墨西哥訴美國(guó).doc

案件基本事實(shí)：On January 9, 2003, Mexico initiated a case in the International Court of Justice against the United States, alleging violations of Articles 5 and 36 under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963 concerning Mexican nationals who were convicted and sentenced to death in U.S. state courts in California, Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon.More specifically, Mexico contends that its citizens who were charged and convicted of crimes in the U.S. were not told that they had to the right to consular assistance and access under the Vienna Convention.法律問(wèn)題及其分析：Ruling on the merits of the case, the Court first addresses the question of whether the 52 individuals concerned had Mexican nationality only, or whether some of them were also United States nationals, as claimed by that State. Concluding that the United States has not proved that claim, the Court finds that the United States did have obligations (to provide consular information) under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b) , of the Vienna Convention towards the 52 Mexican nationals. 對(duì)案情的裁決，法院首先解決的問(wèn)題有關(guān)的52個(gè)人是否有墨西哥國(guó)籍，或是否其中一些人還作為美國(guó)公民，該國(guó)聲稱。法院得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為，美國(guó)并沒(méi)有證明這種說(shuō)法，認(rèn)為美國(guó)沒(méi)有根據(jù)第36條第1（b）“維也納公約”，對(duì)52名墨西哥國(guó)民的義務(wù)（提供領(lǐng)事信息）。 The Court then examines the meaning of the expression “without delay” used in paragraph 1 (b) of Article 36. It finds that the duty to provide consular information exists once it is realized that the person is a foreign national, or once there are grounds to think so, but considers that, in the light inter alia of the Conventions travaux prparatoires the term “without delay” is not necessarily to be interpreted as meaning “immediately upon arrest”. The Court then concludes that, on the basis of this interpretation, the United States has nonetheless violated its obligation to provide consular notification in all of the cases save one. 法院隨后檢查的“毫不拖延”（二）第36條第1款中的表達(dá)意義。它認(rèn)為，提供領(lǐng)事信息的義務(wù)存在，一旦它是實(shí)現(xiàn)，人是1外國(guó)國(guó)家，或曾經(jīng)有有理由這樣認(rèn)為，但認(rèn)為，在的光“公約”的準(zhǔn)備工作除其他外工作文件毫不拖延一詞“ “不一定被解釋為意味著”后，立即逮捕“。然后，法院的結(jié)論認(rèn)為，這種解釋的基礎(chǔ)上，美國(guó)仍然違反其義務(wù)，提供領(lǐng)事通知，在所有的情況下，保存一個(gè)。 The Court then takes note of the interrelated nature of the three subparagraphs (a) , (b) and (c) of paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and finds, in 49 of the cases, that the United States has also violated its obligation under subparagraph (a) to enable Mexican consular officers to communicate with, have access to and visit their nationals; while, in 34 cases, it finds that the United States has also, in addition, violated its obligation under subparagraph (c) to enable Mexican consular officers to arrange for legal representation of their nationals. 法院隨后需要注意的三個(gè)（a）項(xiàng)的相互關(guān)聯(lián)性，（b）項(xiàng)和第（三）“維也納公約”第36條第1款，并發(fā)現(xiàn)，在49的情況下，美國(guó)還違反（一）項(xiàng)規(guī)定的義務(wù)，使墨西哥的領(lǐng)事官員交流，訪問(wèn)，并參觀他們的國(guó)民;同時(shí)，在34例，認(rèn)為美國(guó)還，此外，侵犯其根據(jù)（c）項(xiàng)，使墨西哥的領(lǐng)事官員安排法律代表其國(guó)民的義務(wù)。 The Court then turns to Mexicos submission in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 36, whereby it claims that the United States violated its obligations under that paragraph by failing to provide “meaningful and effective review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences impaired by a violation of Article 36 (1)”, inter alia as a result of the operation of the “procedural default” rule. The Court begins by observing that the procedural default rule has not been revised since it drew attention in its Judgment in the LaGrand case to the problems which its application could cause for defendants who sought to rely on violations of the Vienna Convention in appeal proceedings. The Court finds that in three cases paragraph 2 of Article 36 has been violated by the United States, but that the possibility of judicial re-examination is still open in 49 of the cases. 法院則變成墨西哥的意見(jiàn)書(shū)第36，即它宣稱，美國(guó)違反不以提供“有意義和有效的審查和復(fù)議的定罪和違反第二十損害的句子該段所規(guī)定的義務(wù)第二款36（1）“作為一個(gè)操作的結(jié)果，除其他外 ”默認(rèn)程 序“的規(guī)則。通過(guò)觀察程序的默認(rèn)規(guī)則沒(méi)有被修改，因?yàn)樗谄渑袥Q中注意的問(wèn)題，它的應(yīng)用程序可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致被告試圖依靠違反“維也納條約法公約”在上訴程序在拉格朗案提請(qǐng)法院開(kāi)始。法院認(rèn)定，在三種情況下，第36條第2款已違反美國(guó)，但是，在49的情況下仍然是開(kāi)放的司法復(fù)審的可能性。 Turning to the legal consequences of the abovefound breaches and to what legal remedies should be considered, the Court notes that Mexico seeks reparation in the form of “restitutio in integrum” , that is to say partial or total annulment of conviction and sentence, as the “necessary and sole remedy”. The Court, citing the decision of its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, in the Chorzw Factory case, points out that what is required to make good the breach of an obligation under international law is “reparation in an adequate form”. Following its Judgment in the LaGrand case the Court finds that in the present case adequate reparation for violations of Article 36 should be provided by review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals by United States courts. 談到上述發(fā)現(xiàn)的違規(guī)行為的法律后果，并應(yīng)考慮什么樣的法律補(bǔ)救辦法，法院注意到，墨西哥要求賠償“恢復(fù)原狀”的形式，也就是說(shuō)定罪和判刑的部分或全部廢止， “必要的和唯一的補(bǔ)救措施”。法院，理由是其前身常設(shè)國(guó)際法院在霍茹夫工廠案，決定，指出需要什么，根據(jù)國(guó)際法規(guī)定的義務(wù)的違反，是“以適當(dāng)形式的賠償”。繼其在拉格朗一案的判決，法院認(rèn)定，在本案中，違反第36條的充分的賠償，應(yīng)提供由美國(guó)法院對(duì)墨西哥國(guó)民的定罪和判刑的審查和復(fù)議。 The Court considers that the choice of means for review and reconsideration should be left to the United States, but that it is to be carried out by taking account of the violation of rights under the Vienna Convention. 法院認(rèn)為，審查和復(fù)議手段的選擇應(yīng)離開(kāi)美國(guó)，但它是權(quán)利的侵犯，根據(jù)“維也納條約法公約”進(jìn)行的。 The Court then addresses the function of executive clemency. 然后法院解決行政赦免的功能。 Having found that it is the judicial process that is suited for the task 經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)，這是司法程序，適合任務(wù) of review and 審查和 reconsideration, the Court finds that the clemency 復(fù)議，法院認(rèn)定的寬大處理 process, as currently practised within the United States 過(guò)程中，由于目前在美國(guó)實(shí)行 criminal justice system, is not sufficient in itself to serve that purpose, although appropriate clemency procedures can supplement judicial review and reconsideration. 刑事司法系統(tǒng)，是不是本身就足以達(dá)到這一目的，盡管適當(dāng)?shù)膶挻筇幚沓绦蚩梢匝a(bǔ)充司法審查和復(fù)議。 Finally, with regard to Mexicos request for the cessation of wrongful acts by the United States, the Court finds no evidence of a “regular and continuing” pattern of breaches by the United States of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. 最后，關(guān)于墨西哥對(duì)停止不法行為美國(guó)的請(qǐng)求，法院認(rèn)為沒(méi)有證據(jù)顯示美國(guó)違反“維也納公約”第36條的“定期和持續(xù)的”模式。 And as to its request for guarantees and assurances of nonrepetition the Court recognizes the United States efforts to encourage implementation of its obligations under the Vienna Convention and considers that that commitment by the United States meets Mexicos request. 和其要求的擔(dān)保和保證不重復(fù)的法院承認(rèn)美國(guó)的努力，鼓勵(lì)根據(jù)“維也納公約”履行其義務(wù)，并認(rèn)為，美國(guó)的承諾，滿足墨西哥的要求。意義：阿韋納和其他墨西哥國(guó)民案（ 墨西哥訴美利堅(jiān)合眾國(guó) ），標(biāo)志著一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)，關(guān)于第36判例。 The International Court of Justices unprecedented decision of 2004 expressly recognized the interdependence of both individual and States rights, by asserting that “ violations of the rights of the individual under article 36 may entail a violation of the rights of the sending State, and that violations of the rights of the latter may entail a violation of the rights of the individual” ( IC J Reports 2004, p. 36 ).國(guó)際法院法官的2004年前所未有的決定，明確承認(rèn)無(wú)論個(gè)人和國(guó)家的權(quán)利的相互依存關(guān)系，聲稱，“第36條下的個(gè)人權(quán)利的侵犯可能涉及違反發(fā)送國(guó)的權(quán)利，并且認(rèn)為侵犯后者的權(quán)利可能帶來(lái)的個(gè)人權(quán)利的侵犯“（ICJ報(bào)告，2004年，第36頁(yè) ）。 Moreover, the