☢ test - Í

held that ‘[a]ny rights created by the Vienna Convention do not rise to the level of a constitutional right protected by the judicially-created remedies sought by [the defendant].’ 274 Ga. 663, 665(2) (558 S.E.2d 698) (2002). Thus, we conclude that these enumerations of error lack merit.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331, 126 S.Ct. 2669, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (June 28, 2006). Suppression of defendant’s custodial statements is not an appropriate remedy for violation of consular notification and communication rights under Article 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Assumes, without deciding, that the Convention provides rights enforceable by the individual, as opposed to the signatory state, but notes that no exclusionary remedy is specified in the Convention or recognized by other countries. “Under our domestic law, the exclusionary rule is not a remedy we apply lightly. ‘[O]ur cases have repeatedly emphasized that the rule’s “costly toll” upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging application of the rule.’ Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 364-365, 118 S.Ct. 2014, 141 L.Ed.2d 344 (1998). Because the rule’s social costs are considerable, suppression is warranted only where the rule’s ‘“remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.”’ United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 908, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)).” Suppression is generally invoked to protect Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights or statutory violations where “the excluded evidence arose directly out of statutory violations that implicated important Fourth and Fifth Amendment interests.” “ The violation of the right to consular notification, in contrast, is at best remotely connected to the gathering of evidence. Article 36 has nothing whatsoever to do with searches or interrogations. Indeed, Article 36 does not guarantee defendants any assistance at all. The provision secures only a right of foreign nationals to have their consulate informed of their arrest or detention – not to have their consulate intervene, or to have law enforcement authorities cease their investigation pending any such notice or intervention. In most circumstances, there is likely to be little connection between an Article 36 violation and evidence or statements obtained by police. Moreover, the reasons we often require suppression for Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations are entirely absent from the consular notification context. We require exclusion of coerced confessions both because we disapprove of such coercion and because such confessions tend to be unreliable. Watkins v. Sowders, 449 U.S. 341, 347, 101 S.Ct. 654, 66 L.Ed.2d 549 (1981). We exclude the fruits of unreasonable searches on the theory that without a strong deterrent, the constraints of the Fourth Amendment might be too easily disregarded by law enforcement. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960). The situation here is quite different. The failure to inform a defendant of his Article 36 rights is unlikely, with any frequency, to produce unreliable confessions. And unlike the search-and-seizure context – where the need to obtain valuable evidence may tempt authorities to transgress Fourth Amendment limitations – police win little, if any, practical advantage from violating Article 36. Suppression would be a vastly disproportionate remedy for an Article 36 violation.” “ Finally, suppression is not the only means of vindicating Vienna Convention rights. A defendant can raise an Article 36 claim as part of a broader challenge to the voluntariness of his statements to police. If he raises an Article 36 violation at trial, a court can make appropriate accommodations to ensure that the defendant secures, to the extent possible, the benefits of consular assistance. Of course, diplomatic avenues – the primary means of enforcing the Convention – also remain open.” Four dissenters would find that Vienna Convention creates enforceable rights in foreign nationals; three of the dissenters would provide that suppression is an available remedy for violation of those rights and remand these cases for consideration of that remedy. Ramirez v. State, 279 Ga. 569, 619 S.E.2d 668 (September 19, 2005). “Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 21 U.S.T. 77, a foreign national of a signatory country who is arrested in a signatory country must be advised ‘without delay’ that he has a right to have his nation’s consul informed of the arrest and to consult with his consul. Ramirez, a Mexican national, moved to suppress his custodial statement as given in violation of the Vienna Convention. Evidence showed that Ramirez was arrested and was not told of his rights under the Convention until after his custodial statement had been given. Ramirez is not entitled to suppression of his statement based upon the Vienna Convention. ‘[I]t is clear that nothing in the text [of the Vienna Convention] requires suppression of evidence or dismissal of the indictment for violations. [Cit.] Because by its terms the Vienna Convention does not require application of the exclusionary rule or the more drastic remedy of dismissal of the indictment, we cannot impose such judicially created remedies absent a violation of a constitutional right.... We find that the rights, if any, created by the Vienna Convention do not rise to the level of a constitutional right protected by the judicially created remedies sought by [Ramirez].’ Villegas v. State, 273 Ga. 824, 826(6) (546 S.E.2d 504) (2001). Moreover, in this case an instruction was given to the jury that would allow it to consider the mandate of the Convention in order to assess the voluntariness of the statement.” (Footnote omitted.) Cortez v. State, 253 Ga.App. 699, 561 S.E.2d 142 (February 13, 2002) (disapproved on other grounds, Miller v. State , 285 Ga. 285, 676 S.E.2d 173 (April 28, 2009)). International treaties do not create individual rights which are privately