墨西哥诉美国
岗位练兵总结-我读书我快乐演讲稿
案件基本事实：
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.
法律问题及其分析：
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.
对案情的裁决，法院首先解决的问题有关的52个人是否有墨西哥国籍，或
是否其中一些
人还作为美国公民，该国声称。法院得出结论认为，美国并没有证明这种说法，认为美国没
有根据第36条第1（b）“维也纳公约”，对52名墨西哥国民的义务（提供领事信息）。
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 Convention's travaux préparatoires 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.
法院随后检查的“毫不拖延”（二）第36条第1款中的表达意义。它认为，提供领事信<
br>息的义务存在，一旦它是实现，人是1外国国家，或曾经有有理由这样认为，但认为，在的
光“公
约”的准备工作除其他外工作文件毫不拖延一词“ “不一定被解释为意味着”后，立即逮
捕“。然后，
法院的结论认为，这种解释的基础上，美国仍然违反其义务，提供领事通知，
在所有的情况下，保存一个
。
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. 法院随后需要注
意的三个
（a）项的相互关联性，（b）项和第（三）“维也纳公约”第36条第1款，并发现，
在49的情况下
，美国还违反（一）项规定的义务，使墨西哥的领事官员交流，访问，并参
观他们的国民;同时，在34
例，认为美国还，此外，侵犯其根据（c）项，使墨西哥的领事
官员安排法律代表其国民的义务。
The Court then turns to Mexico's 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. 法院则变成墨西哥的意见书第36，即它宣称，美国违反不以提供“有意义和有
效的审查和复议的定罪和违反第二十损害的句子该段所规定的义务第二款36（1）“作为一
个操作的结
果，除其他外 ”默认程 序“的规则。通过观察程序的默认规则没有被修改，因为
它在其判决中注意的
问题，它的应用程序可能会导致被告试图依靠违反“维也纳条约法公约”
在上诉程序在拉格朗案提请法院
开始。法院认定，在三种情况下，第36条第2款已违反美
国，但是，在49的情况下仍然是开放的司法
复审的可能性。
Turning to the legal consequences
of the above‑found 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 Chorzów 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. 谈到上述发现的违规行为的法律后
果，并应考虑什么样的法律补救办法
，法院注意到，墨西哥要求赔偿“恢复原状”的形式，也
就是说定罪和判刑的部分或全部废止， “必要
的和唯一的补救措施”。法院，理由是其前身
常设国际法院在霍茹夫工厂案，决定，指出需要什么，根据
国际法规定的义务的违反，是“以
适当形式的赔偿”。继其在拉格朗一案的判决，法院认定，在本案中，
违反第36条的充分的
赔偿，应提供由美国法院对墨西哥国民的定罪和判刑的审查和复议。
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.
法院认为，审查和复议手段的选择应离开美国，但它是权利的
侵犯，根据“维也纳条约法公约”进行的。
The Court then addresses the function of
executive clemency. 然后法院解决行政赦免的
功能。 Having
found that it is the judicial process that is
suited for the task 经发现，这是司法
程序，适合任务 of review
and 审查和 reconsideration, the Court finds that the
clemency 复议，
法院认定的宽大处理 process, as currently
practised within the United States
过程中，由于目前
在美国实行 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
系统，是不是本身就足以达到这一目的，尽管适当的宽大处理程序可以补充司法审查和复议。
Finally, with regard to Mexico's 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，关于墨西哥对停止不法行为美国的请求，
法院认为没有证据显示美国违
反“维也纳公约”第36条的“定期和持续的”模式。 And as to
its
request for guarantees and assurances of
non‑repetition 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 Mexico's request. 和其要求的担保和保证不重
复的法院承认美国的努力，鼓励根据“维也纳公约”履行其义务，并认为，美国的承诺，满足
墨
西哥的要求。
意义：
阿韦纳和其他墨西哥国民案（ 墨西哥诉美利坚合众国
），标志着一个转折点，关于第
36判例。 The International Court of
Justice's unprecedented decision of 2004 expressly
recognized the interdependence of both
individual and State's 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 ).国际法院法官的2004年前所未有的决定，明确<
br>承认无论个人和国家的权利的相互依存关系，声称，“第36条下的个人权利的侵犯可能涉及
违反
发送国的权利，并且认为侵犯后者的权利可能带来的个人权利的侵犯“（ICJ报告，2004
年，第3
6页 ）。
Moreover, the Court stated that the
fact that in this case the ruling concerned only
Mexican
nationals cannot be taken to imply
that the conclusions reached by it in the Avena
case do not
apply to other foreign nationals
finding themselves in similar situations in other
countries.此外，法
院还指出，不能采取暗示， 阿韦纳案件所达成的结论并不适用于其他外
国国民在类似的情
况在其他国家寻找自己的事实，在这种情况下，裁决只涉及墨西哥国民。
These cases may eventually carry significant
consequences for countries legally imposing the
death penalty: “That is, only where the most
rigorous standards of fairness and legality of
international jurisprudence are scrupulously
followed.” (Catherine M. Amirfar, “The Avena Case
in the International Court of Justice”, in
German Law Journal No. 4, April, 2004.)这些情况可能
最
终为依法判处死刑的国家进行的重大后果：“也就是说，只有在国际法理的公平性和合法
性的最严格的标
准，都严格遵循。”