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.
|Country:||Republic of Macedonia|
|Published (Last):||16 July 2013|
|PDF File Size:||7.18 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.97 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It can happen that for one reason or another – e. In this regard, it explains that the German Code of Criminal [p ] Procedure provides a ground lagrans appeal where a legal norm, including a norm of international law, is not applied or incorrectly applied and where there is a possibility that the decision was impaired by this fact. Such a proposition is, however, of limited usefulness.
It contends that it was only seven days before it filed its Application that it became aware of all the relevant facts underlying its claim, in particular, the fact that the icm of Arizona knew of the German nationality of the LaGrands since Germany further contends that “the breach of Article 36 by the United States did not only infringe upon the rights of Germany as a State party to the [Vienna] Convention but also entailed a violation of the individual rights of the LaGrand brothers”.
However, the two German nationals were executed by the United States.
La Grand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), I.C.J. (June 27)
Where the Court has jurisdiction to decide a case, it also has jurisdiction to deal with submissions requesting it to determine that an order indicating measures which seeks to preserve the rights of the Parties to this dispute has not been complied with. Pending the final decision, ucj of the measures suggested shall forthwith be given to the parties and to the Security Council.
The United States contends, furthermore, that rights caase consular notification and access under the Vienna Convention are rights of States, and not of individuals, even though these rights may benefit individuals by permitting States to offer them consular assistance. On 3 March a German national, Walter Burnhart LaGrand, was executed by cyanide gas in a correctional facility in Arizona in the United States for a criminal offence he committed in the mid s.
Particularly this is so in a situation of armed conflict where no reparation can efface the results of conduct which the Court may rule to have been contrary to international law. First it icm a straightforward assurance that the United States will casee repeat its unlawful acts.
Are they binding by operation of a general principle of law of civilised nations? In the end, on the motion of Venezuela, Ecuador, Spain, Chile and Italy, the Second Committee of the Conference decided to reverse the original order of Article 36, paragraph 1 aof the International Law Commission draft, so that the subparagraph refers first to the right of consular officers to communicate with and to have access to nationals of the sending State, and secondly to the right of nationals of the sending State to have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State ibid.
However, there is an important point of distinction. This interpretation has been the subject of extensive controversy in the literature. If the law were as Germany contends, the entirety of the Court’s rules and practices relating to provisional measures would be surplussage.
The United States objects to csae jurisdiction of the Court over the fourth submission in so far as it concerns a request for assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory.
Germany’s inability to render prompt assistance was, in its view, a “direct result of the United States’ breach of its Vienna Convention obligations”. As regards the question whether the United States has complied with the obligation incumbent upon it as a result of the Order of 3 Marchthe Court observes that the Order indicated two provisional measures, the first of which states that “the United States of America should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings, and should inform the Casee of all the measures which it has taken in implementation of this Order”.
The draft Article 2bis as submitted by the Drafting Committee thus read as follows: Supreme Court for enforcement of the provisional order. Germany then initiated action in the U. In its view, the context of Article 36 supports this conclusion since it relates to both the concerns of the sending and receiving States and cawe those of individuals.
As the US explained: Inwhen they were still young children, they moved with their mother to take up permanent residence in the United States. Germany responds that international law requires the exhaustion of only those remedies which are legally and practically available.
The travaux preparatoires of the Vienna Convention according to the United States, do not reflect a consensus that Article 36 was addressing immutable individual rights, as opposed to individual rights derivative of the rights of States.
It was with a certain reluctance that Ich voted in favour of operative paragraph 3 and 4 of the Court’s Judgment.
By a letter dated 2 Marchthe Vice-President of the Court, acting President in the case, addressed the Government of the United States in the following terms: 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 choice of means must be left to the United States. To this extent article 36 rights can give practical effect to fundamental human rights concerning fair criminal trial processes. It contends that Germany’s fourth submission “goes beyond any remedy that the Court can or should grant, and should be rejected. No objection was taken by Germany in respect of this apparent breach by the US of art