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

I) CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA

Que es y cuando se Funda .

La Corte Internacional de Justicia, fundada en 1945, se encuentra establecida en Cuidad de La Haya, en Holanda. Es un rgano Judicial Internacional, funciona de conformidad con su Estatuto que forma parte integrante de la Carta de Naciones Unidas. En virtud de anterior, todos los Miembros de las Naciones Unidas son ipso facto partes en el Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Un Estado que no sea Miembro de las Naciones Unidas podr llegar a ser parte en el Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia, siempre y cuando cumpla con las condiciones exigidas por la Asamblea General de la Corte. Funcin (para que sirve)

Su principal funcin, es resolver de acuerdo al Derecho Internacional, la controversias de carcter jurdico entre dos ms Estados, que sean sometidas por los mismos. Asimismo, emite Opiniones Consultivas a las agencias organizaciones Internacionales, sobre cuestiones jurdicas que surjan dentro de la esfera de sus actividades. Competencia

En relacin a su Competencia, slo los Estados podrn ser partes en los casos ante la Corte, la misma se extiende a todos los litigios que las partes le sometan y a todos los asuntos especialmente previstos en la Carta de las Naciones Unidas o en los Tratados y Conveciones vigentes. Los Estados parte del Estatuto podrn declarar en cualquier momento que reconocen como obligatoria ipso facto la Jurisdiccin de la Corte en todas las controversias de orden jurdico que versen fundamentalmente, sobre cuestiones de derecho internacional, tales como, interpretacin de tratados y violaciones de obligaciones de carcter internacional. La Declaracin referida con anterioridad, incondicionalmente, o por determinado tiempo. podr hacerse

De lo anterior se desprende, que los Estados Parte, cuando son demandados por otro Estado podrn manifestar al momento de contestar la Demanda en su contra, si es que han realizado dicha

Declaracin, misma que tiene por efecto el Reconocimento Compulsivo de la Jurisdiccin de la Corte (como aceptacin de la jurisdiccin obligatoria de la Corte Internacional de Justicia), bien si se han reservado dicho Reconocimento. La Corte, en caso de disputa, tiene la facultad discrecional para decidir sobre su propia Jurisdiccin. La nica restriccin a la competencia de la Corte es su intervencin en asuntos que sean esencialmente de jurisdiccin domestica de acuerdo al Principio de la Soberana de los Estados. La problemtica sobre si un asunto es o no exclusivamente de la jurisdiccin interna de un Estado, depende del desarrollo de las Relaciones Internacionales y de las obligaciones de cada Estado. De lo anterior se desprende, que aunque Estados Unidos argumente que la 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 de Viena para las Relaciones Consulares, son de carcter Internacional.

Fuentes Aplicables

La Corte deber decidir las controversias que le sean presentadas, de acuerdo a las Fuentes del Derecho Internacional que son: a. Tratados Internacionales; b. Costumbre Internacional, como prueba de una prctica generalmente aceptada como derecho; c. Los Principios Generales de Derecho; d. Las Decisiones Judiciales y las Doctrinas de los publicistas de mayor competencia de las distintas naciones.

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 Corte Internacional de Justicia, en contra de los Estados Unidos de Amrica, alegando supuestas violaciones a los artculos 5 y 36 de la Convencin de Viena de Asuntos Consulares del 24 de Abril de 1963, con relacin a 54 mexicanos que han sido sentenciados a muerte.

Argumentos Preliminares La autoridad Judicial de los Estados Unidos de Amrica en los Estados de Texas, Illinois; Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma y Oregon, arrestaron, detuvieron, juzgaron y sentenciado a muerte, a 54 mexicanos. Las autoridades Judiciales en cuestin incumplieron con las obligaciones establecidas en los artculos 5 y 36 (1) (b) de la Convencin de Viena de Asuntos Consulares.

Jurisdiccin de la Corte Como Miembros de las Naciones, Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y Los Estados Unidos Americanos, son parte del Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. Tambin son parte del Convenio de Viena de Relaciones Consulares y de su Protocolo Opcional concerniente a la Jurisdiccin Compulsiva de disputas. El artculo I del Protocolo Opcional establece que: las controversias que surjan sobre la interpretacin o aplicacin de la Convencin se resolvern recurriendo a la Jurisdiccin Compulsiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia.

Violaciones cometidas por los Estados Unidos de Amrica

Los Estados parte de la Convencin de Viena debern atender a los principios y obligaciones establecidos en la misma, en especfico los

artculos 5 y 36 (1) (b) relacionado con las modalidades de las notificaciones consulares. El artculo 5 de la Convencin de Viena, contiene una lista general de todas las funciones Consulares. En el artculo 36 (1) (b), establece, que las autoridades del Estado receptor, debern informar sin demora de los derechos, de cualquier extranjero que se encuentre preso, detenido, de contactar a su Consulado, as como de su derecho a recibir asistencia consular, bien, la obligacin de remediar adecuadamente a los connacionales, en caso de que hubiese habido alguna violacin de sus derechos.. En los Procesos de los mexicanos sentenciados a Pena de Muerte, Mxico argumenta, que al menos, en 49 de los 54 casos, la autoridad no encontr evidencia de que la autoridad competente Estadounidense halla dado cumplimiento a lo establecido en la Convencin de Viena. En los cuatro casos referidos, aparente se dio cumplimiento al artculo 36 de la Convencin de Viena, solo que las autoridades se demoraron para notificar a los reos de su derecho a contactar al Consulado, y a pesar de que en uno de los casos el detenido si fue informado de sus derechos a la notificacin consular as como de los procedimientos migratorios, pero no con relacin a los cargos para la Pena Capital.

Efectos de la Resolucin

El Fallo que emitir la Corte con relacin a este asunto es considerado obligatorio solo para las partes del litigio y afectar nicamente al caso concreto.

Si bien las obligaciones que emanen de dicha Resolucin son de carcter obligatorio internacionalmente, lo cierto, es que no son vinculantes en el sentido 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 de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas podr emitir Recomendaciones con el propsito de que se de cumplimiento a la Resolucin, sin embargo no existe Autoridad 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 son bsicamente polticos, es decir que podran en determinados casos afectar la imagen de un Estado, y por ende su relacin con los Estados miembros de Naciones Unidas.

Atendiendo a los Principios Generales del Derecho, podra ser invocado en contra del pas que incumpli con la ejecucin del fallo, de la Corte, el principio de stoppel en derecho internacional, que significa que en los siguientes casos en los que sea parte dicho Estado, si la sentencia le es favorable, 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 el procedimiento en el caso Avena y otros Nacionales Mexicanos ( Estados Unidos Mexicanos vs. Estados Unidos Americanos). Las Medidas cautelares pueden solicitarse por los Estados parte en caso de que consideren que existe un peligro inminente provocado por la conducta de 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 una Audiencia Pblica, con relacin a la solicitud de Mxico para la aplicacin de Medidas Cautelares. El 22 de Enero del 2003, la concluyeron las Audiencias Pblicas relacionadas con esta peticin de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. La Corte dictamin, que los Estados Unidos de Amrica deber tomar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurar que ningn mexicano sea ejecutado y que no sea fijada ninguna fecha de ejecucin pendiente; los Estados Unidos debern reportar a la Corte, de las acciones que realice en este sentido; y debern asegurar que no tomar ninguna accin que pudiera perjudicar los derechos de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos o sus nacionales con relacin a cualquier decisin de la Corte, en el caso concreto. El 5 de Febrero del 2003, la Corte, ordeno a los Estados Unidos de Amrica, que deber tomar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurar que los Seores Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, y Osvaldo 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

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

PROCEDIMIENTO El Procedimiento comienza, con la presentacin de la Demanda del Applicant State (parte Actora), ante la Corte. Una vez efectuado el anlisis 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 segunda Oral. 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 los Documentos Formales de los Estados-Partes, a la Corte, mismas que contienen los argumentos detallados de hecho y derecho en los cuales cada Parte fundamenta su causa (accin excepcin).

Medidas Provisionales El Estado-Demandante (Applicant State) podr solicitarle a la Corte la aplicacin de una Medida Provisional, en caso de que considere la existencia de un peligro inminente provocado por la conducta del Estado Demandado (Respondant). Dicha Medida Provisional, solo podr ser ordenada por la Corte siempre que 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 la aplicacin de Medidas Cautelares. El 22 de Enero del 2003, concluyeron las Audiencias Pblicas relacionadas con esta peticin de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. La Corte dictamin, que los Estados Unidos deber tomar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurar que ningn mexicano sea ejecutado y que no sea fijada ninguna fecha de ejecucin pendiente; los Estados Unidos debern reportar a la Corte, de las acciones que realice en este sentido; y debern asegurar que no tomar ninguna accin que pudiera perjudicar los derechos de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos o sus

nacionales con relacin a cualquier decisin de la Corte, en el caso concreto.

El 5 de Febrero del 2003, la Corte, ordeno a los Estados Unidos de Amrica, que deber tomar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurar que el Sr. Csar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Sr. Roberto Moreno Ramos, y Sr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, de nacionalidad mexicana, no sean ejecutados, hasta en tanto no se resuelva el caso de Avena y otros Mexicanos nacionales (Mxico vs. Estados Unidos de Amrica), toda vez que existe un alto riesgo de que sean ejecutados en los prximos meses, 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 de Avena y otros nacionales Mxicanos.

Fase Oral Una vez que la Demanda (Memorial) y Contestacin (Contramemorial) han sido presentados, se fija fecha para Audiencia y comienza la parte Oral, en teora transcurren algunos meses antes de que esta fase comience. Cada Estado-Parte presentar sus argumentos a la brevedad posible, la Corte podr solicitar en cualquier momento explicaciones ms concretas sobre algn argumento que considere relevante. En la Audiencia se desahogaran todas las pruebas presentadas por las partes, a excepcin de las documentales contenidas en la Demanda (Memoria) y Contestacin (Contramemorial) como Anexos.

Fallo de la Corte Una vez que ha terminado la fase Oral (concluida la Audiencia), los miembros de la Corte tienen un corto periodo (aproximadamente tres meses) para pronunciar su Fallo. El Fallo que dicte la Corte con relacin a un asunto ser definitivo e inapelable y se notificar a los agentes de los Estados-Parte. En caso de desacuerdo sobre el sentido o el alcance del fallo, la Corte lo interpretar a solicitud de cualquiera de las partes. La Decisin de la Corte es Obligatoria nicamente para las Partes en Litigio y slo respecto del caso decidido.

___________

DEMANDA Mexico brings a case against the United and requests the indication of provisional measures States of America

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.

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 be forwarded 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 nationals were 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

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 this Application, must provide Mexico a full guarantee of the non-repetition of the illegal acts. In its Application Mexico invokes as a basis for the Courts jurisdiction 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 States owes to [it], Mexico also filed an urgent request for the indication of provisional

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 of provisional 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 of provisional 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 United States of America Second round of oral argument Mexico United States of America 3 p.m.- 4.30 p.m. 6 p.m.- 7.30 p.m. 9.30 a.m.-11.00 a.m. 11.30 a.m.-1 p.m.

___________

NOTE TO THE PRESS

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 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 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 Peace Palace. 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: information@icj-cij.org). ___________

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 (Mexico v. United States of America) Mexican Nationals

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;

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 end of 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: information@icj-cij.org

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 (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. Mexican Nationals

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 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. 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 in the Press Room for collect calls or the public telephones in the Post Office in the basement of the Peace Palace.

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: +31-70302 2337; e-mail address: information@icj-cij.org). ___________

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 (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 its Order 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 and Other Mexican Nationals

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 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"; 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 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 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 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 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 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 The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, ParraAranguren, 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: information@icj-cij.org

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 (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 and Other Mexican Nationals

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 its Order 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 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 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 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 The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, ParraAranguren, 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: information@icj-cij.org Case concerning Avena (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 its Order 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 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. and Other Mexican Nationals

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 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

The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, ParraAranguren, 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 (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 its Order 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 to reject that request and not to indicate any such measures. Reasoning of the Court and Other Mexican Nationals

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 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 The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, ParraAranguren, 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: information@icj-cij.org