An arrestee who is a citizen of Uruguay claimed that law enforcement personnel violated his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations treaty by failing to inform him about or provide him with the right to contact the Uruguayan consulate about his arrest. The court ruled that article 36 of the treaty did not confer individual rights on an arrestee that could be judicially enforced in U.S. courts, and the rights stated in the treaty were instead meant to aid in the exercise of "consular functions." The court therefore rejected his claims for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Gandara v. Bennett, No. 06-16088, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11088 (11th Cir.).
     In a case (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals) involving 51 Mexican nationals confined in U.S. prisons, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the U.S. had violated Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to provide them with notice of their rights to contact the Mexican consulate after they were taken into custody. The ICJ, therefore, held that each of these individuals were entitled to review and reconsideration of the U.S. state court convictions, even if they had failed to comply with otherwise applicable state rules concerning the challenging of those convictions. In a prior decision, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, No. 04-10566, 548 U.S. 331 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Convention did not negate the need to apply state rules. The President of the United States, however, issued a memo stating that the U.S. would "discharge its institutional obligations" and have state courts follow the ICJ decision. The Plaintiff in the immediate case, incarcerated in Texas, then filed a Texas state court habeas application challenging his capital murder conviction and death sentence because of the failure to inform him of his rights under the Vienna Convention. The U.S. Supreme Court has now held that neither the ICJ decision nor the President's memo are directly enforceable federal law which would pre-empt state limits on the filing of successive habeas petitions. The court further found that a treaty such as the Vienna Convention is not binding domestic law in the U.S. when Congress has not passed statutes to implement it, except if the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be "self-executing." The plaintiff's habeas petition was therefore properly dismissed. Medellin v. Texas, No. 06-984, 2008 U.S. Lexus 2912.
     Further proceedings ordered by federal appeals court as to whether the failure of police officers or other officials to inform a foreign national (a citizen of India) arrested for aggravated battery with a firearm of his right to consular notification under Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations violated his rights. The appeals court ruled that the issue should be resolved under the federal civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, but did not expressly rule on whether a violation of the Vienna Convention could give rise to a private remedy. Jogi v. Voges, No. 01-1657, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5713 (7th Cir.).
     346:154 City could be sued for violation of civil rights for failure to allow a German visitor arrested to contact the German consulate as required by treaty. Standt v. City of New York, No. 99-Civ-110008, 153 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).