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.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||25 May 2013|
|PDF File Size:||9.34 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.20 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
During the negotiating sessions of the Vienna Conference, a number of delegations stressed the importance of the draft subparagraph. It contends that Germany’s fourth submission “goes beyond any remedy that the Court can or should grant, and should be rejected.
La Grand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), I.C.J. (June 27)
It notes that German consular officials became aware of the LaGrands’ cases inbut that the German Government did not express concern or protest casr the United States authorities for some six and a half years. The clarity of these provisions, viewed in their context, admits of no doubt.
Nonetheless, in cases such as the LaGrand Case and Breard Casewhere the rights lageand a state and its nationals are intertwined, these essentially procedural orders may, 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 Court observes, in this connection, that the United States does not deny that it violated paragraph 1 b in relation to Ger-[p]many.
This obligation can be carried out in various ways. The United States authorities have thus limited themselves to the mere transmission of the text of the Order to the Governor of Arizona.
In view of these considerations, the Court considers that Lagrans is now entitled to challenge the alleged failure of the United States to comply with the Order. The United States objects to Germany’s second submission, since it considers that “Germany’s position goes far beyond the wording of the Convention, the intentions of the parties when it was negotiated, and the practice of States, including Germany’s practice”. The United Lagranv further contends that it “has already provided appropriate assurances to Germany on this point”.
As lgrand the first measure, the Court notes that it did not create an obligation of result, but that the United States was asked to “take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings”.
In one of the most important passages of its judgment the ICJ stated.
It has been speculated that this issue was settled by the ICJ because of the specific context of the case and it has also been assumed that casf ICJ wanted, at this point ccase time, to equate its practice to that of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ITLOS who had not had the binding nature of its orders questioned see Frowein at The ICJ has effectively concluded that where a national of a sending state has been subject to prolonged detention or has been sentenced to severe penalties it is only by belated attention to lagranv purposes for which article 36 rights were conferred that there can be an effective remedy for the prior breach of those rights.
Germany claims that the United States committed a threefold violation of the Court’s Order of 3 March They were subsequently tried before the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, which, on 17 Februaryconvicted them both of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, attempted armed robbery and two counts of kidnapping.
In these circumstances I wonder whether it is proper for the Court, in approaching the issue, to place so much emphasis on the lagrajd clarity of language of the provision, putting aside altogether the customary rules of interpretation.
There is no suggestion in the text of Article 36 2 that the rules of laagrand law and procedure under which a defendant would be tried or have his conviction and sentence reviewed by appellate courts are also within the scope of this provision.
The Court does not agree with these arguments lgarand the United [p ] States concerning the admissibility of the second, caae and fourth German submissions. In these proceedings they raised a number of different claims, which were rejected by that court in orders dated 24 January and 16 February The first set of proceedings consisted lagarnd appeals against the convictions and sentences to the Supreme Court of Arizona, which were rejected by that court on 30 January Additionally, Germany seeks from the United States that “in any future cases of detention of or criminal proceedings against German nationals, the United States will ensure in cse and practice the effective exercise of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations”.
However, the lack of means of execution and the lack of binding force are two different matters. In these circumstances, a seventeen-States amendment to paragraph 1 b was put forward before the Conference. The United States questions what this additional claim of diplomatic protection contributes to the case and argues that there are no parallels between the present case and cases of diplomatic protection involving the espousal by a State of economic claims of its nationals.
The United States also argues that Germany’s third lagraand is inadmissible because of the manner in which these proceedings were brought before the Court by Germany.
According to the United States, this rule: There is here an inherent logic in the judicial procedure, and to disregard it would be tantamount, as far as the Parties are concerned, to deviating from the principle of good faith and from what the German pleadings call ‘the principle of institutional effectiveness’. 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.
Pending the final decision, notice of the measures suggested shall forthwith be given to the parties and to the Security Council. In its English translation this text read as follows: That decision was duly communicated to the Parties by letters from the Registrar dated 9 November States entitled to appear before the Court.
Should provisions conferring human rights be interpreted and applied differently from other individual rights? The Court shall have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party. In doing so, it rejected the German arguments based essentially on the Order of the International Court of Justice on Provisional Measures.
Judgments | LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) | International Court of Justice
Germany argues further that questions “relating to the non-compliance with a decision of the Court under Article 41 para. 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.
Nowhere in the Preamble of the Convention is reference made to the creation of rights of individuals under the Convention. They have been granted by the ICJ in 11 cases: They returned to Germany only once, for a period of about six months in This page was last edited on 26 Decemberat This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Germany notes in this regard that the Court, in its Order of 9 April in the case concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Paraguay v. The Order did not require the United States to exercise powers it did not have; but it did impose the obligation to “take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings. 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.