Source: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/6/consular-notification-and-death-penalty-icjs-judgment-avena
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:18:09+00:00

Document:
In January 2003, Mexico instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") against the United States, alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ("Vienna Convention").  The Vienna Convention provides that foreign nationals must be informed, without delay, of their right to communicate with their consulate when they are detained by law enforcement officials. It also requires law enforcement officials to notify the appropriate consulate if the foreign national so requests. In Avena, Mexico argued that the United States had failed to comply with the Vienna Convention in 54 separate cases involving Mexican nationals who had been convicted and sentenced to death. On March 31, 2004, the ICJ issued its ruling in the case, holding that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention in most of those cases and calling for the United States to provide review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences in the underlying criminal proceedings.
Despite these actions, Mexico's efforts to promote compliance with the Vienna Convention in the United States have met with limited success. State and federal courts have declined to overturn convictions or suppress evidence when violations of the Vienna Convention have occurred, even in capital cases.
(5) by not permitting the review and reconsideration, in light of the rights set forth in the Vienna Convention, of the convictions and sentences of three Mexican nationals currently awaiting execution.
To remedy these violations, the Court held that the United States must provide "by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals."  In order to satisfy the Court's judgment, such review and reconsideration must take into account the rights set forth in Article 36 as well as the relevant portions of the Court's opinion on this issue. The Court indicated that review and reconsideration must be effective and must provide "a procedure which guarantees that full weight is given to the violation of the rights set forth in the Vienna Convention, whatever may be the actual outcome of such review and reconsideration."  Thus, the procedural default rule cannot be used to preclude a defendant from raising a Vienna Convention violation.  In addition, the Court stated that review and reconsideration must occur "with a view to ascertaining whether in each case the violation of Article 36 committed by the competent authorities caused actual prejudice to the defendant in the process of administration of criminal justice."  Thus, the Court declined Mexico's request to find that a Vienna Convention violation must automatically result in the partial or total annulment of conviction or sentence.
In Avena, the Court indicated that law enforcement officials must inform a foreign national of his or her consular rights once there are grounds to believe that the person is a foreign national. Indeed, the Court suggested that this notice could be issued along with the reading of Miranda rights.
The Court also clarified the meaning of review and reconsideration, a remedy first recognized in LaGrand. The Court held that review and reconsideration requires judicial review and that the clemency process alone is insufficient. Furthermore, the Court held that review and reconsideration requires a determination of whether the Vienna Convention violations caused actual prejudice to the defendant. Such determinations can only be made on a case-by-case basis. While ICJ decisions have no binding force except between the parties and in respect to that particular case,  the Court made clear that its analysis in Avena was not limited to Mexican nationals and that it applies with equal rigor to cases involving other foreign nationals.
The influence of the Avena decision will soon be measured in the United States. The State of Oklahoma has scheduled the execution of Osvaldo Torres, one of the Mexican nationals referenced in Avena, for May 18, 2004.
The text of the Avena decision is available on the ICJ's website (www.icj-cij.org).
For further discussion of these and related issues, please see the previous ASIL Insights available on the ASIL website (www.asil.org): "Consular Notification and the Death Penalty: The World Court's Provisional Measures Order in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States)," April 2003; "World Court Consular Notification and Death Penalty Challenge Revisited: Mexico v. United States," January 2003.
William J. Aceves is a Professor of Law and Director of the International Legal Studies Program at California Western School of Law. He has written extensively on the Vienna Convention and has served as amicus counsel to several human rights organizations in cases involving the Vienna Convention. This Insight is based, in part, on the author's case report: Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, 97 AJIL 923 (2003).
 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261.
 Application Instituting Proceedings Submitted by the Government of the United Mexican States (Jan. 9, 2003), Avena (Mex. v. U.S.) (Int'l Ct. Justice), at para. 20 ("Avena application").
 Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 325, 596 UNTS 487. The Optional Protocol provides that disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Vienna Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Id., art. I. Mexico acceded to the Optional Protocol on March 5, 2002.
 Avena application, supra note 2, para. 1. The Mexican application provided detailed information about each of the 54 cases.
 Id., para. 2. Article 5 of the Vienna Convention defines "consular functions." Article 36 defines the sending state's entitlements regarding communication and contact with its nationals.
 Avena application, supra note 2, para. 2.
 On January 20, 2003, Mexico withdrew its request for provisional measures on behalf of three of the 54 Mexican nationals because their death sentences had been commuted.
 Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. U.S.), Order of Provisional Measures, para. 55, 42 ILM 309 (2003).
 Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. U.S.), Merits, para. 44 (2004).
 The Court said that "without delay" does not necessarily mean "immediately upon arrest," but it does mean "as soon as it is realized that the person is a foreign national, or once there are grounds to think that the person is probably a foreign national." Id., para. 88.
 Procedural default rules preclude a defendant from raising a claim on appeal that was not raised in earlier proceedings.
 LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), (Int'l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001), 40 ILM 1069 (2001).
 See Statute of the International Court of Justice, June. 26, 1945, art. 59, 59 Stat. 1055.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 59