## Facts

- Ángel Francisco Breard, a Paraguayan national, was convicted in Virginia state court of attempted rape and capital murder and sentenced to death.
- Breard did not raise any Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) consular-notification claim during his state proceedings; the convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct review.
- In federal habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Breard asserted for the first time that authorities failed to inform him of his VCCR Article 36 right to contact his consulate.
- The federal district court and the Fourth Circuit held the VCCR claim was procedurally defaulted for failure to raise it in state court and that Breard failed to show cause and prejudice.
- Separately, Paraguay and its diplomatic officials sued Virginia officials in federal court, alleging violations of the VCCR based on lack of consular notification and access.
- Lower federal courts dismissed Paraguay’s suit; relief against state officials was barred and no basis for federal injunctive relief was accepted.
- Paraguay commenced proceedings against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which issued a provisional measures order requesting the United States take steps to prevent Breard’s execution pending the ICJ’s final decision.
- On the eve of execution, the Supreme Court received multiple filings: Breard’s stay request and certiorari petition from habeas denial; Paraguay’s stay/injunction request and certiorari petition from dismissal of its suit; Breard’s original habeas petition; and Paraguay’s request to file an original bill of complaint and obtain emergency injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Breard’s VCCR consular-notification claim could be considered on federal habeas review despite his failure to raise it in state court.
2. Whether the VCCR provides judicially enforceable rights or causes of action allowing an individual foreign national or a foreign state to obtain relief in U.S. courts in this context.
3. Whether the ICJ’s provisional measures order required a stay of execution notwithstanding domestic procedural bars and statutory limits, including AEDPA.

## Decision

- The Court denied all requests for a stay of execution and all other relief, including certiorari, original habeas relief, and leave to file an original bill of complaint.
- The Court held Breard’s VCCR claim was procedurally defaulted and not excused because he failed to satisfy the cause-and-prejudice standard.
- Assuming arguendo the VCCR created an individually enforceable right, the Court found Breard did not show prejudice because he did not demonstrate the alleged violation likely affected the outcome at trial or sentencing.
- The Court declined to grant relief based on Paraguay’s efforts to litigate the alleged VCCR violations in U.S. courts.
- The Court declined to stay the execution based on the ICJ’s provisional measures order, treating domestic procedural rules and statutory limits as controlling for requested judicial relief.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty-based claims raised in federal habeas proceedings are subject to ordinary state procedural default rules; failure to raise a claim in state court generally bars federal habeas review absent cause and prejudice.
- A claimed VCCR Article 36 violation, even if assumed enforceable by an individual, requires a showing of prejudice sufficient to warrant relief; speculative assertions that consular assistance might have changed the outcome are insufficient.
- Where a later-enacted federal statute conflicts with an earlier treaty obligation for purposes of domestic judicial remedies, the later-in-time federal statute governs as applied by U.S. courts.
- An ICJ provisional measures order does not, by itself, supply a basis for a U.S. court to set aside otherwise applicable domestic procedural bars or statutory constraints in granting emergency relief.

## Conclusion

The Court refused to halt the execution, holding that the Vienna Convention consular-notification claim was barred by procedural default and not excused by cause and prejudice, that no adequate showing of trial prejudice was made even if an individual right were assumed, and that neither Paraguay’s filings nor the ICJ’s provisional measures order displaced controlling domestic procedural and statutory limits on relief.


Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998)