[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3779-S3783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 1194. A bill to facilitate compliance with Article 36 of the 
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done at Vienna April 24, 1963, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Consular 
Notification Compliance Act. This legislation will help bring the 
United States into compliance with its obligations under the Vienna 
Convention on Consular Relations, VCCR, and is critical to ensuring the 
protection of Americans traveling overseas.
  Each year, thousands of Americans are arrested and imprisoned when 
they are in foreign countries studying, working, serving the military, 
or traveling. From the moment they are detained, their safety and well-
being depends, often entirely, on the ability of United States consular 
officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help them obtain 
legal assistance, and connect them to family back home. That access is 
protected by the consular notification provisions of the VCCR, but it 
only functions effectively if every country meets its obligations under 
the treaty--including the United States.
  Unfortunately, in some instances, the United States has not been 
meeting those obligations. There are currently more than 100 foreign 
nationals on death row in the United States, most of whom were never 
told of their right to contact their consulate and their consulate was 
never notified of their arrest, trial, conviction, or sentence. There 
are many other foreigners in U.S. prisons awaiting trial for non-
capital crimes, some facing life sentences, who were similarly denied 
consular access. This failure to comply with our treaty obligations 
undercuts our ability to protect Americans abroad and deeply damages 
our image as a country that abides by its promises and the rule of law. 
It would also be completely unacceptable to us if our citizens were 
treated in this manner.
  The Consular Notification Compliance Act seeks to bring the United 
States one step closer to compliance with the convention. It is not 
perfect. It focuses only on the most serious cases--those involving the 
death penalty--but it is a significant step in the right direction and 
we need to work together to pass it quickly. Texas is poised to execute 
the next foreign national affected by this failure to comply with the 
treaty on July 7, 2011. He was not notified of his right to consular 
assistance, and the Government of Mexico has expressed grave concerns 
about the case. We do not want this execution to be interpreted as a 
sign that the United States does not take its treaty obligations 
seriously. That message puts American lives at risk. The Government of 
Great Britain has expressed similar concerns about a case involving a 
British citizen facing the death penalty here, who was denied consular 
access.
  The bill I am introducing would allow foreign nationals who have been 
convicted and sentenced to death to ask a court to review their cases 
and determine if the failure to provide consular notification led to an 
unfair conviction or sentence.

[[Page S3780]]

  The bill also recognizes that law enforcement and the courts must do 
a better job in the future to promptly notify individuals of their 
right to consular assistance so the United States does not find itself 
in this precarious position again. To that end, the bill reaffirms that 
the obligations under the treaty are Federal law and apply to all 
foreign nationals arrested or detained in the United States. For 
individuals arrested on charges that carry a possible punishment of 
death, the bill ensures adequate opportunity for consular assistance 
before a trial begins.
  This bill offers very limited remedies to a very limited number of 
people. I am troubled that it has to be so narrow, as we demand far 
broader protection for American citizens abroad every day. However, 
carrying out a death sentence is an irreversible action, and I believe 
that we must act quickly. I understand that a limited bill has the best 
chance of achieving the bipartisan support needed to move forward on 
such an important issue at this time.
  Compliance with our consular notification obligations is not a 
question of partisan interest. There should be unanimous support for 
this bill. The VCCR was negotiated under President Kennedy, ratified 
during the Nixon administration, and it has been fully supported by 
every President since. President George W. Bush understood the critical 
need to honor our obligations under this treaty. Although he was 
ultimately unsuccessful, he vigorously worked to bring the United 
States into compliance, and he supported action along the lines of what 
I propose today. He understood the implications of non-compliance for 
our citizens, our businesses, and our military. I have no doubt 
President Obama shares the same commitment to resolving this issue.
  I saw the need to resolve this issue first-hand this spring when a 
young, innocent Vermont college student was detained by Syrian police 
simply for taking photos of a demonstration. I worked hard with the 
U.S. consulate in Syria to obtain access to him. His safety depended on 
the ability of our consular officers to see him, provide assistance, 
and monitor his condition.
  Similarly, the United States invoked the VCCR to seek access to the 
three American hikers detained in Iran after accidently crossing an 
unmarked border in 2009. In 2001, when a U.S. Navy surveillance plane 
made an emergency landing in Chinese territory, the State Department 
cited the VCCR in demanding immediate access to the plane's crew.
  I doubt there are many Members of Congress who have not sought 
similar help from our consulates when their constituents have been 
arrested overseas. We know how critically important this access is, and 
we expect other governments to provide it. Those governments expect no 
less of us.
  This bill has the support of the Obama administration, including the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of 
Homeland Security, and the Department of State. I have heard from 
retired members of the military urging passage of the bill to protect 
service men and women and their families overseas, and from former 
diplomats of both political parties who know that compliance with our 
treaty obligations is critical for America's national security and 
commercial interests.
  Given the long history of bipartisan support for the VCCR, there 
should be unanimous support for this legislation to uphold our treaty 
obligations. A failure to act places Americans at risk.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1194

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Consular Notification 
     Compliance Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to facilitate 
     compliance with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on 
     Consular Relations, done at Vienna April 24, 1963 and any 
     comparable provision of a bilateral international agreement 
     addressing consular notification and access.
       (b) Statement of Authority.--This Act is enacted pursuant 
     to authority contained in articles I and VI of the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 3. CONSULAR NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS.

       (a) In General.--As required under, and consistent with, 
     Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 
     done at Vienna April 24, 1963 and any comparable provision of 
     a bilateral international agreement addressing consular 
     notification and access, if an individual who is not a 
     national of the United States is detained or arrested by an 
     officer or employee of the Federal Government or a State or 
     local government, the arresting or detaining officer or 
     employee, or other appropriate officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government or a State or local government, shall 
     notify that individual without delay that the individual may 
     request that the consulate of the foreign state of which the 
     individual is a national be notified of the detention or 
     arrest.
       (b) Notice.--
       (1) In general.--The consulate of the foreign state of 
     which an individual detained or arrested is a national shall 
     be notified without delay if the individual requests consular 
     notification under subsection (a), and an appropriate officer 
     or employee of the Federal Government or a State or local 
     government shall provide any other consular notification 
     required by an international agreement.
       (2) First appearance.--If an appropriate officer or 
     employee of the Federal Government or a State or local 
     government has not notified the consulate described in 
     paragraph (1) regarding an individual who is detained pending 
     criminal charges and the individual requests notification or 
     notification is mandatory under a bilateral international 
     agreement, notification shall occur not later than the first 
     appearance of the individual before the court with 
     jurisdiction over the charge.
       (c) Communication and Access.--An officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government or a State or local government 
     (including an officer or employee in charge of a facility 
     where an individual who is not a national of the United 
     States is held following detention or arrest) shall 
     reasonably ensure that the individual detained or arrested is 
     able to communicate freely with, and be visited by, officials 
     of the consulate of the foreign state of which the individual 
     detained or arrested is a national, consistent with the 
     obligations described in section 2(a).
       (d) No Cause of Action.--Nothing in this section is 
     intended to create any judicially or administratively 
     enforceable right or benefit, substantive or procedural, by 
     any party against the United States, its departments, 
     agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or 
     any other person or entity, including, an officer, employee, 
     or agency of a State or local government.

     SEC. 4. PETITION FOR REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a Federal court shall have jurisdiction to review the 
     merits of a petition claiming a violation of Article 36(1)(b) 
     or (c) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done 
     at Vienna April 24, 1963, or a comparable provision of a 
     bilateral international agreement addressing consular 
     notification and access, filed by an individual convicted and 
     sentenced to death by any Federal or State court before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Date for execution.--If a date for the execution of an 
     individual described in paragraph (1) has been set, the court 
     shall grant a stay of execution if necessary to allow the 
     court to review a petition filed under paragraph (1).
       (3) Standard.--To obtain relief, an individual described in 
     paragraph (1) shall make a showing of actual prejudice to the 
     criminal conviction or sentence as a result of the violation. 
     The court may conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary to 
     supplement the record and, upon a finding of actual 
     prejudice, shall order a new trial or sentencing proceeding.
       (4) Limitations.--
       (A) In general.--A petition for review under this section 
     shall be filed within 1 year of the later of--
       (i) the date of enactment of this Act;
       (ii) the date on which the Federal or State court judgment 
     against the individual described in paragraph (1) became 
     final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of 
     the time for seeking such review; or
       (iii) the date on which the impediment to filing a petition 
     created by Federal or State action in violation of the 
     Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the 
     individual described in paragraph (1) was prevented from 
     filing by such Federal or State action.
       (B) Tolling.--The time during which a properly filed 
     application for State post-conviction or other collateral 
     review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is 
     pending shall not be counted toward the 1-year period of 
     limitation.
       (5) Habeas petition.--A petition for review under this 
     section shall be part of the first Federal habeas corpus 
     application or motion for Federal collateral relief under 
     chapter 153 of title 28, United States Code, filed by an 
     individual, except that if an individual filed a Federal 
     habeas corpus application or motion for Federal collateral 
     relief before the date of enactment of this Act or if such 
     application is required to be filed before the date that is 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, such petition 
     for review under this section shall be filed not later

[[Page S3781]]

     than 1 year after the enactment date or within the period 
     prescribed by paragraph (4)(A)(iii), whichever is later. No 
     petition filed in conformity with the requirements of the 
     preceding sentence shall be considered a second or successive 
     habeas corpus application or subjected to any bars to relief 
     based on pre-enactment proceedings other than as specified in 
     paragraph (3).
       (6) Appeal.--
       (A) In general.--A final order on a petition for review 
     under paragraph (1) shall be subject to review on appeal by 
     the court of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding 
     is held.
       (B) Appeal by petitioner.--An individual described in 
     paragraph (1) may appeal a final order on a petition for 
     review under paragraph (1) only if a district or circuit 
     judge issues a certificate of appealability. A district judge 
     or circuit judge may issue a certificate of appealability 
     under this subparagraph if the individual has made a 
     substantial showing of actual prejudice to the criminal 
     conviction or sentence of the individual as a result of a 
     violation of Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on 
     Consular Relations, done at Vienna April 24, 1963, or a 
     comparable provision of a bilateral international agreement 
     addressing consular notification and access.
       (b) Violation.--
       (1) In general.--An individual not covered by subsection 
     (a) who is arrested, detained, or held for trial on a charge 
     that would expose the individual to a capital sentence if 
     convicted may raise a claim of a violation of Article 
     36(1)(b) or (c) of the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations, done at Vienna April 24, 1963, or of a comparable 
     provision of a bilateral international agreement addressing 
     consular notification and access, at a reasonable time after 
     the individual becomes aware of the violation, before the 
     court with jurisdiction over the charge. Upon a finding of 
     such a violation--
       (A) the consulate of the foreign state of which the 
     individual is a national shall be notified immediately by the 
     detaining authority, and consular access to the individual 
     shall be afforded in accordance with the provisions of the 
     Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, done at Vienna April 
     24, 1963, or the comparable provisions of a bilateral 
     international agreement addressing consular notification and 
     access; and
       (B) the court--
       (i) shall postpone any proceedings to the extent the court 
     determines necessary to allow for adequate opportunity for 
     consular access and assistance; and
       (ii) may enter necessary orders to facilitate consular 
     access and assistance.
       (2) Evidentiary hearings.--The court may conduct 
     evidentiary hearings if necessary to resolve factual issues.
       (3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to create any additional remedy.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``national of the United States'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)); and
       (2) the term ``State'' means any State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
                                  ____

                                                    June 14, 2011.
     Re The Consular Notification Compliance Act.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: We write 
     to urge you to support prompt passage of the Consular 
     Notification Compliance Act, legislation that would give 
     domestic legal effect to U.S. obligations under the Vienna 
     Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention) to 
     provide consular access to foreign nationals in U.S. law 
     enforcement custody by providing for judicial review of 
     certain claims that this obligation has not been satisfied. 
     International consular notification and access obligations 
     are essential to ensuring humane, non-discriminatory 
     treatment for both non-citizens in U.S. custody and U.S. 
     citizens in the custody of foreign governments. As retired 
     military leaders, we understand that the preservation of 
     consular access protections is especially important for U.S. 
     military personnel, who when serving our country overseas are 
     at greater risk of being arrested by a foreign government.
       U.S. military personnel are at risk for being taken into 
     foreign custody after accidental incursions into foreign 
     territories, while on leave or furlough, or while stationed 
     abroad pursuant to, or in absence of a Status of Forces 
     Agreement (SOFA). When American military personnel or their 
     family members find themselves in foreign custody, consular 
     access is indispensable in allowing the U.S. government to 
     fulfill its duty to ensure fair and humane treatment for such 
     individuals.
       For example, in 2001 when a U.S. Navy surveillance plane 
     made an emergency landing in Chinese territory after 
     colliding with a Chinese jet, the State Department cited the 
     Vienna Convention and other consular treaties in demanding 
     immediate access to the plane's crew. Chinese authorities 
     responded by granting consular visits to the crew members, 
     who were detained in China for 11 days. Moreover, military 
     regulations implementing SOFA requirements anticipate that 
     consular officers will assist the designated commanding 
     officer in key areas such as protesting inhumane treatment 
     and ensuring that the individual has access to an adequate 
     defense.
       The strength of consular access protections for U.S. 
     military personnel abroad is dependent on the United States' 
     reciprocal commitment to fulfill its obligations at home. But 
     given the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Medellin v. Texas, 
     the executive branch is unable, without further action by 
     Congress, to enforce certain consular protections under the 
     Vienna Convention with regards to U.S. state law enforcement 
     personnel. In light of the Medellin decision, additional 
     legislation is needed to ensure the integrity of the consular 
     notification and access rights upon which U.S. service 
     members rely.
       Legislation to ensure review and appropriate relief if 
     needed when a foreign national faces or is sentenced to 
     death, while relatively limited in scope, would improve 
     foreign governments' confidence in the United States' ability 
     to uphold its consular access obligations, making it more 
     likely that such governments will giant this access to 
     Americans in their custody.
       Improving U.S. enforcement of its consular notification and 
     access legal obligations will help protect American citizens 
     detained abroad, including U.S. military personnel and their 
     families stationed overseas. We urge you to support those who 
     are serving our country overseas by ensuring swift passage of 
     the Consular Notification Compliance Act to meet our 
     international responsibilities.
           Sincerely,
       Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.).
       Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.).
       Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.).
       Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.).
       Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.).
                                  ____

                                                    June 14, 2011.
     Re The Consular Notification Compliance Act.

     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley: As former 
     U.S. diplomats and State Department officials, we write to 
     urge your support for the Consular Notification Compliance 
     Act, legislation that we believe is vitally important to 
     meeting the United States' foreign policy objectives and to 
     protecting the interests of its citizens abroad. We urge you 
     to act promptly to enact this legislation that would secure 
     compliance with the United States' binding treaty obligations 
     by providing a review mechanism for the cases of foreign 
     nationals who--without the benefit of timely consular 
     notification and access--were convicted and received death 
     sentences.
       Each year, thousands of Americans are detained abroad. 
     Prompt knowledge of and access to our fellow-citizens held in 
     foreign jails ensures that U.S. consular officers can help 
     them obtain legal assistance, monitor their treatment, and 
     connect them to family and friends back home. This crucial 
     lifeline of consular support can only function effectively if 
     the detaining authorities comply with their obligations under 
     Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 
     which grants all foreigners in custody the right to consular 
     notification, communication and access ``without delay.'' 
     Insisting on compliance with and protesting violations of 
     Article 36 provisions has thus long been an integral element 
     of the U.S. policy of providing protective consular services 
     to detained Americans overseas.
       For instance, when three Americans were detained after 
     accidentally crossing an unmarked border into Iran in 2009, a 
     State Department spokesperson insisted that ``Iran has 
     obligations under the Vienna Convention, and we demand 
     consular access at the first opportunity.'' The Secretary of 
     State later called on the Iranian government ``to live up to 
     its obligations under the Vienna Convention by granting 
     consular access and releasing these three young Americans 
     without further delay.'' Once consular access was finally 
     granted, the State Department ``welcome[d] the fact that Iran 
     is meeting up to its obligations under the Vienna 
     Convention''.
       Unfortunately, the United States has sometimes violated 
     Article 36 requirements even as we call on foreign 
     governments to comply with its terms. In 2004, the 
     International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined that some 
     fifty Mexican nationals were entitled to judicial hearings to 
     determine if Article 36 breaches, which were proven to have 
     occurred, affected the fairness of their capital murder 
     convictions and/or sentences.

[[Page S3782]]

     The United States is required by the U.N. Charter to comply 
     with decisions of the ICJ. President George W. Bush attempted 
     to enforce this decision at the state court level, but the 
     U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in Medellin v. Texas that only 
     Congress could ensure compliance by adopting legislation 
     providing for the compulsory review and reconsideration 
     mandated by the ICJ. The Supreme Court also observed that the 
     ICJ decision undeniably bound the United States under 
     international law and that ``plainly compelling'' reasons 
     existed for its domestic implementation. ``In this case,'' 
     the Medellin Court noted, ``the President seeks to vindicate 
     United States interests in ensuring the reciprocal observance 
     of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign 
     governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of 
     international law.''
       Clearly, the safety and well-being of Americans abroad is 
     endangered by the United States maintaining the double 
     standard of protesting denials of consular notification and 
     access to its own citizens while simultaneously failing to 
     comply with its obligation to remedy identical violations. We 
     cannot realistically expect other nations to continue to 
     comply with consular treaty commitments that we refuse to 
     uphold. For that reason alone, it is essential that Congress 
     act swiftly to provide the limited procedural remedy that 
     both our Executive and Judicial Branches have so clearly 
     indicated is in the national interest.
       As the Supreme Court pointed out, however, the United 
     States' interest in implementing these international 
     obligations goes beyond protecting the reciprocal rights and 
     safety of its overseas citizens. Our national security, 
     effective commercial and trade relations relating to our 
     prosperity and almost every matter of national interest, 
     large and small, is covered by reciprocal treaty obligations. 
     We risk jeopardizing these interests if we practice an 
     indifference to these obligations in this or other arenas. We 
     believe that continued non-compliance will surely alienate 
     this nation from its allies. We also believe that any further 
     failure to provide the modest remedy of ``review and 
     reconsideration'' required in these cases will undermine 
     America's credibility as a global champion of the rule of 
     law, thereby seriously hindering our foreign policy 
     objectives. It is worth noting the United States agreed to be 
     bound by the ICJ's decision both before and after the case 
     was heard and has consistently advised multiple international 
     and domestic courts that it is doing everything within its 
     power to comply with this decision. Passing legislation to 
     ensure our nation's compliance needs to be accomplished in 
     order to make good on this representation.
       The ability of the United States to secure future 
     international agreements vital to our commercial interests 
     and national security depends largely on whether this nation 
     is perceived as honoring its international obligations. It is 
     vitally important for Congress to mandate judicial 
     enforcement of America's treaty obligations. Anything less 
     jeopardizes our global reputation as a dependable treaty 
     partner. We therefore urge you to support the rapid passage 
     of the Consular Notification Compliance Act to accomplish 
     this end, and thank you for your attention to this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
       Harry Barnes, Jr., U.S. Ambassador to Chile, 1985-1988; 
     U.S. Ambassador to India, 1981-1985; Director General of the 
     Foreign Service 1977-1981; U.S. Ambassador to Romania, 1974-
     1977.
       John B. Bellinger, III, Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP; Legal 
     Advisor to the Department of State, 2005-2009; Legal Advisor 
     to the National Security Council, 2001-2005.
       David E. Birenbaum, of Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, 
     Shriver & Jacobson LLP; Senior Scholar, Woodrow Wilson 
     International Center for Scholars; U.S. Ambassador to the UN 
     for UN Management and Reform, 1994-96.
       James R. Jones, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, 1993-1997; 
     Member of U.S. Congress (D-OK), 1973-1987.
       David Charles Miller, Jr., Special Assistant to the 
     President, National Security Council, 1989-1990; U.S. 
     Ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1984-1986; U.S. Ambassador to 
     Tanzania, 1981-1984.
       Thomas R. Pickering, Undersecretary of State for Political 
     Affairs, 1997-2000; U.S. Ambassador and Representative to the 
     United Nations, 1989-1992.
       William H. Taft, IV, Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of 
     State, 2001-2005; U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1989-1992.
                                  ____

                                                     June 7, 2011.
     Governor Rick Perry,
     Office of the Governor, Austin, Texas.
     Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles,
     Austin, Texas.
       Dear Governor Perry and Members of the Texas Board of 
     Pardons and Paroles: As former prosecutors and judges, we are 
     strong supporters of a robust and accurate criminal justice 
     system. We are well aware that international consular 
     notification and access, as required under the Vienna 
     Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention), is 
     essential to such a system, and to ensuring non-
     discriminatory treatment for both non-citizens in U.S. 
     custody and U.S. citizens in the custody of foreign 
     governments; and is also critical to the efficient, 
     effective, and fair operations of criminal justice systems 
     throughout the United States. In light of these important 
     considerations and out of concern for the domestic and 
     international implications of an execution without proper 
     compliance with U.S. international obligations, we are 
     writing to urge you to grant a reprieve in the case of 
     Humberto Leal Garcia. We take no position on the merits of 
     his petition, but believe that a reprieve should take place 
     pending congressional enactment of legislation that would 
     allow foreign nationals who were denied consular access while 
     in law enforcement custody and face the death penalty to 
     receive appropriate review of that failure.
       It is appropriate to ensure that our country complies with 
     the laws to which it has obligated itself, and to ensure that 
     those laws apply to our own citizens as well. At all stages 
     of the proceedings, foreign nationals--whether our own 
     citizens in other countries or those from other countries in 
     the United States--face unique disadvantages and challenges 
     when confronted with prosecution and imprisonment under the 
     legal system of another nation. Prompt consular access 
     ensures that they have the means necessary to be advised of 
     their rights and to prepare an adequate defense.
       Ensuring prompt consular access to foreigners arrested in 
     the United States also enhances the truth-seeking function 
     that lies at the heart of American justice. Much in the same 
     way as the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, 
     consular notification is essential to enabling fair access 
     for those who are unfamiliar with our legal system. As Chief 
     Judge Juan Torruella of the United States Court of Appeals 
     for the First Circuit observed, ``Without [consular access], 
     I think that we presume too much to think that an alien can 
     present his defense with even a minimum of effectiveness. The 
     result is injury not only to the individual alien, but also 
     to the equity and efficacy of our criminal justice system.'' 
     U.S. v. Li, 206 F.3d 56, 78 (1st Cir. 2000) (Torruella, C.J., 
     concurring in part and dissenting in part).
       Consular assistance provides a unique and indispensable 
     protection for foreign nationals who are unfamiliar with the 
     U.S. criminal justice system. This is true with regard to our 
     own citizens abroad as well. As many domestic courts have 
     recognized, consulates can provide essential resources that 
     are simply not available through other means, particularly in 
     identifying and explaining the ways in which the U.S. 
     criminal justice system differs from their native systems. 
     Early consular access can prevent misunderstandings and 
     missteps by a foreign national that might otherwise prejudice 
     their ability to obtain a fair trial. Consulates can assist 
     defense counsel in locating crucial documents, witnesses, and 
     exonerating evidence available only in their native country 
     and can assist in translations that in too many cases have 
     been demonstrated to be erroneous, thus jeopardizing the 
     accuracy of the proceedings. This can mean the difference 
     between conviction and acquittal, or between life and death.
       We want to emphasize that demonstrating our nation's 
     commitment to complying with Vienna Convention obligations is 
     also critical to ensuring the safety of Americans traveling, 
     living and working abroad. The United States expects 
     countries to grant consular notification and access to 
     Americans in law enforcement custody. In return, we pledge to 
     accord the same right to foreign nationals within our 
     borders. In addition, particularly in states bordering Mexico 
     and Canada, cooperation between law enforcement agencies is 
     critical to ensuring the safety of citizens on all sides of 
     the border. These accords are threatened when the United 
     States erects procedural hurdles that prevent foreign 
     nationals from obtaining meaningful judicial review when 
     denied consular notification and access and may well mean 
     that our own citizens' rights will be jeopardized in 
     countries whose citizens' rights have not been respected by 
     the United States.
       Providing meaningful enforcement of the Vienna Convention's 
     consular notification and access requirements will increase 
     the efficient, effective, and fair operations of our criminal 
     justice system and protect U.S. citizens abroad. Delaying the 
     execution of Humberto Leal Garcia to ensure full opportunity 
     for congressional action and appropriate review of the case 
     will demonstrate to foreign governments the United States' 
     good faith in upholding its consular access obligations, 
     increasing the likelihood that foreign governments will grant 
     access to Americans in their custody. For these reasons, we 
     strongly urge you to support a reprieve in this case pending 
     congressional action on these matters.
           Sincerely,
       Hon. Charles F. Baird, Former Judge, Texas Court of 
     Criminal Appeals; Former Judge, 299th District Court of 
     Travis County, Texas.
       Hon. William G. Bassler, Former Judge, United States 
     District Court for the District of New Jersey (1991-2006); 
     Former Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey (1988-1991).
       A. Bates Butler III, United States Attorney, District of 
     Arizona (1980-81); First Assistant United States Attorney, 
     District of Arizona (1977-80).
       Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General, State of New Jersey 
     (1990-1993); United States Attorney, District of New Jersey 
     (1977-1980); Former First Assistant State Attorney General 
     and Director of New Jersey's Division of Criminal Justice.
       W. Thomas Dillard, United States Attorney, Northern 
     District of Florida (1983-1986); United States Attorney, 
     Eastern District of Tennessee (1981).
       Hon. Bruce J. Einhorn, Former United States Immigration 
     Judge (1990-2007); Special Prosecutor and Chief of 
     Litigation,

[[Page S3783]]

     United States Department of Justice Office of Special 
     Investigations (1979-1990).
       Hon. Shirley M. Hufstedler, United States Secretary of 
     Education (1979-1981); Former Judge, United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1968-1979); Former Associate 
     Justice, California Court of Appeal (1966-1968); Former 
     Judge, Los Angeles County Superior Court (1961-1966).
       Hon. John J. Gibbons, Former Judge, United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Third Circuit (1970-1990) (Chief Judge (1987-
     1990)).
       Hon. Nathaniel R. Jones, Former Judge, United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, (1979-2002); Assistant 
     United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio (1962-
     1967).
       Hon. Gerald Kogan, Former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of 
     the State of Florida; Former Chief Prosecutor, Homicide and 
     Capital Crimes Division, Dade County, Florida.
       Kenneth J. Mighell, United States Attorney, Northern 
     District of Texas (1977-1981); Assistant United States 
     Attorney, Northern District of Texas (1961-1977).
       Hon. Stephen M. Orlofsky, Former Judge, United States 
     District Court for the District of New Jersey (1995-2003); 
     Magistrate Judge, United States District Court for the 
     District of New Jersey (1976-1980).
       Professor Mark Osler, Professor of Law, University of St. 
     Thomas, Minnesota; Former Professor of Law, Baylor 
     University, Texas; Former Assistant United States Attorney, 
     Eastern District of Michigan.
       H. James Pickerstein, United States Attorney, District of 
     Connecticut (1974); Chief Assistant United States Attorney, 
     District of Connecticut (1974-1986).
       James H. Reynolds, United States Attorney, Northern 
     District of Iowa (1976-1982).
       Hon. William S. Sessions, Director of the FBI (1987-1993); 
     Former Judge, United States District Court for the Western 
     District of Texas (1974-1987) (Chief Judge (1980-1987)); 
     United States Attorney, Western District of Texas (1971-
     1974).
       John Van de Kamp, Attorney General of California (1983-
     1991); District Attorney of Los Angeles County (1975-1983).
       Mark White, Governor of Texas (1983-1987); Attorney 
     General, State of Texas (1979-1983); Secretary of State of 
     Texas (1973-1977); Assistant Attorney General, State of Texas 
     (1965-1969).
       Hon. Michael Zimmerman, Former Justice, Supreme Court of 
     Utah (1984-2000) (Chief Justice (1994-1998)).
                                 ______