 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations .(February 2008) |
The LaGrand case was a legal action heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In the case, the ICJ ruled that its own temporary court orders were legally binding and that the rights contained in the convention could not be denied by the application of domestic legal procedures.
Karl-Heinz LaGrand | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | October 20, 1963 |
| Died | February 24, 1999 (aged 35) |
| Cause of death | Execution by lethal injection |
| Criminal status | Executed |
| Conviction(s) | First degree murder Attempted first degree murder Kidnapping (5 counts) Attempted armed robbery Armed robbery (2 counts) Aggravated assault |
| Criminal penalty | Death |
| Details | |
| Victims | Kenneth Hartsock, 63 |
| Date | January 7, 1982 |
| Country | United States |
| State(s) | Arizona |
| Location(s) | Marana |
| Weapon | Letter opener |
Walter Bernhard LaGrand | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | January 26, 1962 |
| Died | March 3, 1999 (aged 37) |
| Cause of death | Execution by gas chamber |
| Criminal status | Executed |
| Conviction(s) | First degree murder Attempted first degree murder Kidnapping (5 counts) Attempted aggravated robbery Attempted armed robbery Armed robbery (2 counts) Aggravated assault Third degree burglary |
| Criminal penalty | Death |
| Details | |
| Victims | Kenneth Hartsock, 63 |
| Date | January 7, 1982 |
| Country | United States |
| State(s) | Arizona |
| Location(s) | Marana |
| Weapon | Letter opener |
On January 7, 1982, brothers Karl-Heinz LaGrand (1963–1999) and Walter Bernhard LaGrand (1962–1999) bungled an armed bank robbery in Marana, Arizona, killing 63-year-old Kenneth Hartsock by stabbing him 24 times with a letter opener, and severely injuring 20-year-old Dawn Lopez by stabbing her multiple times. Lopez later said she heard one of the brothers twice say, "Just make sure he's dead." [1] They were subsequently charged and convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The LaGrands also had prior convictions for robbery and burglary, which were used against them during the sentencing phase of their trials. [2] [3] [4]
The LaGrands were German nationals, having been born in Germany to a German mother. While they had both lived in the United States since they were four and five, respectively, neither had obtained U.S. citizenship. As foreigners, the LaGrands should have been informed of their right to consular assistance, under the Vienna Convention, from their state of nationality, Germany. However, the Arizona authorities failed to do this. The brothers later contacted Consul William Behrens, head of the German Consulate in Phoenix, on their own accord, having learned of their right to consular assistance. They appealed their sentences and convictions on the grounds that they were not informed of their right to consular assistance, and that with consular assistance they might have been able to mount a better defense. The federal courts rejected their argument on grounds of procedural default, which provides that issues cannot be raised in federal court appeals unless they had first been raised in state courts.
Diplomatic efforts, including pleas by German Ambassador Jürgen Chrobog and German Member of Parliament Claudia Roth, and the recommendation of Arizona's clemency board, failed to sway Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull, who insisted that the executions be carried out. [5] Karl LaGrand was executed on February 24, 1999, by lethal injection. Walter LaGrand was executed March 3, 1999, by lethal gas (upon his request). [6]
 | This section needs additional citations for verification .(December 2021) |
Germany initiated legal action in the International Court of Justice against the United States regarding Walter LaGrand. Hours before Walter LaGrand was due to be executed, Germany applied for the Court to grant a provisional court order, requiring the United States to delay the execution of Walter LaGrand, which the court granted.
Germany then initiated action in the U.S. Supreme Court for enforcement of the provisional order. In its judgment, [7] the U.S. Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction with respect to Germany's complaint against Arizona due to the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. constitution, which prohibits federal courts from hearing lawsuits of foreign states against a U.S. state. With respect to Germany's case against the United States, it held that the doctrine of procedural default was not incompatible with the Vienna Convention, and that even if procedural default did conflict with the Vienna Convention it had been overruled by later federal law – the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which explicitly legislated the doctrine of procedural default. (Subsequent federal legislation overrides prior self-executing treaty provisions, Whitney v. Robertson , 124 U.S. 190 (1888)).
The U.S. Solicitor General sent a letter to the Supreme Court, as part of these proceedings, arguing that provisional measures of the International Court of Justice are not legally binding. The United States Department of State also conveyed the ICJ's provisional measure to the Governor of Arizona without comment. The Arizona clemency board recommended a stay to the governor, on the basis of the pending ICJ case; but the Governor of Arizona, Jane Dee Hull, ignored the recommendation.
Germany then modified its complaint in the case before the ICJ, alleging furthermore that the U.S. violated international law by failing to implement the provisional measures. In opposition to the German submissions, the United States argued that the Vienna Convention did not grant rights to individuals but only to states; that the convention was meant to be exercised subject to the laws of each state party, which in the case of the United States meant subject to the doctrine of procedural default; and that Germany was seeking to turn the ICJ into an international court of criminal appeal.
On June 27, 2001, the ICJ, rejecting all of the United States' arguments, ruled in favor of Germany. The ICJ held that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, granted rights to individuals on the basis of its plain meaning, and that domestic laws could not limit the rights of the accused under the convention, but only specify the means by which those rights were to be exercised. The ICJ also found that its own provisional measures were legally binding. The nature of provisional measures has been a subject of great dispute in international law;[ citation needed ] the English text of the Statute of the International Court of Justice implies they are not binding, while the French text implies that they are. Faced with a contradiction between two equally authentic texts of the statute, the court considered which interpretation better served the objects and purposes of the statute, and hence found that they are binding. This was the first time in the court's history it had ruled as such.
The court also found that the United States violated the Vienna Convention through its application of procedural default. 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.
The International Court of Justice, or colloquially the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.
Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.
A treaty is a formal, legally binding written agreement concluded by sovereign states in international law. International organizations can also be party to an international treaty.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement that regulates treaties among sovereign states.
The Matrícula Consular de Alta Seguridad, also known as the Mexican Consular Identification Card, is an identification card issued by the Government of Mexico through its consulate offices to Mexican nationals residing outside of Mexico. Also known as the Mexican CID card, it has been issued since 1871. The issue of the card has no bearing on immigration status in the foreign country they are residing in. The purpose of the card is to demonstrate that the bearer is a Mexican national living outside of Mexico. It includes a Government of Mexico issued ID number and bears a photograph and address outside of Mexico of the Mexican national to whom it is issued.
International law, also known as "law of nations", refers to the body of rules which regulate the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with one another. Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings. They are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between sovereign states. It codifies many consular practices that originated from state custom and various bilateral agreements between states.
The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.
Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice.
United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran [1980] ICJ 1 is a public international law case brought to the International Court of Justice by the United States of America against Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis, where United States diplomatic offices and personnel were seized by militant revolutionaries.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.
Jesús Ledesma Aguilar was a Mexican national who became the 365th person executed by the U.S. state of Texas. His execution sparked an international incident between the United States and Mexico, which led to a lawsuit filed by Mexico against the United States in the International Court of Justice, in which the court found that Texas prison officials had denied Aguilar his right to see a Mexican consular official as specified in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981 was a set of obligations and commitments undertaken independently by the United States and Iran to resolve the Iran hostage crisis, brokered by the Algerian government and signed in Algiers on January 19, 1981. The crisis began from the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, where Iranian students took hostage of present American embassy staff. By this accord and its adherence, 52 American citizens were able to leave Iran. With the two countries unable to settle on mutually agreeable terms, particularly for quantitative financial obligations, Algerian mediators proposed an alternative agreement model - one where each country undertook obligations under the accords independently, rather than requiring both countries to mutually adhere to the same terms under a bilateral agreement.
Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court decision decided on April 14, 1998. The Court held that Breard would not receive a stay of execution and/or other relief under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, thus confirming the constitutional law principle that a Senate-ratified treaty may be overridden by a later domestic statute enacted by Congress.
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state court did not have to exclude evidence that was admitted into court in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.
The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals , more commonly the Avena case, was a case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its judgment of 31 March 2004, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in not allowing legal representation from the Mexican consulate to meet with Mexican citizens arrested and imprisoned for crimes in the United States.
Humberto Leal García Jr. was a Mexican national who was sentenced to death in the US state of Texas for the May 21, 1994, rape, torture, and murder of Adria Sauceda in San Antonio. Despite calls from US President Barack Obama, the US State Department, and Mexico to Texas for a last-minute reprieve, Leal was executed as scheduled on July 7, 2011.
Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.
Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights is the formal name of a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Iran filed a lawsuit with the Hague-based ICJ against the United States, on 16 July 2018, mainly based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the two sides on 15 August 1955 and entered into force in 1957, well before the Islamic revolution of Iran. Iranian officials alleged that U.S. re-imposition of the nuclear sanctions was a violation of the treaty. Iran also filed a request for provisional measures. In response, the United States asserted that the lawsuit as "baseless" and vowed to oppose it. Almost a month later, the ICJ heard the provisional measures request. On 3 October 2018, the International Court of Justice issued a provisional measures order requiring the United States "to lift sanctions linked to humanitarian goods and civil aviation imposed against Iran."