{ "id": "RL32390", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL32390", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 104338, "date": "2004-05-17", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T20:15:57.244445", "title": "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Overview of U.S. Implementation and International Court of Justice (ICJ) Interpretation of Consular Notification Requirements", "summary": "On March 31, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in the case of Avena and\nOther\nMexican Nationals that the United States had failed to comply with its obligations owed to\nMexico\nand its foreign nationals under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It further instructed\nthe United States to review and reconsider the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals denied\nrequisite consular information owed under Convention Article 36, and held that U.S. state or federal\nprocedural default rules should not prevent relief from Article 36 violations.\n The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is a multilateral agreement codifying consular\npractices originally governed by customary practice and bilateral agreements between States. Most\ncountries, including the United States, are parties to the Convention. The United States is also a\nparty to the Convention's Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes,\nunder which it has agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ to settle disputes between Convention\nparties regarding the agreement's provisions. In recent years, three countries (Paraguay, Mexico, and\nGermany) have brought cases to the ICJ disputing U.S. practice in relation to Convention Article 36. \nArticle 36 provides that when a foreign national is arrested or detained, authorities of the receiving\nState must notify him \"without delay\" of his right to have his country's local consular officer\ncontacted.\n While the United States has adopted measures to ensure federal law enforcement compliance\nwith the provisions of Article 36, no federal law ensures state and local compliance with Convention\nconsular notification requirements. Regardless, U.S. federal and state courts have generally not\ngranted foreign nationals relief for Article 36 violations, often because state and federal procedural\ndefault rules, including those federal rules enacted pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death\nPenalty Act (AEDPA), prevent consideration of such claims if they are not raised on a timely basis. \nIn Breard v. Greene , the Supreme Court upheld the application of federal procedural\ndefault rules\nto Convention claims, including in instances where such rules precluded federal habeas relief from\nsentences imposed by state courts. If the United States decided to comply with the ICJ's ruling,\nlegislative measures might be required. U.S. jurisprudence concerning the Vienna Convention, along\nwith the requirements of AEDPA, make it unlikely that U.S. courts will uniformly abide by the ICJ's\nruling. In order to comply with the ICJ's decision concerning the nonapplicability of the procedural\ndefault rule to Convention claims, AEDPA may need to be amended to permit further review of\nArticle 36 claims. Further, the United States could seek to improve state and local compliance with\nConvention provisions through federal legislative measures. Whether or not Congress has the power\nto commandeer state and local officials to execute U.S. treaty obligations remains an undecided\nissue, and Congress might decide to implement less direct measures to assure state compliance with\nthe ICJ's ruling.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32390", "sha1": "015b3189a19caeecf36aee6259724cce55506e25", "filename": "files/20040517_RL32390_015b3189a19caeecf36aee6259724cce55506e25.pdf", "images": null }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20040517_RL32390_015b3189a19caeecf36aee6259724cce55506e25.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law" ] }