demanda cij

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


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


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.


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


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.


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


7/26

alto riesgo de que sean ejecutados en los prximos meses, debido a que suejecucin causara un dao de imposible reparacin.


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


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.


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.htm


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


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


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.htm


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:

[email protected]).

___________




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.htm


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]




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.htm


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.


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]).

___________




5 February 2003

Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals


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.PDF


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


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).

___________


Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+31 70 302 23 36)

Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr Boris Heim, Information Officers (+31 70 302 23 37)





5 February 2003






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.htm


20/26


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).





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




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.


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






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.PDF


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".


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


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".


"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








The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;

Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-



___________


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.PDF


22/26





Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals(Mexico v. United States of America)








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).








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






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.







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

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.PDF


23/26






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


penalty for the most heinous crimes"; that "the function of th[e] Court is to resolve


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".


urgency, "in the sense that action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to be

taken before a final decision is given".





individuals.




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".


"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









24/26








5 February 2003










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).








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






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.

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.PDF


25/26






application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of theInternational Court of Justice". The Court accordingly finds that it has jurisdiction prima









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


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".





individuals.




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".


"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



26/26











___________


the declaration is annexed. The full text of the Judgment and declaration is available onthe 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.PDF

demanda cij

Documents