Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T14:17:28.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Avena and Sanchez-Llamas Come to Germany – The German Constitutional Court Upholds Rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jana Gogolin

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Much attention has been given to a series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the effects of the decisions of the International Court of Justice interpreting the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. On 19 September, 2006, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - German Federal Constitutional Court), has made its first judgment on the issue. The decision is significant for international law and even more specifically for U.S. jurists: Its outcome differs significantly from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , 01 March 2007 , pp. 261 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669 (2006); Medellin v. Drake, 544 U.S. 660 (2005); Beard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998).Google Scholar

2 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, (Sept. 19, 2006) available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rk20060919_2bvr211501.html.Google Scholar

3 See Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (hereinafter “VCCR”) art. 36(1)(b), Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261.Google Scholar

4 LaGrand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466, 515 (June 27).Google Scholar

5 Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, 29, 71 (Mar. 31).Google Scholar

6 LaGrand, 2001 I.C.J. at 496–97.Google Scholar

7 Id.; Avena, 2004 I.C.J. at 56- 57, 65.Google Scholar

8 LaGrand, 2001 I.C.J. at 496–97; Avena, 2004 I.C.J. at 56- 57, 65. Therefore, the U.S. procedural default rule was rejected.Google Scholar

9 Beard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 375 (1998).Google Scholar

10 Id. at 377. Furthermore, it rejected an exception based on the “alleged novelty” of the claim.Google Scholar

11 Id.Google Scholar

12 Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2672 (2006) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, §§ 1, 2). See also Curtis Bradley, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 100 Am. J. Int'l L. 882 (2006).Google Scholar

13 Sanchez-Llamas, 126 S.Ct. at 2673.Google Scholar

14 Id. at 2671.Google Scholar

15 See Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Mar. 31).Google Scholar

16 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 60, June 26, 1945 Date, 59 Stat. 1031, 1055 (statute).Google Scholar

17 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent at 9, Medellin v. Drake, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (No. 04–5928), available at www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/3mer/1ami/2004-5928.mer.ami.pdf. Furthermore, the United States has also withdrawn from the Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes in order to avoid further judgment. Announcement, U.S. State Department, All Consular Notification Requirements Remain in Effect (last visited March 9, 2007), available at http://travel.state.gov/news/news_2155.html.Google Scholar

18 Medellin v. Drake, 544 U.S. 660, 666–67 (2005).Google Scholar

19 Ex parte Medellin, 206 S.W.3d 584 (2006).Google Scholar

20 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 22 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

21 Id.Google Scholar

22 The outline and discussion of the decision is limited to the problems regarding Article 36 of the VCCR. Other claims, which were rejected, are only mentioned insofar as they are important for the discussion. See Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, paras. 38–43 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

23 The Strafprozeßordnung (StPO – German Criminal Procedure Code) in section 136, paragraph 1, requires this information explicitly. Under StPO section 163a, paragraph 4, these instructions have to be given “during the accused's first examination by officials in the police force.” Compare Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishing “Miranda warnings” under U.S. law).Google Scholar

24 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH - Federal Court of Justice), 5 StR 116/01, (Nov. 7, 2001), http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de.Google Scholar

25 Id.Google Scholar

26 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 69 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

27 Id.Google Scholar

28 Id.Google Scholar

29 Under article 93, paragraph 1, sentence 4a of the Grundgesetz (GG - Basic Law/Constitution), individuals can file complaints of unconstitutionality against the public authorities based on a claim of violations of their basic rights or of one of the enumerated rights. Grundgesetz (GG – Basic Law/Constitution) art. 93, para.1, sentence 4a, German translation available at http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/lit/the_basic_law.pdf.Google Scholar

30 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 34 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

31 Id. at para. 42 (regarding their complaint under Article 36 of the VCCR).Google Scholar

32 Id. at para. 63.Google Scholar

33 In effect since Oct. 7, 1971.Google Scholar

34 Id. at para. 53. “The BVerfG quotes…” quotes the dissenting opinion of Justice Breyer in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669 (2006).Google Scholar

35 See id. at paras. 52–53.Google Scholar

36 See Grundgesetz (GG – Basic Law/Constitution) art. 74, para. 1, sentence 1.Google Scholar

37 Id. at art. 93, para. 1, sentence 4a.Google Scholar

38 U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.Google Scholar

39 Grundgesetz (GG – Basic Law/Constitution) art. 20, para. 3.Google Scholar

40 BVerfGE 38, 105 (111); BverfGE 57, 250 (274–275); BverfGE 86, 288 (317); see Erich Samson, The Right to a Fair Criminal Trial in German Criminal Proceedings Law, in The Right to a Fair Trial 513–32 (David Weissbrodt & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds., 1998).Google Scholar

41 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, paras. 51–52 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

42 See id. at para. 52.Google Scholar

43 U.S. Const. art. VI.Google Scholar

44 See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2677–78 (2006). See also Bradley, supra note 12, at 885–888.Google Scholar

45 See Sanchez-Llamas, 126 S.Ct. 2669; Medellin v. Drake, 544 U.S. 660 (2005); Beard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998).Google Scholar

46 Beard, 523 U.S. at 375.Google Scholar

47 Without accepting any binding effect of the ICJ decisions, President George W. Bush tried to achieve compliance with the ICJ decisions by writing a memo ordering the Courts to do so. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent at 9, Medellin v. Drake, 544 U.S. 660 (2005) (No. 04–5928). A recent decision rejected any binding effect of the memo. See ex parte Medellin, No. AP-75207, 2006 WL 3302639 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2006).Google Scholar

48 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 43 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

49 Id. at para. 54.Google Scholar

50 Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes art. 1, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 325, 596 U.N.T.S. 487.Google Scholar

51 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 56 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

52 Id. at paras. 58–59. The Court leaves open whether article 36 of the VCCR is a human right in terms of GG article 1, paragraph 2.Google Scholar

53 As federal law pursuant to article 59, paragraph 2 of the GG; Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 57 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

54 Id. at para. 60.Google Scholar

55 Id.; compare The Charming Betsy Canon in U.S. law, established in Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804).Google Scholar

56 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 59, June 26, 1945 Date, 59 Stat. 1031, 1055 (statute); see also U.N. Charter art. 94, para. 1.Google Scholar

57 In Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals, the ICJ held that the clemency procedure is not in accordance with the requirements under article 36, paragraph 2 of the VCCR. A judicial review has to be open for the accused claiming a violation of article 36 of the VCCR. Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, 29, 66 (March 31).Google Scholar

58 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 59 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

59 Id. at para. 60.Google Scholar

60 Id. As defined by article 59, paragraph 2 (together with article 20, paragraph 3) of the GG. Grundgesetz (GG – Basic Law/Constitution) art. 59, para. 2, art. 20, para. 3Google Scholar

61 Id. at para. 61 (following from the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ); See also Avena, 2004 I.C.J. at. 69.Google Scholar

62 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 61 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

63 See also id.Google Scholar

64 Id. at para. 62.Google Scholar

65 Id.Google Scholar

66 Id.Google Scholar

67 Id.Google Scholar

68 BVerfGE 111, 307 (329). (regarding the European Court of Human Rights); Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 55 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

69 Id.Google Scholar

70 Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669 (2006); Beard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998).Google Scholar

71 BVerfGE 111, 307 (329); Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 63 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

72 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 64 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

73 Id.Google Scholar

74 Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice), 5 StR 116/01, (Nov. 7, 2001), http://www.bundesgerichtshof.de.Google Scholar

75 Id. It did so by narrowly defining “competent authorities” under article 36 of the VCCR.Google Scholar

76 LaGrand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466, 494 (June 27); see also Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, 35 (Mar. 31).Google Scholar

77 LaGrand, 2001 I.C.J. at 494. But article 36 of the VCCR does not grant the detainee any rights against his home state. This has to be examined in every case.Google Scholar

78 Id.Google Scholar

79 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 65 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

80 Id.Google Scholar

81 Avena, 2004 I.C.J. at 44.Google Scholar

82 Id.Google Scholar

83 Id. at 29, 71.Google Scholar

84 Strafprozeßordnung (StPO – German Criminal Procedure Code), § 136, para. 1, § 163a, para. 4.Google Scholar

85 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 71 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

86 Id. at para. 66.Google Scholar

87 LaGrand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June 27) (The decision does not mention the claim).Google Scholar

88 Id.Google Scholar

89 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 68 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de; Andreas Paulus, Anmerkung zum BGH Beschluß vom 7 November 2001 (Comment to the Federal Court of Justice Judgment of 7 November 2001), 23 Strafverteidiger (StV) 58 (2003).Google Scholar

90 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 68 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

91 See under C.I.1.Google Scholar

92 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 70 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de. This is true as long as the BGH has still some discretion for its decision, as it does here.Google Scholar

93 Id.Google Scholar

94 In accordance with StPO, section 337. The BVerfG held that there has to be a causal relationship between the possible procedural error and the conviction, which might be difficult in this case.Google Scholar

95 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 76 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de. For example, because of the special difficulty in proving the causal relationship.Google Scholar

96 Id. at para. 71.Google Scholar

97 Id.Google Scholar

98 Id.Google Scholar

99 Id.Google Scholar

100 Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, 48–49 (Mar. 31).Google Scholar

101 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar

102 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 74 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

103 Id.Google Scholar

104 Id.Google Scholar

105 Id.Google Scholar

106 Paulus, Andreas, Anmerkung zum BGH Beschluß vom 7 November 2001 (Comment to the Federal Court of Justice Judgment of 7 November 2001), 23 Strafverteidiger (StV) 57, 60 (2003).Google Scholar

107 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, para. 73 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de (referencing StPO section 63a, paragraph 4, sentence 1 and section 136, paragraph 2).Google Scholar

108 Id.Google Scholar

109 See under A.Google Scholar

110 LaGrand Case (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466, 496–97 (June 27); Case concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), 2004 I.C.J. 12, 56–57, 65 (Mar. 31).Google Scholar

111 Paulus, Andreas, Anmerkung zum BGH Beschluß vom 7 November 2001 (Comment to the Federal Court of Justice Judgment of 7 November 2001), 23 Strafverteidiger (StV) 60 (2003).Google Scholar

112 Reply Brief for Petitioner Moises Sanchez-LLamas, Sanchez-Llamas v. State of Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669 (2006) (No. 04–10566).Google Scholar

113 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court), 2 BvR 2115/01, paras. 19–20 (Sept. 19, 2006), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de.Google Scholar

114 Id. at para. 53.Google Scholar

115 Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2673 (2006).Google Scholar

116 Id.Google Scholar

117 Id. (referencing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)).Google Scholar

118 Id.Google Scholar

119 Paulus, Andreas, Anmerkung zum BGH Beschluß vom 7 November 2001 (Comment to the Federal Court of Justice Judgment of 7 November 2001), 23 Strafverteidiger (StV) 60 (2003).Google Scholar