourth iccj has been so worded “as to. Germany further contends that there is a causal relationship between the breach of Article 36 and the ultimate execution of the LaGrand brothers.
The United States objects to the jurisdiction of the Court over the fourth submission in so far as it concerns a request for assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. Whether provisional measures are binding was an issue upon which the ICJ had not previously been required to adjudicate, and which has been a source of considerable controversy among commentators. It maintains that the treatment due to individuals under the Convention is inextricably linked to and derived from the right of the State, acting through its consular officer, to communicate with its nationals, and does not constitute a fundamental right or a human right.
Germany in particular alleged that the failure of the US to inform the LaGrand brothers of their right to contact the German authorities prevented Germany from exercising its rights under Art. Public hearings were held from 13 to 17 Novemberat which the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of: Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. It adds that it had been confident for much of this period that the United States would ultimately rectify the violations of international law involved.
Print Save Cite Email Share. Germany tried to justify filing the case at such a late date by stating that it had only become fully aware of the facts of the case before 24 February The Court states that, in such a case, “the United States, by means of its own choosing, shall allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in that Convention”. The ICJ held that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24,Vienna Convention granted rights to individuals on the basis of its plain meaning, and that domestic laws could not limit the rights of the accused under the convention, but only specify the means by which those rights were to be exercised.
The Court will consider these objections in the order presented by the United States. The United States authorities have thus limited themselves to the mere transmission of the text of the Order to the Governor of Arizona. The formulation of this last finding of the Court was probably intentionally flexible, but left several questions open for interpretation.
In this text, the terms “indiquer” and “l’indication” may be deemed to be neutral as to the mandatory character of the measure concerned; by contrast the words “doivent etre prises” have an imperative character.