LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the merits of the dispute - Court ready to consider its Judgment

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: + 31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: !ntercourt,

The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:
[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.

Press Release

Unofficial

No. 2000/38
17 November 2000

LaGrand Case
(Germany v. United States of America)

Conclusion of the public hearings on the merits ofthe dispute

Court ready to consider its Judgment

THE HAGUE, 17 November 2000. The public hearings in the LaGrand Case (Gennany v.
United States of America) were concluded today. The Cow-twill now start its deliberations.

During the hearings, which startedon 13 November 2000, the delegation of Germany was
led by Mr. Gerhard Westdickenberg, Director General for Legal Affairs and Legal Adviser, Federal
Foreign Office, and H.E. Mr. Eberhard U. B. von Puttkamer, Ambassador of the Federal Republic
of Gennany to the Netherlands, as Agents. The delegation of the United States was led by

Mr. James H. Thessin, Acting Legal Adviser, United States Department ofState, as Agent.

The Court's .Judgment, binding and without appeal, will be delivered and read at a public
sitting on a date to be announcedt a later stage.

Parties' submissions

The Parties have presented the following submissions to the Court at the end of the oral
proceedings.

For Gennany:

"The Federal Republic of Gennany respectfully requests the Court to adjudge
and declare

(1) that the United States, by not informing Karl and Walter LaGrand without delay
following theirarrest of their rights under Article 36, subparagraph 1 {hl, of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by depriving Gennany of the
possibilityof rendering consular assistance, which ultimately resulted in the
execution of Karl and Walter LaGrand, violated its international legal obligations
to Germany, in its own right and in its right of diplomatie protection of its

nationals. under Articles 5 and 36, paragraph 1.of the said Convention;

(2) that the United States, by applying rules of its domestic law, in particular the
doctrine of procedural default, which barred Karl and Walter LaGrand from
raising their claims under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by

ultimately executing them, violated its international legal obligation to Germany
under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention to give full effect to the
purposes for which the rights accorded under Article 36of the said Convention
are intended; 1
(

(3) that the United States, by failing to take aUmeasures at its disposai to ensure that
Walter LaGrand was not executed pending the final decision of the International

Court of Justice on the matter, violated its international legal obligations to
comply with the Order on Provisional Measures issued by the Court on
3 March 1999, and to refrain from any action which might interfere with the
subject-matter of a dispute while judicial proceedings are pending;

and, pursuant to the foregoing international legal obligations,

(4) that the United States shaH provide Gennany an assurance that it will not repeat

its unlawful acts and that, in any future cases of detention of or criminal
proceedings against German nationals, the United States will ensure in law and
practice the effective exercise of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations. In particular in cases involving the death

penalty, this requires the United States to PI:Ovideeffective review of and
remedies for criminal convictions impaired by a violation of the rights under
Article 36."

For the United States of America:

"The United States asks the Court to adjudge and declare that:

(1) There was a breach of the United States obligation to Gennany under
Article 36 (1) .{!;ùof the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in that the
competent authorities of the United States did not promptly give to Karl and
Walter LaGrand the notification required by that Article, and that the United

States bas apologized to Gennany for this breach, and is taking substantial
measures aimed at preventing any recurrence; and

(2) Ali other claims and submissions of the Federal Republic of Gennany are

dismissed."

*

Internai Judicial Practice of theCourt with respect to deliberations

The Resolution conceming the Internai Judicial Practice of the Court establishes the
following procedure with respect to deliberations, except where otherwise provided:

The Court saon holds a preliminary discussion, at which the President outlines the issues
which require discussion and a decision by the Court. Each judge then prepares a written Note
setting out his views on the case. Each Note is dîstributed to the other judges. A full deliberation
is held afterwards, at the endof which, on the basis of the views expressed, a drafting committee is

chosen by secret ballot. That committee consists of two judges holding the majority view of the
Court, together with the President,if he shares that view.

The draft text goes through two readings during which amendments submitted by the judges

are considered. Meanwhile, judges who wish to do so may prepare a separate or dissenting
opinion.

The final vote is taken after adoptionof the final text of the Judgrnent in the second reading.

*•
'
- 3-

NOTEFORTHEPRESS

The full transcripts of the hearings of 13-17 November 2000 can be found on the Court's

website at the following address:tp://www.icj-cij.org.

Information Office:
Mr. Arthü!Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (tel: +31 70 302 2336)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (tel: +31 70 302 2337)

E-mail address:infoimation@i _cj-~ij -.org