States on Nov.24, 1969))). The question of whether the Vienna Convention confers on a foreign national an individual “right to consular assistance following arrest” has not been settled. See Flores v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 456, 457-58 (5th Cir.2000); see also Rocha v. State, at 16-18; Maldonado v. State, 998 S.W.2d at 247; United States v. Lumbera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 884 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56, 62 (1st Cir. 2000). However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recently ruled the exclusionary rule of Tex.Code Crim. Proc. ANN art. 38.23(a) does not apply to violations of treaties. Rocha v. State, at 18-19. Accordingly, suppression of evidence is not an available remedy for violation of the Vienna Convention. Id.; see also Lomb-erar-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d at 883-84 (<HOLDING>); L% 206 F.3d at 66 (denying suppression of
holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law holding suppression is not a remedy for violation of vienna convention under federal law holding that suppression of the evidence or dismissal of an indictment are not required to remedy a violation of  6103 holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation