Para Pihak : Germany v. LaGrand bersaudara tidak diinformasikan sehubungan dengan adanya hak pendampingan konsuler berdasarkan Vienna Convention of Consular Relation VCCR , dan pemerintah Amerika Serikat pun tidak memberitahukan Kantor Konsuler Pemerintah Jerman di wilayahnya Marana, Arizona akan tertangkapnya dan diadilinya 2 orang warga Negara Jerman. LaGrand bersaudara pun mengajukan permohonan asistensi konsuler agar mendapatkan keringanan putusan. Namun pemerintah Amerika Serikat tidak menggubris permohonan ini. Karl LaGrand dieksekusi dengan menggunakan metode suntik mati pada 24 Februari Pada tanggal 7 Januari , Karl LaGrand dan Walter LaGrand, dua orang warga negara Jerman yang telah tinggal di Amerika Serikat sejak berusia 3 tahun, melakukan sebuah perampokan bersenjata yang menewaskan 1 orang warga Negara Amerika dan melukai 1 orang lainnya; 2.

Author:Togor Sajas
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):14 April 2010
PDF File Size:2.66 Mb
ePub File Size:13.61 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

United States of America Mexico v. United States of America Overview of the case On 9 January , Mexico brought a case against the United States of America in a dispute concerning alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April with respect to 54 Mexican nationals who had been sentenced to death in certain states of the United States.

At the same time as its Application, Mexico also submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures, among other things so that the United States would take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national was executed and no action was taken that might prejudice the rights of Mexico or its nationals with regard to any decision the Court might render on the merits of the case.

Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. The same day, it issued another Order fixing 6 June as the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial by Mexico and 6 October as the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial by the United States of America.

The President of the Court subsequently extended those dates respectively to 20 June and 3 November Those pleadings were filed within the time-limits thus extended.

After holding public hearings in December , the Court rendered its Judgment on 31 March Mexico had amended its claims during the written phase of the proceedings and again at the oral proceedings, so that the Court ultimately ruled on the cases of 52 rather than 54 Mexican nationals.

The Court first considered four objections by the United States to its jurisdiction and five objections to admissibility. Mexico had argued that all of these objections were inadmissible because they had been submitted outside the time-limit prescribed by the Rules of Court, but the Court did not accept this. The Court then dismissed the United States objections, whilst reserving certain of them for consideration at the merits stage. Ruling on the merits of the case, the Court began by considering whether the 52 individuals concerned were solely of Mexican nationality.

Finding that the United States had failed to show that certain of them were also United States nationals, the Court held that the United States was under an obligation to provide consular information pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 1 b , of the Vienna Convention in respect of all 52 Mexican nationals.

The Court found that, in all of the cases except one, the United States had violated its obligation to provide the required consular information. Taking note of the interrelated nature of the three subparagraphs a , b and c of paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, the Court then went on to find that the United States had, in 49 cases, also violated the obligation to enable Mexican consular officers to communicate with, have access to and visit their nationals and, in 34 cases, to arrange for their legal representation.

The Court considered that the choice of means for review and reconsideration should be left to the United States, but that it was to be carried out by taking account of the violation of rights under the Vienna Convention.

After recalling that the process of review and reconsideration should occur in the context of judicial proceedings, the Court stated that the executive clemency process was not sufficient in itself to serve that purpose, although appropriate clemency procedures could supplement judicial review and reconsideration.

The Court moreover recognized the efforts of the United States to encourage compliance with the Vienna Convention, and took the view that that commitment provided a sufficient guarantee and assurance of non-repetition as requested by Mexico. The Court further observed that, while the present case concerned only Mexican nationals, that should not be taken to imply that its conclusions did not apply to other foreign nationals finding themselves in similar situations in the United States.

Finally, the Court recalled that the United States had violated paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 36 in the case of the three Mexican nationals concerned by the Order of 5 February indicating provisional measures, and that no review and reconsideration of conviction and sentence had been carried out in those cases. The Court considered that it was therefore for the United States to find an appropriate remedy having the nature of review and reconsideration according to the criteria indicated in the Judgment.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court. Institution of proceedings.


LaGrand case

They were subsequently charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to death. While they had both lived in the United States since they were four and five, respectively, neither had officially obtained U. As foreigners the LaGrands should have been informed of their right to consular assistance , under the Vienna Convention, from their state of nationality, Germany. However the Arizona authorities failed to do this even after they became aware that the LaGrands were German nationals. The LaGrand brothers later contacted the German consulate of their own accord, having learned of their right to consular assistance. They appealed their sentences and convictions on the grounds that they were not informed of their right to consular assistance, and that with consular assistance they might have been able to mount a better defense.


Provisional measures Overview of the case On 2 March , the Federal Republic of Germany filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America in a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April Germany stated that, in , the authorities of the State of Arizona had detained two German nationals, Karl and Walter LaGrand, who were tried and sentenced to death without having been informed of their rights, as is required under Article 36, paragraph 1 b , of the Vienna Convention. However, the two German nationals were executed by the United States. Public hearings in the case were held from 13 to 17 November Ruling on the merits of the case, the Court observed that the United States did not deny that, in relation to Germany, it had violated Article 36, paragraph 1 b , of the Vienna Convention, which required the competent authorities of the United States to inform the LaGrands of their right to have the Consulate of Germany notified of their arrest. It added that, in the case concerned, that breach had led to the violation of paragraph 1 a and paragraph 1 c of that Article, which dealt respectively with mutual rights of communication and access of consular officers and their nationals, and the right of consular officers to visit their nationals in prison and to arrange for their legal representation. The Court further stated that the United States had not only breached its obligations to Germany as a State party to the Convention, but also that there had been a violation of the individual rights of the LaGrands under Article 36, paragraph 1, which rights could be relied on before the Court by their national State.

Related Articles