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):||16 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||13.35 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.83 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
llagrand Germany stated that, inthe authorities of the State lahrand Arizona had detained two German iccj, 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 bof the Vienna Convention. However, the two German nationals were executed by the Cse 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 bof 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.
The Court stated that, in itself, the procedural default rule did not violate Article The problem arose, according to the Court, when oagrand rule in question did not allow the detained individual ixj challenge a conviction and sentence by invoking the failure of the competent national authorities to comply with their obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1.
Oxford Public International Law: LaGrand Case (Germany v United States of America)
The Court concluded that, in the present case, the procedural default rule had the effect of preventing Germany from assisting the LaGrands in a timely fashion as provided cass by the Convention.
Under those circumstances, the Court held that in the present case the rule referred to violated Article 36, paragraph 2. After interpreting Article 41, the Court found that such orders did have binding effect.
The Court then went on to consider the measures taken by the United States to implement the Order concerned and concluded that it had not complied with it. 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 convicted and sentenced to severe penalties.
In the case of such a conviction and casd, it would be incumbent upon the United States, by whatever means it chose, to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention.
Statements by the President. Current Judges ad hoc.
All Judges ad hoc. Contentious cases organized by State.
Contentious cases organized by incidental proceedings. States entitled to appear before the Court.
States not members of the United Nations parties to the Statute. States not parties to the Statute to which the Court may be open. Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory. Organs and agencies authorized to request advisory opinions. Presentations on the work of the Court.
LaGrand case – Wikipedia
Overview of the case On 2 Marchthe 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 This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court. Institution of proceedings Application instituting proceedings 2 March Available in: Original Language Translation bilingual version Translation.
Order of 5 March Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial Available in: Judgment of 27 June Mertis Available in: United States of America – Request for the indication of provisional measures – Court to give its decision today, Wednesday 3 March at 7 p.
United States of America – Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings Available in: United States of America – Conclusion of the public hearings on the merits of the dispute – Court ready to consider its Judgment Available in: United States of America – The Court finds that the United States has breached its obligations to Germany and to the LaGrand brothers under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – The Court finds, for the first time in its history, that orders indicating provisional measures are legally binding Available in: