 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Busby v. State2/1/2002
onserver jusqu'à l'expiration du délai pendant lequel l'usage de ce permis est retiré au conducteur, ou jusqu'au moment o— ce dernier quittera le territoire de cet État contractant, si son départ est antérieur à l'expiration dudit délai.
Thus, the French text of the Convention clarifies that a country's (or a state's) act of withdrawing a driver's right to use an international driving permit on its roads is distinct from any action the country or state may take to secure physical custody of the permit. If a country or state has withdrawn a driver's right to use the international driving permit, it may also require the driver to surrender the permit until the driver's right to drive is restored or until the driver leaves its territory. But this follow-up action (securing physical custody of the permit) is an additional remedy available to the country or state under the Convention. The legality of the country's or state's initial action (withdrawing the driver's right to drive within its territory) does not depend on whether the country or state forces the driver to surrender physical custody of the international driving permit.
Reconciling the English and French Versions of Article 24, Section 5
Busby's case does not involve a direct inconsistency between the English and French versions of Article 24, Section 5. Rather, the problem in his case stems from an ambiguity in the English text (the double use of "withdraw"), an ambiguity that might arguably make the English text inconsistent with the French text. In such instances, we are to presume that the two versions of the treaty have the same meaning. This principle directs us to resolve the ambiguity in the English text in favor of the clear meaning of the French text.
Moreover, in ascertaining the presumed unitary meaning of Article 24, Section 5, we are obliged to adopt the interpretation that best reconciles the two versions in light of the Convention's objectives and purpose. And we are to reject an interpretation that "leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable".
As we noted earlier, construing Article 24, Section 5 as Busby proposes would lead to results that are at odds with the objectives and purpose of the Convention on Road Traffic: drivers could obtain new international driving permits and then play a game of "cat and mouse" with countries that had previously suspended their licenses. If the signatory countries had thought that the Convention led to these results, they would not have signed the Convention.
For these reasons, we conclude that Article 24, Section 5 means what the French version clearly says: a signatory country (or political subdivision, such as a state of the United States) can withdraw a person's right to use an international driving permit within its borders. In such cases, the country or state may additionally require the surrender of the international driving permit until the person's right to drive within that country or state is restored, or until the person leaves the territory of that country or state (whichever occurs first). But when a signatory country relies on a pre-existing license suspension or revocation as the basis for prohibiting a driver from using its roads, the signatory country's authority does not depend on whether that country has initiated new proceedings against the driver or the international driving permit, nor does it depend on whether that country has required the driver to physically surrender the permit.
We further hold that, because of Busby's pre-existing license revocation, the State of Alaska could prospectively withdraw Busby's right to use his international driving permit on the roads of Alask
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|