Updated January 23, 2014
Information provided by Mark Warren of Human Rights Research
News and Developments - Previous Years (by Mark Warren and DPIC)
Under Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations(VCCR), local authorities must inform all detained foreigners "without delay" of their right to have their consulate notified of their detention and to communicate with their consular representatives. At the request of the national, the authorities must then notify the consulate of the detention without delay; they must also facilitate consular communication and grant consular access to the detainee. Consuls are empowered to arrange for their nationals' legal representation and to provide a wide range of humanitarian and other assistance, with the consent of the detainee. Local laws and regulations must give "full effect" to the rights enshrined in Article 36. The USA ratified the VCCR without reservations in 1969; so fundamental is the right to consular notification and access that the U.S. Department of State considers it to be required under customary international law in all cases, even if the detainee's home country has not signed the VCCR. As of February 9, 2009, 172 countries were parties to the VCCR.
In March of 2004, the International Court of Justice determined in the Avena case (Mexico v. USA) that advisement of consular rights "without delay" means "a duty upon the arresting authorities to give that information to an arrested person as soon as it is realized that the person is a foreign national, or once there are grounds to think that the person is probably a foreign national." In most cases, police in the United States would become aware of a suspect's probable nationality through routine identity confirmation and background checks, done either during the initial investigation, upon arrest, or very shortly thereafter. The State Department has interpreted the term "without delay" to mean as soon as practicable (i.e., without undue delay) and normally by the time the detainee is booked for detention. While not all of the reported foreign nationals currently on death row were deprived of their consular rights by arresting authorities, there is overwhelming evidence that prompt notification of these rights remains highly sporadic across the United States. No comparative study has yet been done, but the available data indicates that timely consular assistance significantly reduces the likelihood that death sentences will be sought or imposed on foreign nationals facing capital charges.
Even applying the less stringent definition of prompt notification used by the State Department, only 7 cases of complete compliance with Article 36 requirements have been identified so far, out of more than 160 total reported death sentences (including those executed, reversed on appeal or exonerated and released). In most of the remaining cases, detained nationals learned of their consular rights weeks, months or even years after their arrest, typically from attorneys or other prisoners and not from the local authorities. As a consequence, consular officials were often unable to provide crucial assistance to their nationals when it would be most beneficial: at the arrest and pre-trial stage of capital cases. For example, Arizona authorities did not formally inform German nationals Karl and Walter LaGrand of their Article 36 rights until 17 years after their arrest-- and just weeks before their execution.
Although not a capital case, evidence from a lawsuit indicates the extent to which police departments in the USA may have breached their consular notification obligations. In Sorensen v. City of New York , a Danish national sought punitive and compensatory damages for the failure of the NYPD to inform her upon arrest in 1997 of her right to consular notification. Official records produced by the plaintiff revealed that over 53,000 foreign nationals were arrested in New York City during 1997, but that the NYPD Alien Notification Log registered only 4 cases in which consulates were notified of those arrests--a failure rate well in excess of 99 per cent (even presuming that a majority of the detainees might have declined consular notification). Another example is the recent finding by the International Court of Justice in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals that the United States had violated its Article 36 obligations in 51 of 52 reviewed cases of Mexican nationals resulting in death sentences (a 98% failure rate, in the most serious of all possible circumstances).
Research to date indicates that a large majority of death-sentenced foreign nationals were lawfully present in the United States and were thus not "illegal aliens." For example, of the 54 Mexican nationals whose cases were initially brought before the International Court of Justice in Avena, only 5 were alleged by the United States to have entered the country illegally at any time prior to their arrest on the charges resulting in their death sentences.
TOTAL: 141 As of January 23, 2014
TOTAL NATIONALITIES: 36
*Inmates with INS or USCIS registration numbers (indicating foreign nationality), but for whom no specific nationality information is currently available.
TOTALS BY JURISDICTION: California (60), Texas (22), Florida (23), Arizona (3), Ohio (3), Nevada (5), Pennsylvania (5), Louisiana (3), Alabama (3), Virginia (2), Oregon (2), Montana (1), Georgia (2), Mississippi (1), Nebraska (1), Federal (5).
List of symbols in tables below
# - foreign nationality independently confirmed by two or more sources
! - awaiting re-sentencing or new trial after appellate court ruling
+ - awaiting formal sentencing by trial court
M - cases of reported mental illness, "mental retardation" or brain damage (incomplete data)
INN - claim of innocence raised on appeal (incomplete data)
INS- inmate with INS detention number, but for whom no nationality has been specified
<< - facing possible execution in the near future
& - cases in which a violation of consular rights has been raised in court proceedings or otherwise directly reported.
^ - cases in which notification of consular rights was reportedly provided by authorities without delay (i.e. upon arrest, or prior to booking for detention).
* - cases in which a consular rights violation is disputed
? - cases of possible dual nationality
As of January 23, 2014
Solely for the purposes of this list, a 'foreign national' is any individual under sentence of death in the USA who does not possess U.S. citizenship. More generally, foreign nationals in the USA would include: tourists and visitors, migrant workers with temporary permits, resident aliens, undocumented aliens, asylum-seekers and persons in transit. Foreign citizens comprise a significant portion of the population: more than 20 million foreigners visit the United States annually from overseas and approximately 18 million residents of the United States are non-citizens (according to the 2000 census).
Along with the general consular notification obligations that apply under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the USA has also negotiated separate bilateral consular agreements applicable to some 50 countries. Under the terms of most of these agreements, there is a mandatory obligation to promptly notify the consulate of an arrest irrespective of the national's wishes (typically within a specified time period, such as 72 hours following the detention).
Individuals retaining dual nationality who are arrested in one of their countries of citizenship are problematic for the purposes of consular notification under the VCCR (which makes no reference to dual citizenship). Individuals are listed provisionally if a report is received that they possess citizenship in a country other than the USA; if U.S. citizenship is later confirmed, the name is removed from this list.
The U.S. Department of State has taken the position that individuals who retain U.S. citizenship along with another nationality are not entitled to notification of consular rights if arrested in the USA. Other nations do not necessarily share that interpretation of consular treaty obligations; at a minimum, foreign consulates in the United States retain the right to communicate with and visit their citizens in custody, irrespective of dual nationality. Many countries have asserted a right to provide consular protection to dual nationals arrested in their other country of citizenship, particularly in life-threatening situations. While the scope of consular notification rights for this category of dual nationals may thus be open to some interpretation, all non-U.S. citizens detained or arrested in the USA are unquestionably entitled to the full range of consular rights afforded under international law.
Since U.S. authorities do not always list or report incarcerated individuals by nationality, it is difficult to identify and verify all foreign nationals under sentence of death. For instance, while the 2000 Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities (Bureau of Justice Statistics) indicates that foreign nationals represent about 7% of the state and federal inmate population, the survey notes that 121 reporting institutions did not provide any data on incarcerated non-U.S. citizens. There is no accessible national registry of death-sentenced foreigners (although the USCIS data base of deportable aliens serving prison terms would likely include all known foreign nationals on death row nationwide). Compounding the problem is the still-widespread failure of U.S. law enforcement officials to notify detained foreigners of their consular rights. Without this notification and subsequent communication at the request of the detained national, foreign consulates in the United States are likely to remain unaware of the true number of their nationals who are imprisoned, let alone sentenced to death.
The information for this list comes from a variety of sources, including appellate attorneys, post-conviction resource centers, trial counsel, prosecutors, newspaper articles, journalists, consulates and prison officials.
Research to date indicates that there are no foreign nationals currently on death row in South Carolina. There is as yet no complete data from a number of U.S. states with significant death row populations, including Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Florida and Missouri. A comprehensive list would likely include some 130 names (i.e., roughly 4% of the total U.S. death row population).
A name is included on the list if it is confirmed by at least one reliable contact. The eventual goal is to verify the nationalities of all individuals on this list from two or more independent sources. At present, approximately three-quarters of the names have been corroborated by multiple independent sources.
I welcome any and all additional information on this subject.
Mark Warren, Human Rights Research
tel: (613) 256-8308
Human Rights Research provides information on consular rights issues in death penalty cases, along with international legal consulting and research services to attorneys, consulates and non-governmental organizations.