墨西哥诉美国

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 inter preted 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 “proceduraldefault” 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 “nec essary 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”。