Consuls at work: universal instruments of human rights and consular protection in the context of criminal justice.

• Author: Uribe, Victor M.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THE PROTECTION OF NATIONALS BY CONSULS UNDER

   CONSULAR AGREEMENTS AND PRACTICES

   1. Consular Protection Before the Vienna Convention

   2. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

   3. Consular Protection and Access to a Consul

3. HUMAN RIGHTS AT STAKE

   1. Human Rights and the United Nations Charter

   2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

   3. The Universal Declaration and the Administration of

      Criminal Justice

   4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

4. CONSULAR PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN UNITED STATES LAW

5. THE APPLICATION OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION IN UNITED

   STATES DOMESTIC COURTS

   1. The Faulder Case

   2. The Montoya Case

   3. The Murphy Case

   4. The Breard/Paraguay Cases

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

7. CONCLUSION

1. INTRODUCTION

   Improvements in transportation have increased the number of foreign travelers going abroad for business, labor, and tourism.(1) In rare instances, such travelers may find themselves detained in a foreign country for alleged criminal conduct. Foreigners arrested or imprisoned abroad are certainly disadvantaged--especially for persons whose economic, social, and cultural condition make them particularly vulnerable to abuses.(2)

   Criminal prosecution in a foreign country could significantly reduce the possibility of a fair trial. This danger multiplies for defendants not fluent in the local language or whose understanding of the foreign legal system is tacking.(3) The picture becomes more threatening in countries where the prosecution may still impose the death penalty.(4)

   Undoubtedly, depriving a foreigner of their liberty in a strange country involves numerous aspects of basic human rights law. International law guarantees the protection of fundamental norms such as the right to be free from arbitrary deprivation of physical liberty during the administration of criminal justice--an area where violations often occur.(5) In such cases, the opportunity to speak with a consul could significantly affect the legal situation of aliens arrested and imprisoned in foreign countries. This right of consular access has been specifically guaranteed in international conventions and bilateral treaties.(6) Moreover, the right to contact a consul is well settled in international practice.(7)

   Unfortunately, the protection offered by a consular officer of the alien's country of origin is often disregarded.(8) Unfamiliarity with international law and, more particularly, ignorance of both immigrants and police agents regarding consular tasks and responsibilities are usually to blame for the deprivation of the right to a consul.

   Both United States law and international law protect the right to have access to a consul.(9) Moreover, when a foreign national faces judicial proceedings in a strange country, several basic human rights are implicated: including the right to due process, adequate counsel, and an interpreter. Many of these rights are also guaranteed by the United States Constitution and enforced by United States courts.(10)

   From a humanitarian point of view, the right to a consul also has important implications. The scope of consular protection covers not only the legal aspects of a national's detention or trial, but also more personal issues. As the U.S. Department of State noted in an official communication, "[t]he Consul's presence may also help assuage the distress of detained nationals."(11) The consul thus represents familiarity. The presence of a fellow national who speaks the same language gives great psychological relief to distressed nationals detained in strange environments.

   This article examines relevant aspects of consular protection derived from international treaties, customary international law, human rights agreements, and the United States legal system. Because consular practice is based in international law, it will become apparent that several existing human rights instruments of universal coverage appear to protect the right to a consul. Additionally, adequate basis exists to support the argument that this protection should be enforced through the United States' legal system and the domestic courts--particularly in the capital punishment sphere.

   The article begins with an examination of consular protection in customary international law and early bilateral agreements, culminating in a discussion of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations--the foremost international instrument in the field. Next, Part III analyzes the provisions of several human rights agreements relating to consular protection. The foundations for consular protection of foreign nationals under United States' law is briefly discussed in Part IV. Part V introduces a novel legal argument currently developing in several pending death penalty cases. In these examples, inmates on death row are asking for various forms of state and federal relief due to alleged violations of their right to consul guaranteed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The final section offers some practical solutions concerning how the right of access to a consul could be enforced in the context of the United States' legal system.

2. THE PROTECTION OF NATIONALS BY CONSULS UNDER CONSULAR AGREEMENTS AND PRACTICES

   The consular institution is one of the oldest in international relations.(12) The protection of nationals, whether natural or legal persons, in foreign countries is arguably one of the foremost purposes of consular representatives.(13) In fact, this objective could well be regarded as the underlying objective for all other functions performed by consuls in the interest of the sending State.(14)

   In this respect, two main theoretical approaches exist on the issue of whether a person has the right to demand protection of his consul.(15) Some states believe their consular representatives have the duty to provide the necessary protection to co-nationals, while others maintain that consular protection is a matter of strict discretion on the part of the state of nationality.

   France, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and the United States have adopted the former view to varying degrees.(16) French consuls are required "to aid their nationals in the attainment of judicial equality and fairness and, in case of expulsion ... to demand explanation from the local authorities."(17) Consular protection by Mexican consuls includes assistance and advice to Mexicans in their dealings with local authorities, visiting Mexicans in detention, prison, hospitals, or assistance in any other difficult situation, and representing Mexicans who are incapable of handling their own affairs.(18) Even before the adoption of the Vienna Convention, British Foreign Service officers had the duty to "watch over and take all proper steps to safeguard the interests of British subjects and British protected persons within his district."(19) Likewise, once United States citizenship is unquestionably established, United States consuls have a duty to protect nationals.(20)

   Brazil and Hungary have similar views. According to Brazilian laws, not only do Brazilian consular representatives have the duty and right to assist and protect Brazilians and to see that their rights are respected, but citizens have the right to demand such protection when abroad.(21) The right of Hungarian citizens to enjoy the protection of the Republic of Hungary during their legal stay abroad is guaranteed in the 1989 Hungarian Constitution.(22)

   Illustrative of the second position is the Canadian practice. According to the Canadian Consular Manual, the protection of nationals is a "high priority" function of the Canadian government and its consuls have "a mandate to protect and assist Canadians who live and travel abroad and to respond promptly when they find themselves in distress."(23) However, "[m]ost Consular services are provided as a matter of discretion by virtue of the royal prerogative [and] except as provided by statute, no one is entitled to claim such services as a matter of legal right."(24) Thus, the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs can, in his discretion, withhold protection and assistance to nationals.

   Similarly, the Netherlands maintains that neither international law nor Dutch law allow nationals to demand consular protection of their interests abroad.(25) Thus, in the case of a clash between the protection of a national and the interest of the state, the question of whether such protection should be withheld "must as a rule indeed be a matter for the authorities to decide from case to case."(26)

   Nevertheless, it has been suggested that the two general positions are not irreconcilable.(27) Although most countries accept the duty of their consular representatives to protect and assist nationals in accordance with international law and the laws of the receiving State, this duty is general in character and no specific action is enforceable at the request of an individual.(28) Consequently, the duty to protect is a non-justiciable duty.(29) Nonetheless, as will be discussed later, the right to communicate with a consul, and thus to obtain the protection of the sending State, could be enforced from a human rights perspective.(30)

   1. Consular Protection Before the Vienna Convention

      Long before the adoption of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,(31) the law governing protection of nationals was developed through bilateral agreements between nation-states.(32) Pre-Vienna Convention consular agreements regulate, with more or less detail, matters related to the establishment of consular posts, the appointment of consular staff, privileges and immunities of consular officers, and the scope of consular functions--giving consular law its distinctive conventional-based character which persists today.(33) Consuls are also authorized to contact local authorities for information regarding the situation of nationals and to lodge protests when their national's rights have been violated by the receiving State.(34)

      Shortly before...