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.

Author: Nak Kazitilar
Country: Spain
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 12 November 2011
Pages: 67
PDF File Size: 5.40 Mb
ePub File Size: 2.9 Mb
ISBN: 792-6-37328-836-1
Downloads: 87267
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Tacage

This reversal of order in Article 36, paragraph 1 aconfirms the interpretation of that subparagraph in the context and in the light of the object and purpose of the Convention. The United States does not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction in regard to Germany’s second submission. Germany argues further that questions “relating to the non-compliance with a decision of the Court under Article 41 para. The ICJ has adopted an interpretation that emphasises the purposes and ends served by article 36, rather than simply the basic procedural rights the article mandates.

Ultimately it might have encouraged the Mexican government one and a half years later to seek review and reconsideration for its nationals on death row, who had allegedly been sentenced in violation of the VCCR.

LaGrand case

Finally, Germany points out that its fourth submission has been so worded “as to. I can readily accept this finding lagrane the Court only if its interpretation of Article 36, paragraph 1 bis appropriate in the present case. Icu to Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules, 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 at the opening of the oral proceedings.

caes For the same reason that the procedural default rule prevented full effect being given to the purposes of the article 36 rights, so too does the deprivation of life when it follows a breach of article 36 and the refusal to permit review or reconsideration of conviction and sentencing.

According to the Vice President, the interpretation of the Court of Art. 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. Nevertheless, the Court added that if the United States, notwithstanding that commitment, were to fail again in its obligation of consular notification to the detriment of German nationals, an apology would not suffice in cases where the individuals concerned had been subjected to prolonged detention or lzgrand and sentenced to severe penalties.


Ruling on the merits of the case, the Court observed that lqgrand United States did not deny that, in relation to Germany, it had violated Article 36, paragraph 1 bof the Vienna Convention, which required the competent authorities of lagdand United States to inform the LaGrands of their right to have the Consulate of Germany notified of their arrest.

La Grand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), I.C.J. (June 27)

In the course of the written proceedings, the following submissions were presented by the Parties: It might however be argued, having regard to the fact that in the French text was the original version, that such terms as “indicate” and “ought” have a meaning equivalent to “order” and “must” or “shall”.

Germany further alleges that by breaching its obligations to inform, the United States also violated individual rights conferred on the detainees by Article 36, paragraph 1 asecond sentence, and by Article 36, paragraph 1 b.

The finding whether a treaty is clear or not is not the starting point but the result of the process of interpretation.

Sign up for alerts. The United States argues that the fact that Article 36 by its terms recognizes the rights of individuals does not lafrand the nature of those rights or the remedies required under the Vienna Convention for breaches of that Article.

Rights, Remedies and Responsibility: Accordingly, the Court finds that Germany’s third submission is admissible. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph. Clearly these were invitations to the ICJ to avoid the thorny question as to whether provisional measures could ever bind a state the subject of an order. Article 36, paragraph 1, and specifically subparagraph bhas to be read in the context of these consular functions provided for in Article 5.

LaGrand case – Wikipedia

The terms of article 41 do not, on their face, appear to have a mandatory character. In itself, the rule does not violate Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.


If a state defendant attempts to raise a new issue in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, the defendant can only do so by showing cause and prejudice. In an Order of 3 Marchthis Court found that the circumstances required it to ij, as a matter of the greatest urgency and without any other lagrajd, provisional measures in accordance with Article 41 of its Statute and with Article 75, paragraph 1, of its Rules I.

In this regard, the fact that in Articles 56 to 60 of the Court’s Statute, both the word “decision” and the word “judgment” are used does little to clarify the matter. It passed as such into the Statute of the present Court without any discussion in The United States maintains that the right of a State to provide consular assistance to nationals detained in another country, and the right of a State to espouse the claims of its nationals through diplomatic protection, are legally different concepts.

The ICJ indicated provisional measures at 7. The court was at pains to point out that it was not passing judgment on the doctrine itself, but only its application to cases involving the Vienna Convention.

Print Save Cite Email Share. The ICJ noted that neither it nor the PCIJ had ever needed to resolve the question of bindingness, but that it was required to do so in this case.

Melbourne Journal of International Law

But the cases concerned entailed relatively light criminal penalties and are not evidence as to German practice where an arrested person, who has not been informed without delay of his or her rights, is facing a severe penalty as in the present case. The Court itself had not given much guidance on the issue of classification.

In no way could it be said that the ICJ was converted into an appellate court in relation to domestic criminal proceedings.