Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a contention that the panel held that the Convention created rights enforceable by individuals. While we conclude that Faulder has not decided the question, we do not reach its merits because at best Flores’s assertion is Teague barred. The Supreme Court in Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 118 S.Ct. 1352, 1355, 140 L.Ed.2d 529 (1998), noted that “[t]he Vienna [Convention ... arguably confers on an individual the right to consular assistance following arrest.” Thus, even the Court admits the possibility that the Vienna Convention does not confer such rights, and therefore, such a finding would create a new exclusionary rule, which is prohibited in a collateral habeas attack because of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989). See Breard, 118 S.Ct. at 1354-55 . AFFIRMED. 1 . The petition was filed in the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983
B. holding that federal courts possess habeas jurisdiction over claims arising under implementing legislation and regulations of the convention against torture
C. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states
D. holding that the vienna convention must be applied in conformity with the laws and regulations of the united states including the rules for federal habeas relief
E. holding that habeas petitioner scheduled to be executed in the state of virginia for capital murder could not raise claim of violation of his rights under the vienna convention on federal habeas review where he failed to preserve the claim by raising it in state court proceedings vienna convention does not trump subsequent federal statute requiring habeas petitioners who claim to be held in violation of treaties of the united states to develop factual bases for their claims in state court as a precondition of federal habeas review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.