Opinion ID: 767955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Background to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention

Text: 98 Of all the provisions of the Vienna Convention, the one with the most tortured and checkered background is indubitably Article 36. See Luke Lee, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 107 (1996). This provision was the subject of extensive and divisive debate before it was finally approved, with the differences centering mostly on the question of the foreign national's autonomy and rights under the proposed Article 36. Id. at 107-14; see also 1 United Nations Conference on Consular Relations: Official Records, at 3, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 25/6, U.N. Sales. No.63.X.2 (1963) (hereinafter U.N. Official Records). 99 The positions of the delegates from the United Kingdom and Australia were typical of the prevailing view. The former expressed his rejection of a proposal that a consul be notified only if the detained national so requested, because [i]t could well make the provisions of Article 36 ineffective because the person arrested might not be aware of his rights. Id. at 83-84 (emphasis supplied); see also id. at 339, 344. The Australian delegate stated along a similar vein, that [t]here was no need to stress the extreme importance of not disregarding, in the present or any other international document, the rights of the individual. Id. at 331 (emphasis supplied). In fact the United States delegate proposed an amendment to Article 36(1)(b) that the notification to a consul of a national's detention be made at the request of the national, to protect the rights of the national concerned. Id. at 337 (emphasis supplied). From these and other statements by the various national delegates there should be little doubt that the treaty under consideration concerned not only consular rights but also the separate individual rights of detained nationals. Id. at 37 (statement of Soviet delegate); id. at 37, 82, 85, 339, 345 (statements of Tunisian delegate); id. at 38 (statement of Congolese delegate); id. at 339 (statement of Greek delegate); id. at 338 (statement of the Korean delegate); id. at 332, 344 (statement of Spanish delegate); id. at 81, 339, 340-01 (statement of the Indian delegate); id. at 82, 332 (statement of the French delegate); id. at 84 (statement of the Federal Republic of Germany); id. (statement of the delegate of Brazil); id. at 331 (statement of the delegate of Venezuela); id. at 332 (statement of the delegate of Kuwait); id. at 335 (statement of the Swiss delegate); id. at 336 (statement of the delegate of New Zealand); id. at 343 (statement of the delegate of Ecuador); see also Mark Kadish, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Search For the Right to Counsel, 18 Mich. J. Int'l L. 565 (1997) (discussing the Vienna Convention's history in this respect); Report of the United States Delegation to the United Nations Conference on Consular Relations, Vienna, Austria, March 4 to April 22, 1963 (hereinafter U.S. Vienna Report). 100 During the course of the debate, the United Kingdom submitted the amendment to Article 36 that eventually became the final approved version of paragraph (b)(1), requiring the detaining nation to inform the detained foreign national of his/her right to consular access. The amendment was adopted 65 votes to 2, with 12 abstentions. The United States delegate voted in favor of the amendment. See U.S. Vienna Report at 60. 101 The Letter of Submittal of Secretary of State William P. Rodgers to the President dated April 18, 1969 is enlightening. In it Secretary Rodgers, in referring to Article 36(1)(b) indicates that: 102 It requires that authorities of the receiving State inform the person detained of his right to have the fact of his detention reported to the consular post concerned and his right to communicate with that consular post. If he so requests, the consular post shall be notified without delay. 103 (Emphasis supplied). 104 The U.S. Vienna Report, which is attached to the Letter of Transmittal states the following: 105 The solution adopted by the Conference to the problem of adjusting the notification obligations of the receiving State to the right of the individual concerned to request notification lies in the final sentence of subparagraph 1(b). That sentence requires authorities of the receiving State to inform the person detained of his right to have the fact of his detention reported to the consular post concerned and of his right to communicate with that consular post. This provision has the virtue of setting out a requirement which is not beyond means of practical implementation in the United States, and, at the same, is useful to the consular service of the United States in the protection of our citizens abroad. 106 (Emphasis supplied). 107 The Letter of Transmittal also includes the Report from the Committee on Foreign Relations reporting favorably on the Vienna Convention and recommending that the Senate give its advice and consent to the same. See Sen. Exec. Rep. 91-9, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). The Senate Report attaches the testimony of J. Edward Lyerly, the Deputy Legal Advisor for Administration before the Committee in which he states at the outset that [t]he Convention is considered entirely self-executive and does not require any implementing or complementing legislation. (Emphasis supplied). 108 There is further evidence in actions taken by the State Department ante litigio, supportive of appellants' claims. 4 Much can be found in the Department's booklet entitled Consular Notification and Access, a document instructing federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel regarding foreign nationals in the United States and their rights to consular notification and access. 5 See Government's Supplemental Appendix on Rehearing En Banc, Vol. II. Under the rubric of Summary of Requirements Pertaining to Foreign Nationals, the first directive states that: 1. When foreign nationals are arrested or detained, they must be advised of the right to have their consular officials notified. Id. at 467. Later in this document there are Suggested Statements to Arrested or Detained Foreign Nationals. Id. at 469. For example: In all cases, the foreign national must be told of the right of consular access. Id. (emphasis in the original). This statement is repeated in like form on the next page. Id. at 472; see also id. at 477, 483, 484. The booklet also restate's Mr. Layerly's averment before the Senate to the effect that [i]mplementing legislation is not necessary (and the Vienna Convention and bilateral agreements are thus self executing) because executive, law enforcement, and judicial authorities can implement these obligations through their existing powers. Id. at 484 (emphasis supplied). Last but not least, the State Department thoughtfully provides a model Consular Notification and Access Card with the suggested statement to be made to the detained foreign national notifying him of his rights. 109 Not surprisingly, and I would add reassuringly to those of us that occasionally find ourselves outside the confines of our national borders, 6 the State Department vis-a-vis U.S. citizens arrested or detained in foreign lands, 7 takes a position similar to appellants in this case. In its Foreign Affairs Manual, the State Department indicates that Article 36 of the Vienna Consular Convention provides that the host government must notify the arrestee without delay of the arrestee's right to communicate with the American consul. Id. at 378 (emphasis added). That said, and at the risk of stating what is obvious, I believe that the Government's position regarding the restricted application of the Article 36 (of the Vienna Convention) and Article 35 (of the Bilateral Treaty) rights of foreign nationals in the United States not only establishes a repugnant double standard but, considering more practical applications, sets up our many citizens abroad for abuses that we will be hard-put to object to, considering the tenor and outcome of the present appeal. See Gregory Dean Grisvold, Strangers in a Strange Land: Assessing the Fate of Foreign Nationals Arrested in the United States by State and Local Authorities, 78 Minn. L. Rev. 771, 792-94 (1994) (hereinafter Strangers in a Strange Land).