Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment on International Law wherein the Court refused to stay the execution of the petitioner when the petitioner alleges violation of Vienna Convention on Violation of Consular Relations.   

Facts 

• Breard was a citizen of Paraguay who came to United States in 1986. 
• Breard was charged with attempted rape and murder of Ruth Dickie. 
• During his trial overwhelming evidence were produced against him including semen found in found on Dickie’s body matching Breard’s DNA profile. 
• Breard confessed to killing but claimed that he was under a Satanic curse administered by his father-in-law when he committed the act.  
• Trial and Appeal: 
  • Breard was convicted of both the charges and sentences to death in a jury trial. 
  • On appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the conviction of Breard. 
  • A motion for habeas relief was filed in Federal District Court. Here for the first, it was argued that the conviction of Breard should be overturned because of the alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations at the time of his arrest. 
  • Specifically, it was alleged that the Vienna Convention was violated when the authorities failed to inform him that as a foreign national, he had the right to contact the Paraguayan Consulate. 
  • The District Court rejected this claim as he failed to raise the claim in the state Court. 
• Proceedings instituted by the Republic of Paraguay:  
  • Nearly five years after the conviction of Breard the Republic of Paraguay instituted proceedings against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 
  • The ICJ issued an order requesting United States to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Breard is not executed till the pendency of proceedings.    
• Breard therefore filed a petition for an original writ of habeas corpus and stay application in order to “enforce” the ICJ’s order. 
• Thus, the matter was before the United States Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit.   

Issue Involved  

• Whether writ should be issued to stay the execution of Breard on the ground that Vienna Convention was not followed? 

Observations 

• The Court held that it has been recognized that in international law without an express statement to the contrary the procedural rules of the forum state govern the implementation of the treaty in that State.  
  • Notably, the rule in the country is that the assertions of error in criminal proceedings must be first raised in the state court in order to form the basis for relief. 
  • The petitioner failed to do so and hence it was held that now he cannot raise the claim of violation of the rights.   
• The treaties are recognized by the Constitution of United States as the status of supreme law of land and that status is equivalent to the provisions of the Constitution. 
  • It has been held by the US Courts that 
    • An act of Congress is on full parity with a treaty. 
    • When a statute subsequent in time is inconsistent with the treaty the treaty to that extent is a nullity.  
  • The Vienna Convention talked about in this case was passed in 1969. Thereafter, in 1996 Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act which provides that a habeas petitioner will not afford an evidentiary hearing if he has failed to develop the factual basis of the claim in State court proceedings. 
  • It was observed that the Breard’s ability to obtain relief was subject to any claim arising under the United States Constitution.  
  • Without the hearing the Breard cannot establish how the Consul would have advised him and how the advice of the Counsel would be different from that of the Consul.   
• The Court finally held that even if Breard’s Vienna Convention claim was properly raised and proved it would be doubtful that violation should result in overturning of the final judgment of conviction. 
• Further, it was held by the Court that Paraguay is not authorized to bring a suit as it is not a “person” as that term is used in Section 1983. 
• There were three dissenting opinions delivered by Justice Breyer, Justice Stevens and Justice Ruth Badger Ginsburg.    

Conclusion 

The Court refused to grant relief and refused to stay the execution of the petitioner. The grounds for the same were: 

• The assertions regarding error in criminal proceedings must have been raised in the State Courts as per the rule of the country. 
• When the subsequent law is inconsistent with the previous treaty, the treaty shall be a nullity to that extent.