Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-0850 State v. Navarro

By: dmc-admin//February 24, 2003//

02-0850 State v. Navarro

By: dmc-admin//February 24, 2003//

Listen to this article

Although there is a split of opinion in the courts, in light of well-established principles of international law that guide judicial construction of a treaty, “we are convinced that the Vienna Convention does not confer standing on an individual foreign national to assert a violation of the treaty in a domestic criminal case.

“The introductory sentence to Article 36 clearly states the purpose of the section is to encourage consular activity and the requirement that the receiving state notify arrested foreign nationals that they may confer with their nation’s consulate merely advances this expressed purpose. [Citation]. Manifestly, the notification requirement informs the sending state that it has a foreign national in custody of a foreign government so that the consulate can then provide assistance to the national and ensure that he or she is afforded the same protections and courtesies as the citizens of the receiving state. However, a determination that the treaty confers benefits upon arrested foreign nationals is clearly not equivalent, as Navarro appears to allege, to a determination that Article 36 was intended to vest the foreign national with standing to seek redress for treaty violations in domestic criminal cases. …

“We therefore construe the Vienna Convention to confer no substantive rights in a state court proceeding. The Vienna Convention simply represents a notice accommodation to a foreign national, which does not extend into dictating substantive procedures or dispositions in a state proceeding. Accordingly, we hold that Navarro does not have standing to enforce the provisions of the Vienna Convention and the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist II, Waukesha County, Gempeler, J., Brown, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Michael S. Holzman, Waukesha

For Respondent: Paul E. Bucher, Waukesha; Maura F.J. Whelan, Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests