Upload
claudia-reynoso-arroyo
View
230
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
1/26
DEMANDA ANTE LA CORTE
Caso Avena y otros Nacionales Mexicanos (Estados Unidos Mexicanos
vs. Estados Unidos Americanos)
I) CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA
Que es Cuando se fund Funciones (Para que Sirve) Competencia Fuentes Aplicables
II) DEMANDA
Argumentos Preliminares Jurisdiccin de la Corte Violaciones cometidas por los Estados Unidos de Amrica
Artculos 5 y 36 (1) (b) Convencin De Viena de Asuntos Consulares Medidas Cautelares
III) PROCEDIMIENTO
Fase Escrita Medidas Cautelares Fase Oral Fallo de la Corte
IV) RESOLUCION O FALLO. EFECTOS
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
2/26
I) CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA
Que es y cuando se Funda .
La Corte Internacional de Justicia, fundada en 1945, se encuentraestablecida en Cuidad de La Haya, en Holanda.Es un rgano Judicial Internacional, funciona de conformidad con suEstatuto que forma parte integrante de la Carta de Naciones Unidas.
En virtud de anterior, todos los Miembros de las Naciones Unidas sonipso facto partes en el Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. UnEstado que no sea Miembro de las Naciones Unidas podr llegar a ser
parte en el Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia, siempre ycuando cumpla con las condiciones exigidas por la Asamblea General dela Corte.
Funcin (para que sirve)
Su principal funcin, es resolver de acuerdo al Derecho Internacional, lacontroversias de carcter jurdico entre dos ms Estados, que seansometidas por los mismos. Asimismo, emite Opiniones Consultivas a lasagencias organizaciones Internacionales, sobre cuestiones jurdicasque surjan dentro de la esfera de sus actividades.
Competencia
En relacin a su Competencia, slo los Estados podrn ser partes en loscasos ante la Corte, la misma se extiende a todos los litigios que laspartes le sometan y a todos los asuntos especialmente previstos en laCarta de las Naciones Unidas o en los Tratados y Conveciones vigentes.
Los Estados parte del Estatuto podrn declarar en cualquier momentoque reconocen como obligatoria ipso facto laJurisdiccinde la Corte entodas las controversias de orden jurdico que versen fundamentalmente,sobre cuestiones de derecho internacional, tales como, interpretacin detratados y violaciones de obligaciones de carcter internacional.
La Declaracin referida con anterioridad, podr hacerseincondicionalmente, o por determinado tiempo.
De lo anterior se desprende, que los Estados Parte, cuando son
demandados por otro Estado podrn manifestar al momento decontestar la Demanda en su contra, si es que han realizado dicha
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
3/26
Declaracin, misma que tiene por efecto el Reconocimento Compulsivode la Jurisdiccin de la Corte (como aceptacin de la jurisdiccinobligatoria de la Corte Internacional de Justicia), bien si se hanreservado dicho Reconocimento.
La Corte, en caso de disputa, tiene la facultad discrecional para decidirsobre su propia Jurisdiccin.
La nica restriccin a la competencia de la Corte es su intervencin enasuntos que sean esencialmente de jurisdiccin domestica de acuerdo alPrincipio de la Soberana de los Estados. La problemtica sobre si unasunto es o no exclusivamente de la jurisdiccin interna de un Estado,depende del desarrollo de las Relaciones Internacionales y de lasobligaciones de cada Estado.
De lo anterior se desprende, que aunque Estados Unidos argumente quela Legislacin de Pena de Muerte es un asunto de jurisdiccin interna(de carcter Local dependiendo de cada Estado de la Federacin),tambin es cierto, que las obligaciones que emanan del Convencin deViena para las Relaciones Consulares, son de carcter Internacional.
Fuentes Aplicables
La Corte deber decidir las controversias que le sean presentadas, deacuerdo a las Fuentes del Derecho Internacional que son:
a. Tratados Internacionales;b. Costumbre Internacional, como prueba de una prctica generalmenteaceptada como derecho;c. Los Principios Generales de Derecho;d. Las Decisiones Judiciales y las Doctrinas de los publicistas de mayorcompetencia de las distintas naciones.
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
4/26
II) Demanda
Avena y otros Mexicanos Nacionales (Estados Unidos Mexicanos vs.Estados Unidos de Amrica)
En la Demanda presentada por Mxico el 9 de enero del 2003, ante la CorteInternacional de Justicia, en contra de los Estados Unidos de Amrica,alegando supuestas violaciones a los artculos 5 y 36 de la Convencin deViena de Asuntos Consulares del 24 de Abril de 1963, con relacin a 54mexicanos que han sido sentenciados a muerte.
Argumentos Preliminares
La autoridad Judicial de los Estados Unidos de Amrica en los Estados deTexas, Illinois; Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma yOregon, arrestaron, detuvieron, juzgaron y sentenciado a muerte, a 54
mexicanos.
Las autoridades Judiciales en cuestin incumplieron con las obligacionesestablecidas en los artculos5 y 36 (1) (b) de la Convencin de Viena deAsuntos Consulares.
Jurisdiccin de la Corte
Como Miembros de las Naciones, Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y LosEstados Unidos Americanos, son parte del Estatuto de la CorteInternacional de Justicia. Tambin son parte del Convenio de Viena deRelaciones Consulares y de su Protocolo Opcional concerniente a laJurisdiccin Compulsiva de disputas.
El artculo I del Protocolo Opcional establece que: las controversias quesurjan sobre la interpretacin o aplicacin de la Convencin se resolvernrecurriendo a la Jurisdiccin Compulsiva de la Corte Internacional deJusticia.
Violaciones cometidas por los Estados Unidos de Amrica
Los Estados parte de la Convencin de Viena debern atender a losprincipios y obligaciones establecidos en la misma, en especfico los
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
5/26
artculos 5 y 36 (1) (b) relacionado con las modalidades de las notificacionesconsulares.
El artculo 5 de la Convencin de Viena, contiene una lista general de todaslas funciones Consulares.
En el artculo 36 (1) (b), establece, que las autoridades del Estado receptor,debern informarsin demora de los derechos, de cualquier extranjero quese encuentre preso, detenido, de contactar a su Consulado, as como desu derecho a recibirasistencia consular, bien, la obligacin de remediaradecuadamente a los connacionales, en caso de que hubiese habidoalguna violacin de sus derechos..
En los Procesos de los mexicanos sentenciados a Pena de Muerte, Mxicoargumenta, que al menos, en 49 de los 54 casos, la autoridad no encontrevidencia de que la autoridad competente Estadounidense halla dadocumplimiento a lo establecido en la Convencin de Viena.
En los cuatro casos referidos, aparente se dio cumplimiento al artculo 36 dela Convencin de Viena, solo que las autoridades se demoraron paranotificar a los reos de su derecho a contactar al Consulado, y a pesar deque en uno de los casos el detenido si fue informado de sus derechos a lanotificacin consular as como de los procedimientos migratorios, pero nocon relacin a los cargos para la Pena Capital.
Efectos de la Resolucin
El Fallo que emitir la Corte con relacin a este asunto es consideradoobligatorio solo para las partes del litigio y afectar nicamente al casoconcreto.
Si bien las obligaciones que emanen de dicha Resolucin son de carcterobligatorio internacionalmente, lo cierto, es que no son vinculantes en elsentido de que no existe modo de que en caso de incumplimiento sea
ordenada su ejecucin forzosa.Lo anterior en atencin a que en caso de incumplimiento, el Consejo deSeguridad de las Naciones Unidas podr emitir Recomendaciones con elpropsito de que se de cumplimiento a la Resolucin, sin embargo no existeAutoridad Ejecutora alguna, que pueda hacer uso de la fuerza Pblica(coercin) para el debido cumplimiento del Fallo.
Los efectos de las Recomendaciones del Consejo de Seguridad sonbsicamente polticos, es decir que podran en determinados casos afectarla imagen de un Estado, y por ende su relacin con los Estados miembros
de Naciones Unidas.
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
6/26
Atendiendo a los Principios Generales del Derecho, podra ser invocado encontra del pas que incumpli con la ejecucin del fallo, de la Corte, elprincipio de stoppel en derecho internacional, que significa que en lossiguientes casos en los que sea parte dicho Estado, si la sentencia le esfavorable, el pas que deba dar cumplimiento al fallo podr invocar en su
contra su conducta como un precedente en su contra.
MEDIDAS CAUTELARES
Mxico, solicit, a la Corte, la Aplicacin de Medidas Cautelares en elprocedimiento en el caso Avena y otros Nacionales Mexicanos ( EstadosUnidos Mexicanos vs. Estados Unidos Americanos).
Las Medidas cautelares pueden solicitarse por los Estados parte en caso deque consideren que existe un peligro inminente provocado por la conductade la contraparte.
La corte decide a su discrecin la Aplicacin de dichas Medidas.
El 15 de enero del 2003, la Corte internacional de Justicia, celebr unaAudiencia Pblica, con relacin a la solicitud de Mxico para la aplicacinde Medidas Cautelares.
El 22 de Enero del 2003, la concluyeron las Audiencias Pblicasrelacionadas con esta peticin de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
La Corte dictamin, que los Estados Unidos de Amrica deber tomar todaslas medidas necesarias para asegurar que ningn mexicano sea ejecutado
y que no sea fijada ninguna fecha de ejecucin pendiente; los EstadosUnidos debern reportar a la Corte, de las acciones que realice en estesentido; y debern asegurar que no tomar ninguna accin que pudieraperjudicar los derechos de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos o sus nacionalescon relacin a cualquier decisin de la Corte, en el caso concreto.
El 5 de Febrero del 2003, la Corte, ordeno a los Estados Unidos deAmrica, que deber tomar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurarque los Seores Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, yOsvaldo Torres Aguilera, de nacionalidad mexicana, no sean ejecutados,hasta en tanto no se resuelva el caso de Avena y otros nacionales
Mxicanos (Mxico vs. Estados Unidos de Amrica), toda vez que existe un
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
7/26
alto riesgo de que sean ejecutados en los prximos meses, debido a que suejecucin causara un dao de imposible reparacin.
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
8/26
PROCEDIMIENTO
El Procedimiento comienza, con la presentacin de la Demanda del Applicant State (parte Actora), ante la Corte. Una vez efectuado elanlisis del cumplimiento de los requerimientos formales de la Demanda,se trasmite a el/los Estado/s Demandado/s.
El procedimiento consta de dos fases, la primera Escrita y la segundaOral.
Mexico present la Demanda en contra de Los Estados Unidos el 9
Enero del 2003. y solicit la aplicacin de Medidas Provisionales.
Fase Escrita
La fase Escrita del procedimiento, implica el sometimiento de losDocumentos Formales de los Estados-Partes, a la Corte, mismas quecontienen los argumentos detallados de hecho y derecho en los cualescada Parte fundamenta su causa (accin excepcin).
Medidas Provisionales
El Estado-Demandante (Applicant State) podr solicitarle a la Corte laaplicacin de una Medida Provisional, en caso de que considere laexistencia de un peligro inminente provocado por la conducta del EstadoDemandado (Respondant).
Dicha Medida Provisional, solo podr ser ordenada por la Corte siempreque la considere necesaria.
El 15 de enero del 2003, la Corte internacional de Justicia, celebr una Audiencia Pblica, con relacin a la solicitud de Mxico para laaplicacin de Medidas Cautelares.
El 22 de Enero del 2003, concluyeron las Audiencias Pblicasrelacionadas con esta peticin de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
La Corte dictamin, que los Estados Unidos deber tomar todas lasmedidas necesarias para asegurar que ningn mexicano sea ejecutadoy que no sea fijada ninguna fecha de ejecucin pendiente; los EstadosUnidos debern reportar a la Corte, de las acciones que realice en estesentido; y debern asegurar que no tomar ninguna accin que pudiera
perjudicar los derechos de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos o sus
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
9/26
nacionales con relacin a cualquier decisin de la Corte, en el casoconcreto.
El 5 de Febrero del 2003, la Corte, ordeno a los Estados Unidos de Amrica, que deber tomar todas las medidas necesarias paraasegurar que el Sr. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Sr. Roberto MorenoRamos, y Sr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, de nacionalidad mexicana, nosean ejecutados, hasta en tanto no se resuelva el caso de Avena y otrosMexicanos nacionales (Mxico vs. Estados Unidos de Amrica), todavez que existe un alto riesgo de que sean ejecutados en los prximosmeses, debido a que su ejecucin causara un dao de imposible
reparacin.
La resolucin del 5 de Febrero del 2003, fue la ltima en el Caso deAvena y otros nacionales Mxicanos.
Fase Oral
Una vez que la Demanda (Memorial) y Contestacin (Contramemorial) hansido presentados, se fija fecha para Audiencia y comienza la parte Oral, enteora transcurren algunos meses antes de que esta fase comience.
Cada Estado-Parte presentar sus argumentos a la brevedad posible, laCorte podr solicitar en cualquier momento explicaciones ms concretassobre algn argumento que considere relevante.
En la Audiencia se desahogaran todas las pruebas presentadas por laspartes, a excepcin de las documentales contenidas en la Demanda(Memoria) y Contestacin (Contramemorial) como Anexos.
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
10/26
Fallo de la Corte
Una vez que ha terminado la fase Oral (concluida la Audiencia), losmiembros de la Corte tienen un corto periodo (aproximadamente tresmeses) para pronunciar su Fallo.
El Fallo que dicte la Corte con relacin a un asunto ser definitivo einapelable y se notificar a los agentes de los Estados-Parte.
En caso de desacuerdo sobre el sentido o el alcance del fallo, la Corte lointerpretar a solicitud de cualquiera de las partes.
La Decisin de la Corte es Obligatoria nicamente para las Partes en Litigioy slo respecto del caso decidido.
___________
DEMANDA
Mexico brings a case against the United States of America
and requests the indication of provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 10 January 2003. In the late afternoon of 9 January 2003,
Mexico brought a case against the United States of America to the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) in a dispute concerning alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36
of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 with respect to 54
Mexican nationals who have been sentenced to death in the States of California,
Texas, Illinois, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
11/26
Article 5 of the Vienna Convention provides a general list of all consular functions.
Article 36 reads as follows:
Communication and contact with nationals of the sending State
1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to
nationals of the sending State:
(a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending
State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same
freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the
sending State;
(b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall,
without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular
district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody
pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to
the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall beforwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform
the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;
(c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State
who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to
arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any
national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in
pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking
action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly
opposes such action.
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be exercised in
conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the
proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be
given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this article are intended.
ANALYSEIn its Application, Mexico maintains that the 54 cases illustrate the
systemic nature of the United States violation of its obligation under Article 36 of the
Vienna Convention to inform nationals of Mexico of their right to consular
assistance and to provide relief adequate to redress such violation. Mexico claims
that, in at least 49 of these cases, it has found no evidence that the competent United
States authorities attempted to comply with Article 36 before Mexicos nationalswere tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. It further notes that in four cases
some attempt apparently was made to comply with Article 36, but that the
authorities still failed to provide the required notification without delay; and that
in one case the detained national was informed of his rights to consular notification
and access in connection with immigration proceedings, but not in connection with
pending capital charges. In the Application each case, catalogued by state, is then
briefly described.
QUE SOLICITA Accordingly, Mexico asks the Court to adjudge and
declare:
(1) that the United States, in arresting, detaining, trying, convicting, and sentencing the
54 Mexican nationals on death row described in this Application, violated its
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
12/26
international legal obligations to Mexico, in its own right and in the exercise of its
right of consular protection of its nationals, as provided by Articles 5 and 36,
respectively of the Vienna Convention;
(2) that Mexico is therefore entitled to restitutio in integrum;
(3) that the United States is under an international legal obligation not to apply
the doctrine of procedural default, or any other doctrine of its municipal law, to
preclude the exercise of the rights afforded by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention;
(4) that the United States is under an international legal obligation to carry out
in conformity with the foregoing international legal obligations any future detention
of or criminal proceedings against the 54 Mexican nationals on death row or any
other Mexican national in its territory, whether by a constituent, legislative,
executive, judicial or other power, whether that power holds a superior or a
subordinate position in the organization of the United States, and whether that powers
functions are international or internal in character;
(5) that the right to consular notification under the Vienna Convention is a
human right;
and that, pursuant to the foregoing international legal obligations,
(1) the United States must restore the status quo ante, that is, re-establish the
situation that existed before the detention of, proceedings against, and convictions
and sentences of, Mexicos nationals in violation of the United States international
legal obligations;
(2) the United States must take the steps necessary and sufficient to ensure that
the provisions of its municipal law enable full effect to be given to the purposes for
which the rights afforded by Article 36 are intended;
(3) the United States must take the steps necessary and sufficient to establish a
meaningful remedy at law for violations of the rights afforded to Mexico and its
nationals by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, including by barring the
imposition, as a matter of municipal law, of any procedural penalty for the failure
timely to raise a claim or defence based on the Vienna Convention where competent
authorities of the United States have breached their obligation to advise the national
of his or her rights under the Convention; and
(4) the United States, in light of the pattern and practice of violations set forth in thisApplication, must provide Mexico a full guarantee of the non-repetition of the illegal
acts.
In its Application Mexico invokes as a basis for the Courtsjurisdiction Article I
of the Vienna Conventions Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes, which provides that disputes arising out of the
interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
In view of the extreme gravity and immediacy of the threat that authorities in the
United States will execute a Mexican citizen in violation of obligations the United Statesowes to [it], Mexico also filed an urgent request for the indication ofprovisional
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
13/26
measures, asking that, pending final judgment in the case, the Court indicate that
the United States take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national be
executed and that no execution dates be set for any Mexican national; that the
United
__________
___________
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2003/2
Home Page What's new Docket Decisions General Information Basic documents Publications Search
15 January 2003
Proceedings instituted by Mexico against the United States of America
Request for the indication ofprovisional measures
The Court will hold public hearings on Tuesday 21 January 2003
THE HAGUE, 15 January 2003. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will
hold public hearings on Tuesday 21 January 2003 on the request for the indication ofprovisional measures submitted last Thursday by Mexico in proceedings brought by it
against the United States of America concerning alleged violations by the latter of
Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (see
Press Release No. 2003/1 of 10 January 2003).
The programme of the hearings will be as follows:
First round of oral argument
Mexico 9.30 a.m.-11.00 a.m.
United States of America 11.30 a.m.-1 p.m.
Second round of oral argument
Mexico 3 p.m.- 4.30 p.m.
United States of America 6 p.m.- 7.30 p.m.
___________
NOTE TO THE PRESS
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2003/ipresscom2003-01_20030110.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2003/ipresscom2003-01_20030110.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2003/ipresscom2003-01_20030110.htm8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
14/26
1. The public hearings will be held in the Great Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace
in The Hague, Netherlands. Mobile telephones and beepers are allowed in the courtroom
provided they are turned off or set on silent mode. Any offending device will be
temporarily retained.
2. Members of the Press may attend on presentation of a press card. The tablesreserved for them are situated to the far left of the public entrance to the courtroom.
3. Photographs and TV shots may be taken for a few minutes at the opening of the
sittings. The Court's proceedings will be displayed live on a large TV screen in the Press
Room, located on the ground floor of the Peace Palace (Room 5). In the Press Room, it
will be possible for TV crews to connect recording equipment directly to the Courts
new video system, but advance notice of this should be given to the Information
Department. There is also a facility for the connection of sound-only equipment to the
Courts audio system during the proceedings.
4. Telephone calls may be made from the phone located in the Press Room (collect
calls only) or from the public payphones in the Post Office in the basement of the PeacePalace.
5. The verbatim records of the hearings will be published daily on the Court's
website (www.icj-cij.org), with translations to follow as soon as practicable thereafter.
6. Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (tel: +31-70-302 2336), as
well as Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officers, are available to
deal with any requests from the Press (tel: +31-70-302 2337; e-mail address:
___________
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2003/4
Home Page What's new Docket Decisions General Information Basic documents Publications Search
22 January 2003
Avena and other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
MEDIDAS PROVISIONALESConclusion of the hearings on provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 22 January 2003. The public hearings on the request for the indication
of provisional measures submitted by Mexico in the case concerning Avena and
other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) at the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) were concluded yesterday.
In its request, Mexico asked that, pending final judgment in the case , the Court indicate
that the United States take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican
national be executed and that no execution dates be set for any Mexican national;that the United States report to the Court the actions it has taken in that respect;
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
15/26
and that it ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of the
United Mexican States or its nationals with respect to any decision this Court may
render on the merits of the case.
At the hearings, Mexico, as the applicant State, spoke first. It was followed by the United
States of America. A second round of oral argument was held in the afternoon. At the endof the hearings, Mexico confirmed its request for the indication of provisional measures
while the United States asked the Court to reject that request and not to indicate any such
measures.
The Courts decision will be delivered in the coming weeks. It will be read at a public
sitting on a date which will be announced in a forthcoming press release.
Mexico filed its request for the indication of provisional measures on 9 January 2003
when it brought a case against the United States in a dispute concerning alleged
violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24
April 1963 with respect to some 50 Mexican nationals who have been sentenced to death
in certain states of the United States (see Press Release 2003/1).
___________
The verbatim records of the hearings are available on the Courts website (address:
http://www.icj-cij.org).
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (tel: + 31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officers (tel: + 31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2003/7
Home Page What's new Docket Decisions General Information Basic documents Publications Search
30 January 2003
Avena and other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America)
MEDIDAS PROVISIONALESProvisional Measures
Court to give its Order on Wednesday 5 February 2003 at 3 p.m.
THE HAGUE, 30 January 2003. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, will deliver its Order on the request for the
indication of Provisional Measures submitted by Mexico in the case concerning Avena
and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), on Wednesday 5
February 2003 at 3 p.m.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2003/ipresscom2003-01_20030110.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2003/ipresscom2003-01_20030110.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
16/26
The President of the Court, Judge Gilbert Guillaume, will read the Order, which will have
binding effect for the Parties, at a public sitting which will take place in the Great Hall of
Justice at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court.
RESUMENHistory of the proceedings
1)Mexico filed its request for the indication of provisional measures on
9 January 2003 after bringing proceedings against the United States in a dispute
concerning alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 with respect to some 50 Mexican nationals who
have been sentenced to death in certain states of the United States (see Press
Release 2003/1).
2)In its request Mexico asked that, pending final judgment in the case, the Court
indicate that the United States take all measures necessary to ensure that no
Mexican national be executed and that no execution dates be set for any Mexican
national; that the United States report to the Court the actions it has taken in that
respect; and that it ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of
the United Mexican States or its nationals with respect to any decision this Court
may render on the merits of the case.
3)Public hearings were held on Tuesday 21 January 2003. At those hearings, Mexico
confirmed its request for the indication of provisional measures while the United States
asked the Court to reject that request and not to indicate any such measures.
___________
NOTE TO THE PRESS
1. The public sitting will be held in the Great Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace in
The Hague, Netherlands. Mobile telephones and beepers are allowed in the courtroom
provided they are turned off or set on silent mode. Any offending device will be
temporarily retained.
2. Members of the Press may attend on presentation of a press card. The tables reserved
for them are situated to the far left of the public entrance to the courtroom.
3. Photographs and TV shots may be taken for a few minutes only at the opening of
the sitting. The Courts proceedings will be displayed live on a large TV screen in the
Press Room, located on the ground floor of the Peace Palace (Room 5). In the Press
Room, it will be possible for TV crews to connect recording equipment directly to theCourts new video system, but advance notice of this should be given to the Information
Department. There is also a facility for the connection of sound-only equipment to the
Courts audio system during the proceedings.
4. At the end of the sitting, a press release, a summary of the Courts Order and the full
text of the Order will be distributed in the Press Room.
5. All the above-mentioned documents will also be available at that time on the Courts
website (www.icj-cij.org).
6. Members of the Press who wish to make telephone calls may use the phone located inthe Press Room for collect calls or the public telephones in the Post Office in the
basement of the Peace Palace.
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
17/26
7. Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (tel: +31-70-302 2336), and
Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officers, are available to deal
with any requests from the Press and for the requirements of TV crews (tel: +31-70-
302 2337; e-mail address: [email protected]).
___________
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2003/9
Home Page What's new Docket Decisions General Information Basic documents Publications Search
5 February 2003
Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Provisional Measures
ORDEN MEDIDAS PROV
The Court indicates to the United States of America that it must take
"all measures necessary" to prevent the execution of three Mexican nationals,
pending its final judgment
THE HAGUE, 5 February 2003. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today indicated to the United States of America
that it must "take all measures necessary" to ensure that
Mr. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and
Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, of Mexican nationality, are not executed pending a
final judgment of the Court in the case concerning Avena and other Mexican
nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
In itsOrder indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the Court
also stated that the Government of the United States of America shall inform it of all
measures taken in implementation of that Order. It further decided to remain seised of the
matters which form the subject of the Order until it has rendered its final judgment.
History of the proceedings
Mexico filed its request for the indication of provisional measures on 9 January 2003, the
same day that it initiated proceedings against the United States in a dispute concerning
alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
24 April 1963 with respect to 54 Mexican nationals who have been sentenced to death in
certain states of the United States. Mexico further asked of the Court that, pending final
judgment in the case, the United States should take all measures necessary to ensure that
no Mexican national be executed and that no execution dates be set for any Mexican
national; that the United States report to the Court the actions it has taken in that respect;
and that it ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of the United
Mexican States or its nationals with respect to any decision this Court may render on themerits of the case. At the hearings held on 21 January 2003, Mexico confirmed its request
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDF8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
18/26
for the indication of provisional measures, while the United States asked the Court to
reject that request and not to indicate any such measures.
Reasoning of the Court
JURISDICCION
The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie (at first sight) to
hear the case, a prerequisite for the indication of provisional measures. It notes that
Mexico and the United States are both parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations and to its Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes, Article I of which provides that "disputes arising out of the
interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice". The Court accordingly finds that
it has jurisdiction prima facie under this Article to hear the case.
The Court then turns to the Parties arguments and finds that a dispute exists between
them regarding the remedies to be provided in cases of breaches by the United States ofits obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. The Court
accordingly concludes that it must address the issue of whether, by indicating provisional
measures, it should preserve any rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to
belong to the Applicant or to the Respondent, without being obliged at this stage of the
proceedings to rule on those rights. It adds that the issues brought before it "do not
concern the entitlement of the federal states within the United States to resort to the death
penalty for the most heinous crimes"; FUNCION CORTE that "the function of th[e]
Court is to resolve international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they
arise out of the interpretation or application of international conventions; and not to
act as a court ofcriminal appeal"; and that it "may indicate provisional measures without
infringing these principles". It accordingly rejects the United States argument that, interalia, the measures sought by Mexico would amount to "a sweeping prohibition on capital
punishment for Mexican nationals in the United States, regardless of OPINION EUA
United States law", which "would drastically interfere with United States sovereign
rights and implicate important federalism interests" and transform the Court into a
"general criminal court of appeal".
The Court goes on to recall that provisional measures are only justified if there is
urgency, "in the sense that action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to
be taken before a final decision is given".
The Court adds that its jurisdiction is limited in the present case to the disputebetween the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Vienna
Convention with regard to the individuals which Mexico has identified as being
victims of a violation of the Convention, and that no provisional measure can be
adopted in respect of other individuals.
The Court then stresses that the fact that no execution dates have been fixed in any of the
cases before it "is not per se a circumstance that should preclude [it] from indicating
provisional measures". It states that it is apparent from the information before it in the
case that RAZON DE MEDIDA PROVISIONAL three Mexican nationals,
Messrs. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos and
Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, are at risk of execution in the coming months, or possiblyeven weeks, and that "their execution would cause irreparable prejudice to any
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
19/26
rights that may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong to Mexico"; the
Court accordingly concludes that "the circumstances require that it indicate
provisional measures to preserve those rights".
As to the other individuals listed in Mexicos Application, the Court observes that
"although currently on death row, [they] are not in the same position as the three personsidentified" earlier and that it may, "if appropriate, indicate provisional measures . . . in
respect of those individuals before it renders final judgment" in the case.
In conclusion, the Court states that it is "clearly in the interest of both Parties that their
respective rights and obligations be determined definitively as early as possible", and that
"it is therefore appropriate that the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, ensure that
a final judgment be reached with all possible expedition". The President has immediately
undertaken consultations with the Parties for this purpose.
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-
Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Registrar Couvreur.
Judge Oda appends a declaration to the Order.
___________
A summary of the Order is given in Press Release No. 2003/9bis, to which a summary of
the declaration is annexed. The full text of the Judgment and declaration is available on
the Courts website (www.icj-cij.org).
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr Boris Heim, Information Officers (+31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2003/9
Home Page What's new Docket Decisions General Information Basic documents Publications Search
5 February 2003
Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Provisional Measures
The Court indicates to the United States of America that it must take
"all measures necessary" to prevent the execution of three Mexican nationals,
pending its final judgment
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
20/26
THE HAGUE, 5 February 2003. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today indicated to the United States of America that
it must "take all measures necessary" to ensure that Mr. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna,
Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, of Mexican nationality,
are not executed pending a final judgment of the Court in the case concerning Avena and
other Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
In itsOrder indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the Court
also stated that the Government of the United States of America shall inform it of all
measures taken in implementation of that Order. It further decided to remain seised of the
matters which form the subject of the Order until it has rendered its final judgment.
RESUMEN MEJOR DEL ASUNTO Historyof the proceedings
Mexico filed its request for the indication of provisional measures on 9 January 2003,
the same day that it initiated proceedings against the United States in a dispute
concerning alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 with respect to 54 Mexican nationals who have
been sentenced to death in certain states of the United States. Mexico further asked
of the Court that, pending final judgment in the case, the United States should take
all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national be executed and that no
execution dates be set for any Mexican national; that the United States report to the
Court the actions it has taken in that respect; and that it ensure that no action is
taken that might prejudice the rights of the United Mexican States or its nationals
with respect to any decision this Court may render on the merits of the case. At the
hearings held on 21 January 2003, Mexico confirmed its request for the indication of
provisional measures, while the United States asked the Court to reject that request
and not to indicate any such measures.Reasoning of the Court
The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie (at first sight) to
hear the case, a prerequisite for the indication of provisional measures. It notes that
Mexico and the United States are both parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations and to its Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of
Disputes, Article I of which provides that "disputes arising out of the interpretation or
application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice". The Court accordingly finds that it has jurisdiction prima
facie under this Article to hear the case.
The Court then turns to the Parties arguments and finds that a dispute exists between
them regarding the remedies to be provided in cases of breaches by the United States of
its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. The Court
accordingly concludes that it must address the issue of whether, by indicating provisional
measures, it should preserve any rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to
belong to the Applicant or to the Respondent, without being obliged at this stage of the
proceedings to rule on those rights. It adds that the issues brought before it "do not
concern the entitlement of the federal states within the United States to resort to the death
penalty for the most heinous crimes"; that "the function of th[e] Court is to resolve
international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they arise out of the
interpretation or application of international conventions; and not to act as a courtof criminal appeal"; and that it "may indicate provisional measures without
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDF8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
21/26
infringing these principles". It accordingly rejects the United States argument that,
inter alia, the measures sought by Mexico would amount to "a sweeping prohibition
on capital punishment for Mexican nationals in the United States, regardless of
United States law", which "would drastically interfere with United States sovereign
rights and implicate important federalism interests" and transform the Court into a
"general criminal court of appeal".
The Court goes on to recall that provisional measures are only justified if there is
urgency, "in the sense that action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to
be taken before a final decision is given".
The Court adds that its jurisdiction is limited in the present case to the dispute between
the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention with
regard to the individuals which Mexico has identified as being victims of a violation of
the Convention, and that no provisional measure can be adopted in respect of other
individuals.
The Court then stresses that the fact that no execution dates have been fixed in any of thecases before it "is not per se a circumstance that should preclude [it] from indicating
provisional measures". It states that it is apparent from the information before it in the
case that three Mexican nationals, Messrs. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto
Moreno Ramos and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, are at risk of execution in the coming
months, or possibly even weeks, and that "their execution would cause irreparable
prejudice to any rights that may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong to
Mexico"; the Court accordingly concludes that "the circumstances require that it
indicate provisional measures to preserve those rights".
As to the other individuals listed in Mexicos Application, the Court observes that
"although currently on death row, [they] are not in the same position as the three personsidentified" earlier and that it may, "if appropriate, indicate provisional measures . . . in
respect of those individuals before it renders final judgment" in the case.
In conclusion, the Court states that it is "clearly in the interest of both Parties that their
respective rights and obligations be determined definitively as early as possible", and that
"it is therefore appropriate that the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, ensure that
a final judgment be reached with all possible expedition". The President has immediately
undertaken consultations with the Parties for this purpose.
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;
Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-
Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Registrar Couvreur.
Judge Oda appends a declaration to the Order.
___________
A summary of the Order is given in Press Release No. 2003/9bis, to which a summary of
the declaration is annexed. The full text of the Judgment and declaration is available on
the Courts website (www.icj-cij.org).
___________
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDF8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
22/26
Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr Boris Heim, Information Officers (+31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]
Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America)
Provisional Measures
The Court indicates to the United States of America that it must take
"all measures necessary" to prevent the execution of three Mexican nationals,
pending its final judgment
THE HAGUE, 5 February 2003. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today indicated to the United States of America that
it must "take all measures necessary" to ensure that Mr. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna,
Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, of Mexican nationality,are not executed pending a final judgment of the Court in the case concerning Avena and
other Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
In itsOrder indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the Court
also stated that the Government of the United States of America shall inform it of all
measures taken in implementation of that Order. It further decided to remain seised of the
matters which form the subject of the Order until it has rendered its final judgment.
History of the proceedings
Mexico filed its request for the indication of provisional measures on 9 January 2003, the
same day that it initiated proceedings against the United States in a dispute concerning
alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
24 April 1963 with respect to 54 Mexican nationals who have been sentenced to death in
certain states of the United States. Mexico further asked of the Court that, pending final
judgment in the case, the United States should take all measures necessary to ensure that
no Mexican national be executed and that no execution dates be set for any Mexican
national; that the United States report to the Court the actions it has taken in that respect;
and that it ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of the United
Mexican States or its nationals with respect to any decision this Court may render on the
merits of the case. At the hearings held on 21 January 2003, Mexico confirmed its request
for the indication of provisional measures, while the United States asked the Court toreject that request and not to indicate any such measures.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie (at first sight) to
hear the case, a prerequisite for the indication of provisional measures. It notes that
Mexico and the United States are both parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations and to its Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of
Disputes, Article I of which provides that "disputes arising out of the interpretation or
application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice". The Court accordingly finds that it has jurisdiction prima
facie under this Article to hear the case.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDF8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
23/26
The Court then turns to the Parties arguments and finds that a dispute exists between
them regarding the remedies to be provided in cases of breaches by the United States of
its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. The Court
accordingly concludes that it must address the issue of whether, by indicating provisional
measures, it should preserve any rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to
belong to the Applicant or to the Respondent, without being obliged at this stage of theproceedings to rule on those rights. It adds that the issues brought before it "do not
concern the entitlement of the federal states within the United States to resort to the death
penalty for the most heinous crimes"; that "the function of th[e] Court is to resolve
international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they arise out of the
interpretation or application of international conventions; and not to act as a court of
criminal appeal"; and that it "may indicate provisional measures without infringing these
principles". It accordingly rejects the United States argument that, inter alia, the measures
sought by Mexico would amount to "a sweeping prohibition on capital punishment for
Mexican nationals in the United States, regardless of United States law", which "would
drastically interfere with United States sovereign rights and implicate important
federalism interests" and transform the Court into a "general criminal court of appeal".
The Court goes on to recall that provisional measures are only justified if there is
urgency, "in the sense that action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to be
taken before a final decision is given".
The Court adds that its jurisdiction is limited in the present case to the dispute between
the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention with
regard to the individuals which Mexico has identified as being victims of a violation of
the Convention, and that no provisional measure can be adopted in respect of other
individuals.
The Court then stresses that the fact that no execution dates have been fixed in any of the
cases before it "is not per se a circumstance that should preclude [it] from indicating
provisional measures". It states that it is apparent from the information before it in the
case that three Mexican nationals, Messrs. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno
Ramos and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, are at risk of execution in the coming months, or
possibly even weeks, and that "their execution would cause irreparable prejudice to any
rights that may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong to Mexico"; the Court
accordingly concludes that "the circumstances require that it indicate provisional
measures to preserve those rights".
As to the other individuals listed in Mexicos Application, the Court observes that
"although currently on death row, [they] are not in the same position as the three persons
identified" earlier and that it may, "if appropriate, indicate provisional measures . . . in
respect of those individuals before it renders final judgment" in the case.
In conclusion, the Court states that it is "clearly in the interest of both Parties that their
respective rights and obligations be determined definitively as early as possible", and that
"it is therefore appropriate that the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, ensure that
a final judgment be reached with all possible expedition". The President has immediately
undertaken consultations with the Parties for this purpose.
Composition of the Court
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
24/26
The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;
Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-
Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Registrar Couvreur.
Judge Oda appends a declaration to the Order.
International Court of Justice
Press Release 2003/9
Home Page What's new Docket Decisions General Information Basic documents Publications Search
5 February 2003
Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Provisional Measures
The Court indicates to the United States of America that it must take
"all measures necessary" to prevent the execution of three Mexican nationals,
pending its final judgment
THE HAGUE, 5 February 2003. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today indicated to the United States of America that
it must "take all measures necessary" to ensure that Mr. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna,
Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, of Mexican nationality,
are not executed pending a final judgment of the Court in the case concerning Avena andother Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
In itsOrder indicating provisional measures, which was adopted unanimously, the Court
also stated that the Government of the United States of America shall inform it of all
measures taken in implementation of that Order. It further decided to remain seised of the
matters which form the subject of the Order until it has rendered its final judgment.
History of the proceedings
Mexico filed its request for the indication of provisional measures on 9 January 2003, the
same day that it initiated proceedings against the United States in a dispute concerning
alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of24 April 1963 with respect to 54 Mexican nationals who have been sentenced to death in
certain states of the United States. Mexico further asked of the Court that, pending final
judgment in the case, the United States should take all measures necessary to ensure that
no Mexican national be executed and that no execution dates be set for any Mexican
national; that the United States report to the Court the actions it has taken in that respect;
and that it ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of the United
Mexican States or its nationals with respect to any decision this Court may render on the
merits of the case. At the hearings held on 21 January 2003, Mexico confirmed its request
for the indication of provisional measures, while the United States asked the Court to
reject that request and not to indicate any such measures.
Reasoning of the Court
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iwhats.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipublications.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/isearch/default.asphttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htmhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205.PDF8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
25/26
The Court begins by considering whether it has jurisdiction prima facie (at first sight) to
hear the case, a prerequisite for the indication of provisional measures. It notes that
Mexico and the United States are both parties to the 1963 Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations and to its Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of
Disputes, Article I of which provides that "disputes arising out of the interpretation or
application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice". The Court accordingly finds that it has jurisdiction prima
facie under this Article to hear the case.
The Court then turns to the Parties arguments and finds that a dispute exists between
them regarding the remedies to be provided in cases of breaches by the United States of
its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. The Court
accordingly concludes that it must address the issue of whether, by indicating provisional
measures, it should preserve any rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to
belong to the Applicant or to the Respondent, without being obliged at this stage of the
proceedings to rule on those rights. It adds that the issues brought before it "do not
concern the entitlement of the federal states within the United States to resort to the deathpenalty for the most heinous crimes"; that "the function of th[e] Court is to resolve
international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they arise out of the
interpretation or application of international conventions; and not to act as a court of
criminal appeal"; and that it "may indicate provisional measures without infringing these
principles". It accordingly rejects the United States argument that, inter alia, the measures
sought by Mexico would amount to "a sweeping prohibition on capital punishment for
Mexican nationals in the United States, regardless of United States law", which "would
drastically interfere with United States sovereign rights and implicate important
federalism interests" and transform the Court into a "general criminal court of appeal".
The Court goes on to recall that provisional measures are only justified if there isurgency, "in the sense that action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to be
taken before a final decision is given".
The Court adds that its jurisdiction is limited in the present case to the dispute between
the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention with
regard to the individuals which Mexico has identified as being victims of a violation of
the Convention, and that no provisional measure can be adopted in respect of other
individuals.
The Court then stresses that the fact that no execution dates have been fixed in any of the
cases before it "is not per se a circumstance that should preclude [it] from indicating
provisional measures". It states that it is apparent from the information before it in the
case that three Mexican nationals, Messrs. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno
Ramos and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, are at risk of execution in the coming months, or
possibly even weeks, and that "their execution would cause irreparable prejudice to any
rights that may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong to Mexico"; the Court
accordingly concludes that "the circumstances require that it indicate provisional
measures to preserve those rights".
As to the other individuals listed in Mexicos Application, the Court observes that
"although currently on death row, [they] are not in the same position as the three persons
identified" earlier and that it may, "if appropriate, indicate provisional measures . . . in
respect of those individuals before it renders final judgment" in the case.
8/2/2019 DEMANDA CIJ
26/26
In conclusion, the Court states that it is "clearly in the interest of both Parties that their
respective rights and obligations be determined definitively as early as possible", and that
"it is therefore appropriate that the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, ensure that
a final judgment be reached with all possible expedition". The President has immediately
undertaken consultations with the Parties for this purpose.
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;
Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-
Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Registrar Couvreur.
Judge Oda appends a declaration to the Order.
___________
A summary of the Order is given in Press Release No. 2003/9bis, to which a summary of
the declaration is annexed. The full text of the Judgment and declaration is available onthe Courts website (www.icj-cij.org).
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr Boris Heim, Information Officers (+31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDFhttp://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusorder/imus_iorder_20030205_oda.PDF