90 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session Such demands are not always expressed in terms of assurances or guarantees, but they share the characteristics of being future-looking and concerned with other potential breaches. They focus on prevention rather than reparation and they are included in article 30. (10) The question whether the obligation to offer assurances or guarantees of non-repetition may be a legal consequence of an internationally wrongful act was debated in the LaGrand case. This concerned an admitted failure of consular notification contrary to article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In its fourth submission, Germany sought both general and specific assurances and guarantees as to the means of future compliance with the Convention. The United States argued that to give such assurances or guarantees went beyond the scope of the obligations in the Convention and that ICJ lacked jurisdiction to require them. In any event, formal assurances and guarantees were unprecedented and should not be required. Germany’s entitlement to a remedy did not extend beyond an apology, which the United States had given. Alternatively, no assurances or guarantees were appropriate in the light of the extensive action it had taken to ensure that federal and State officials would in future comply with the Convention. On the question of jurisdiction, the Court held: that a dispute regarding the appropriate remedies for the violation of the Convention alleged by Germany is a dispute that arises out of the interpretation or application of the Convention and thus is within the Court’s jurisdiction. Where jurisdiction exists over a dispute on a particular matter, no separate basis for jurisdiction is required by the Court to consider the remedies a party has requested for the breach of the obligation … Consequently, the Court has jurisdiction in the present case with respect to the fourth submission of Germany.436 On the question of appropriateness, the Court noted that an apology would not be sufficient in any case in which a foreign national had been “subjected to prolonged detention or sentenced to severe penalties” following a failure of consular notification.437 But in the light of information provided by the United States as to the steps taken to comply in future, the Court held: that the commitment expressed by the United States to ensure implementation of the specific measures adopted in performance of its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), must be regarded as meeting Germany’s request for a general assurance of non-repetition.438 As to the specific assurances sought by Germany, the Court limited itself to stating that: if the United States, notwithstanding its commitment referred to … should fail in its obligation of consular notification to the detriment of German nationals, an apology would not suffice in cases where the individuals concerned have been subjected to prolonged detention or convicted and sentenced to severe penalties. In the case of such a conviction and sentence, it would be incumbent upon the United States to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention.439 436 LaGrand, Judgment (see footnote 119 above), p. 485, para. 48, citing Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction (footnote 34 above). 437 LaGrand, Judgment (see footnote 119 above), p. 512, para. 123. 438 Ibid., p. 513, para. 124; see also the operative part, p. 516, para. 128 (6). 439 Ibid., pp. 513–514, para. 125. See also paragraph 127 and the operative part (para. 128 (7)). The Court thus upheld its jurisdiction on Germany’s fourth submission and responded to it in the operative part. It did not, however, discuss the legal basis for assurances of non-repetition. (11) Assurances or guarantees of non-repetition may be sought by way of satisfaction (e.g. the repeal of the legislation which allowed the breach to occur) and there is thus some overlap between the two in practice.440 However, they are better treated as an aspect of the continuation and repair of the legal relationship affected by the breach. Where assurances and guarantees of non-repetition are sought by an injured State, the question is essentially the reinforcement of a continuing legal relationship and the focus is on the future, not the past. In addition, assurances and guarantees of non-repetition may be sought by a State other than an injured State in accordance with article 48. (12) Assurances are normally given verbally, while guarantees of non-repetition involve something more—for example, preventive measures to be taken by the responsible State designed to avoid repetition of the breach. With regard to the kind of guarantees that may be requested, international practice is not uniform. The injured State usually demands either safeguards against the repetition of the wrongful act without any specification of the form they are to take441 or, when the wrongful act affects its nationals, assurances of better protection of persons and property.442 In the LaGrand case, ICJ spelled out with some specificity the obligation that would arise for the United States from a future breach, but added that “[t]his obligation can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means must be left to the United States”.443 It noted further that a State may not be in a position to offer a firm guarantee of non-repetition.444 Whether it could properly do so would depend on the nature of the obligation in question. (13) In some cases, the injured State may ask the responsible State to adopt specific measures or to act in a specified way in order to avoid repetition. Sometimes the injured State merely seeks assurances from the responsible State that, in future, it will respect the rights of the injured State.445 In other cases, the injured State requires specific instructions to be given,446 or other specific conduct to be 440 See paragraph (5) of the commentary to article 36. In the “Dogger Bank” incident in 1904, the United Kingdom sought “security against the recurrence of such intolerable incidents”, G. F. de Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités, 2nd series, vol. XXXIII, p. 642. See also the exchange of notes between China and Indonesia following the attack in March 1966 against the Chinese Consulate General in Jakarta, in which the Chinese Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs sought a guarantee that such incidents would not be repeated in the future, RGDIP, vol. 70 (1966), pp. 1013 et seq. 442 Such assurances were given in the Doane incident (1886), Moore, Digest, vol. VI, pp. 345–346. 443 LaGrand, Judgment (see footnote 119 above), p. 513, para. 125. 444 Ibid., para. 124. 445 See, e.g., the 1901 case in which the Ottoman Empire gave a formal assurance that the British, Austrian and French postal services would henceforth operate freely in its territory, RGDIP, vol. 8 (1901), p. 777, at pp. 788 and 792. 446 See, e.g., the incidents involving the “Herzog” and the “Bundesrath”, two German ships seized by the British Navy in December 1899 and January 1900, during the Boer war, in which Germany drew the attention of Great Britain to “the necessity for issuing instructions 441