## Facts

- Arizona authorities arrested Karl and Walter LaGrand, German nationals, for a 1982 bank robbery resulting in one death and one injury; both were convicted and sentenced to death.
- U.S. authorities did not inform the LaGrand brothers, “without delay,” of their right under Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) Article 36(1)(b) to consular notification and communication; Germany was not promptly notified of the arrests.
- After German officials learned of the case, Germany assisted in efforts to raise Article 36 violations in U.S. courts.
- U.S. federal courts applied the “procedural default” doctrine to bar later consideration of the VCCR claims because the claims were not timely raised in state proceedings.
- Germany instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and sought provisional measures to halt Walter LaGrand’s imminent execution.
- The ICJ ordered the United States to take all measures at its disposal to ensure Walter LaGrand was not executed pending final judgment, but he was executed the same day after a stay was denied domestically.

## Issues

1. Whether the ICJ had jurisdiction under the VCCR Optional Protocol and whether Germany’s claims were admissible notwithstanding objections based on exhaustion of local remedies and the domestic character of criminal proceedings.
2. Whether VCCR Article 36(1)(b) confers individual rights on detained foreign nationals, in addition to rights of the sending State.
3. Whether a State may apply domestic procedural rules (including procedural default) in a manner that prevents effective review of an Article 36 violation.
4. Whether ICJ provisional measures indicated under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute are legally binding and whether non-compliance engages international responsibility.
5. What remedies are required for breaches of Article 36 and for non-compliance with provisional measures, including whether “review and reconsideration” is required in comparable cases.

## Decision

- The ICJ upheld jurisdiction over Germany’s submissions under the Optional Protocol to the VCCR and rejected the United States’ admissibility objections, treating the dispute as involving Germany’s own treaty rights (and not merely diplomatic protection).
- The ICJ held that VCCR Article 36(1) creates individual rights for detained foreign nationals to be informed without delay of their consular rights and to communicate with the consulate.
- The ICJ found the United States breached Article 36(1)(b) by failing to inform the LaGrand brothers and failing to notify Germany as required.
- The ICJ held the United States’ reliance on procedural default, as applied to foreclose merits consideration of the VCCR claim after non-notification, failed to give full effect to Article 36 and contributed to the breach.
- The ICJ held provisional measures indicated under Article 41 are legally binding and concluded the United States violated its international obligations by executing Walter LaGrand despite the provisional-measures order.
- As relief, the ICJ required the United States to provide, by means of its choosing, effective “review and reconsideration” of convictions and sentences in similar cases, unblocked by procedural default, and to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition.

## Legal Principles

- Disputes concerning interpretation or application of the VCCR fall within compulsory ICJ jurisdiction when the parties are bound by the VCCR Optional Protocol.
- VCCR Article 36(1)(b) confers individual rights on detained foreign nationals, including the right to be informed without delay of consular-notification and communication rights.
- A State may not invoke internal law or domestic procedural doctrines to justify failure to perform treaty obligations; domestic procedures must allow effective realization of Article 36 rights where non-notification occurred.
- ICJ provisional measures indicated under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute are binding on the parties; failure to comply constitutes an internationally wrongful act.
- An appropriate remedy for Article 36 violations in criminal cases is judicial “review and reconsideration” of conviction and sentence that accounts for the treaty breach and is not barred by procedural default.

## Conclusion

The ICJ held the United States responsible for violating VCCR Article 36 and for failing to comply with binding provisional measures, and required effective judicial review mechanisms to address comparable consular-notification violations and prevent recurrence.


LaGrand (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June 27)