Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
©Washington Post
© St. Petersburg Times, published June 28, 2001
BERLIN -- The International Court of Justice, the United Nations' highest judicial tribunal, ruled Wednesday that the United States broke international law in the 1999 execution of a German national. The court also sought to expand its authority, declaring for the first time that interim decisions it issues are binding.
Wading into two of the most emotional trans-Atlantic issues, the death penalty in America and U.S. reluctance to bow to international bodies, the 15-member world court effectively claimed influence over the American legal system. The 14-1 decision delighted opponents of capital punishment in Europe.
The case grew out of the first-degree murder convictions of brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand, who moved to the United States from Germany in 1967 as children but never gave up their German nationality. They were convicted of the 1982 killing of a bank manager during a botched robbery in Tucson, Ariz.
Karl LaGrand was executed first. Then, just 27 hours before Walter was to go to the gas chamber, Germany sued in the world court, alleging that the brothers had been denied access to German consular officials after their arrest. The court asked for a postponement, but Arizona went ahead with the execution.
The LaGrand case was watched closely in Germany and other countries of the European Union, where the death penalty is illegal. European citizens put on American death rows often attract wide public attention in Europe.
Although the case at hand is limited to the consular rights of German nationals arrested for serious crimes in the United States, the effect of the decision could be much broader.
"I hope (the decision) sets a precedent in terms of the United States' application of international obligations," said Claudia Roth, leader of Germany's Green Party, "and that all cases of non-Americans on death row will be reviewed."
The court said that in the LaGrand case an established U.S. legal principle limiting appeals violated the country's responsibilities under an international treaty.
"There is an obligation on the U.S. to organize its criminal justice system to ensure there are no violations of international treaties," said Claus Kress, a senior researcher at the department of international criminal law at Cologne University.
The verdict is binding and not subject to appeal; however, the world court has no way to enforce compliance. Acting on a claim by Germany that LaGrand was denied consular rights guaranteed under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the world court issued an emergency order demanding a delay in LaGrand's execution. Wednesday, interpreting the binding power of its orders for the first time, the court said its 1999 demand "was not a mere exhortation" but "created a legal obligation for the United States."
At the time, the U.S. solicitor general wrote to the Supreme Court that "an order of the International Court of Justice indicating provisional measures is not binding." The Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of execution. The world court's request was forwarded by Washington without comment to authorities in Arizona, where the governor ignored it and allowed LaGrand to be executed.
Kress said that in 1980, when American hostages were held in Iran and the United States sought redress from the court, the United States argued that the court's emergency orders should be legally binding as a matter of principle.