Non corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2024/25
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2024
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 30 April 2024, at 10.05 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Salam presiding,
in the case concerning the Embassy of Mexico in Quito
(Mexico v. Ecuador)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2024
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 30 avril 2024, à 10 h 5, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Salam, président,
en l’affaire de l’Ambassade du Mexique à Quito
(Mexique c. Équateur)
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________
- 2 -
Present: President Salam
Vice-President Sebutinde
Judges Tomka
Abraham
Xue
Bhandari
Iwasawa
Nolte
Charlesworth
Brant
Gómez Robledo
Cleveland
Aurescu
Tladi
Judge ad hoc McRae
Registrar Gautier
- 3 -
Présents : M. Salam, président
Mme Sebutinde, vice-présidente
MM. Tomka
Abraham
Mme Xue
MM. Bhandari
Iwasawa
Nolte
Mme Charlesworth
MM. Brant
Gómez Robledo
Mme Cleveland
MM. Aurescu
Tladi, juges
M. McRae, juge ad hoc
M. Gautier, greffier
- 4 -
The Government of the United Mexican States is represented by:
Mr Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican
States,
as Agent;
HE Ms Carmen Moreno Toscano, Ambassador of the United Mexican States to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo, Deputy Legal Adviser “A”,
as Co-Agents;
Mr Alfredo Uriel Pérez Manríquez, Director for International Tribunals and Organizations, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States,
Ms Fadia Ibrahim Nader, Director of the Settlement of Disputes regarding Privileges and Immunities,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States,
Mr Max Orlando Benítez Rubio, Director for the Defense of Territory And Sovereignty, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States,
Mr Rubén Darío Álvarez Ángeles, Deputy Director for International Tribunals and Organizations,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States,
Mr Eduardo Fragoso Jacobo, Attorney at Law,
Mr Leonardo David Lima Valdés, Attorney at Law,
Ms Alicia Patricia Pérez Galeana, Multilateral Legal Affairs, Embassy of the United Mexican States
in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr Salvador Tinajero Esquivel, International Legal Counsel, Embassy of the United Mexican States
in the Czech Republic,
Ms Liliana Oliva Bernal, International Legal Counsel, Embassy of the United Mexican States in the
Republic of Austria,
as Counsel and Advocates.
The Government of the Republic of Ecuador is represented by:
HE Mr Andrés Terán Parral, Ambassador of the Republic of Ecuador to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Agent;
Ms Ana María Larrea, Director of International Affairs and Arbitration, Attorney General’s Office,
Mr Alfredo Crosato Neumann, Assistant Professor, Head of the Department of International Law,
Kadir Has University, Istanbul, member of the Lima Bar,
- 5 -
Le Gouvernement des États-Unis du Mexique est représenté par :
M. Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, conseiller juridique, ministère des affaires étrangères des États-Unis
du Mexique,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. Mme Carmen Moreno Toscano, ambassadrice des États-Unis du Mexique auprès du Royaume
des Pays-Bas,
M. Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo, conseiller juridique adjoint catégorie « A »,
comme coagents ;
M. Alfredo Uriel Pérez Manríquez, directeur des juridictions et organisations internationales,
ministère des affaires étrangères des États-Unis du Mexique,
Mme Fadia Ibrahim Nader, directrice du règlement des différends concernant les privilèges et
immunités, ministère des affaires étrangères des États-Unis du Mexique,
M. Max Orlando Benítez Rubio, directeur de la défense du territoire et de la souveraineté, ministère
des affaires étrangères des États-Unis du Mexique,
M. Rubén Darío Álvarez Ángeles, directeur adjoint des juridictions et organisations internationales,
ministère des affaires étrangères des États-Unis du Mexique,
M. Eduardo Fragoso Jacobo, avocat,
M. Leonardo David Lima Valdés, avocat,
Mme Alicia Patricia Pérez Galeana, affaires juridiques multilatérales, ambassade des États-Unis du
Mexique au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
M. Salvador Tinajero Esquivel, conseiller juridique international, ambassade des États-Unis du
Mexique en République tchèque,
Mme Liliana Oliva Bernal, conseillère juridique international, ambassade des États-Unis du Mexique
en République d’Autriche,
comme conseils et avocats.
Le Gouvernement de la République de l’Équateur est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Andrés Terán Parral, ambassadeur de la République de l’Équateur auprès du Royaume
des Pays-Bas,
comme agent ;
Mme Ana María Larrea, directrice des affaires internationales et de l’arbitrage, bureau du procureur
général,
M. Alfredo Crosato Neumann, professeur adjoint, chef du département de droit international,
Université Kadir Has (Istanbul), membre du barreau de Lima,
- 6 -
Mr Sean Murphy, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law, The George Washington University
Law School, associate member of the Institut de droit international, member of the Bar of
Maryland,
Mr Omri Sender, Attorney at Law, S. Horowitz & Co.,
Sir Michael Wood, KCMG, KC, member of the Bar of England and Wales, Twenty Essex, London,
Ms Anne Coulon, member of the Bar of the State of New York, Temple Garden Chambers, The
Hague,
Ms Alegría Baus Pinto, Legal and Multilateral Affairs Adviser, Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador
in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Counsel and Advocates.
- 7 -
M. Sean Murphy, professeur de droit international titulaire de la chaire Manatt/Ahn à la faculté de
droit de l’Université George Washington, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
membre du barreau du Maryland,
M. Omri Sender, avocat au cabinet S. Horowitz & Co.,
Sir Michael Wood, KCMG, KC, membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du pays de Galles, cabinet
Twenty Essex (Londres),
Mme Anne Coulon, membre du barreau de l’État de New York, Temple Garden Chambers (La Haye),
Mme Alegría Baus Pinto, conseillère juridique et aux affaires multilatérales, ambassade de la
République de l’Équateur au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme conseils et avocats.
- 8 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open.
The Court meets this morning, under Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, to hear
the single round of oral argument of the United Mexican States on its Request for the indication of
provisional measures submitted in the case concerning Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v.
Ecuador).
For reasons known to me, Judge Yusuf is unable to be present on the Bench for the duration
of these hearings.
As the Court does not include upon the Bench a judge of Ecuadorian nationality, Ecuador
availed itself of the right, under Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute, to choose a judge ad hoc to
sit in the case; it chose Mr Donald McRae. Article 20 of the Statute provides that “[e]very Member
of the Court shall, before taking up his duties, make a solemn declaration in open court that he will
exercise his powers impartially and conscientiously”. Pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 6, of the
Statute, that same provision applies to judges ad hoc. Notwithstanding that Judge McRae has been a
judge ad hoc and made a solemn declaration in previous cases, Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Rules
of Court provides that he must make a further solemn declaration in the present case.
Before inviting Judge McRae to make his solemn declaration, I shall first, in accordance with
custom, say a few words about his career and qualifications.
Judge McRae, of Canadian and New Zealand nationalities, is Professor Emeritus and former
Dean of Common Law at the Faculty of Law, at the University of Ottawa. He has extensive
experience as counsel in the context of international fisheries and boundary arbitrations, and has also
appeared as counsel before this Court in proceedings involving the interpretation of a Judgment
rendered in a case between Cambodia and Thailand. In the framework of the World Trade
Organization (WTO), he has appeared as counsel before that organization’s dispute settlement panels
and Appellate Body and has also served as a member of several WTO panels. In addition, he has
been a member and chair of various arbitral tribunals, including cases brought under the Convention
on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, and
Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Judge McRae is the former Editor-in-
Chief of the Canadian Yearbook of International Law and has published widely on international law,
including on the law of the sea and international trade law. He is a member of the Institut de droit
- 9 -
international, a member of the Royal Society of Canada, a Companion of the Order of Canada and
an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. He was a member of the International Law
Commission from 2007 to 2016. Judge McRae previously served as judge ad hoc in the case
concerning Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), the case
concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Colombia) and the case concerning the Question of the Delimitation of the Continental
Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast
(Nicaragua v. Colombia). He is currently sitting in the case concerning Guatemala’s Territorial,
Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize).
I shall now invite Judge McRae to make the solemn declaration prescribed by the Statute, and
I request all those present to rise.
Mr McRAE:
“I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as judge
honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously.”
The PRESIDENT: I thank Judge McRae. Please be seated. I take note of the solemn
declaration made by Judge McRae and declare him duly installed as judge ad hoc in the case
concerning Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador).
Je vais à présent retracer les principales étapes de la procédure en l’espèce. Le 11 avril 2024,
les États-Unis du Mexique ont déposé au Greffe de la Cour une requête introductive d’instance contre
la République de l’Équateur relative à « des questions juridiques concernant le règlement des
différends internationaux par des moyens pacifiques et les relations diplomatiques et l’inviolabilité
d’une mission diplomatique ». En particulier, le Mexique se réfère à un incident qui s’est produit le
5 avril 2024 au cours duquel des forces spéciales équatoriales auraient pénétré de force dans
l’ambassade du Mexique à Quito, auraient malmené le personnel de la mission, et se seraient
emparées de M. Jorge David Glas Espinel, ancien vice-président de la République de l’Équateur, à
qui il avait accordé l’asile.
Le demandeur entend fonder la compétence de la Cour sur les paragraphes 1 et 2 de l’article 36
du Statut de la Cour et sur l’article XXXI du pacte de Bogotá, auquel les deux États sont parties.
- 10 -
La requête contenait également une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires,
présentée au titre de l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour. Le Mexique y prie la Cour d’indiquer, dans
l’attente de son arrêt définitif en l’affaire, des mesures conservatoires
« pour protéger l’intérêt primordial qu’attache le Mexique à l’inviolabilité et au respect
des locaux diplomatiques, des biens qui s’y trouvent et des archives, y compris la
résidence de son personnel diplomatique précédemment accrédité auprès de l’Équateur,
et pour permettre à la Cour de prescrire les mesures demandées par le Mexique ».
Le greffier va à présent donner lecture du passage de la demande dans lequel sont précisées
les mesures conservatoires que le Gouvernement du Mexique prie la Cour d’indiquer. Monsieur le
greffier, vous avez la parole.
Le GREFFIER : Merci, Monsieur le président. Le Gouvernement du Mexique demande :
« a) que le Gouvernement de l’Équateur prenne des mesures appropriées et immédiates
pour assurer la protection et la sécurité pleines et entières des locaux diplomatiques,
des biens qui s’y trouvent et des archives, en les protégeant de toute forme
d’intrusion ;
b) que le Gouvernement de l’Équateur autorise le Gouvernement mexicain à vider les
locaux diplomatiques et la résidence privée des agents diplomatiques ;
c) que le Gouvernement de l’Équateur veille à ce qu’il ne soit pris aucune mesure qui
puisse porter atteinte aux droits du Mexique en ce qui concerne toute décision que
la Cour pourrait prendre au fond ;
d) que le Gouvernement de l’Équateur s’abstienne de tout acte ou comportement qui
risquerait d’aggraver ou d’étendre le différend dont la Cour est saisie ».
Le PRÉSIDENT : Je remercie le greffier. Immédiatement après le dépôt de la requête
contenant la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, le greffier en a communiqué un
exemplaire original au Gouvernement de l’Équateur. Il a également informé le Secrétaire général de
l’Organisation des Nations Unies de ce dépôt.
Aux termes du paragraphe 1 de l’article 74 du Règlement de la Cour, une demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires a priorité sur toutes autres affaires. Il est précisé au paragraphe 2
de ce même article que la Cour doit statuer d’urgence sur une telle demande. Cet impératif doit
néanmoins être concilié avec la nécessité de fixer la date de la procédure orale de manière à donner
aux parties la possibilité d’y être représentées. La Cour a décidé que la procédure orale s’ouvrirait le
30 avril 2024.
- 11 -
Je voudrais à présent souhaiter la bienvenue aux délégations des Parties. Je prends note de la
présence des agents et conseils du Mexique et de l’Équateur. La Cour entendra ce matin le Mexique
en son tour unique de plaidoiries sur sa demande en indication de mesures conservatoires. Elle
entendra l’Équateur en son tour unique de plaidoiries demain, mercredi 1er mai 2024 à 10 heures.
Chacune des deux Parties disposera de deux heures maximum pour présenter son exposé oral.
Pour la séance de ce jour, le Mexique pourra, si nécessaire, poursuivre un peu au-delà de midi,
compte tenu du temps consacré à mes observations liminaires.
Avant de donner la parole à l’agent du Mexique, je tiens à appeler l’attention des Parties sur
l’instruction de procédure XI, selon laquelle :
« [d]ans leurs exposés oraux sur les demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires,
les parties devraient se limiter aux questions touchant aux conditions à remplir aux fins
de l’indication de mesures conservatoires, telles qu’elles ressortent du Statut, du
Règlement et de la jurisprudence de la Cour. Les parties ne devraient pas aborder le
fond de l’affaire au-delà de ce qui est strictement nécessaire aux fins de la demande. »
I now give the floor to the Co-Agent of Mexico, HE Ms Carmen Moreno Toscano. You have
the floor, Excellency.
Ms MORENO TOSCANO:
I. PRESENTATION OF THE DELEGATION MEMBERS
1. Mr President, Madam Vice-President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honour
and a privilege for me to appear before the International Court of Justice on behalf of the
United Mexican States.
2. I wish to express my gratitude to the Court for convening this hearing on the earliest possible
date, to entertain Mexico’s request for the indication of provisional measures in this case, in light of
the risk and urgency of the situation.
3. In its Application, and in the accompanying Request, Mexico firmly asserts that the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations has been violated, and expresses its concern that such violations
may recur in the absence of provisional measures. Through this intervention, the representatives of
the Mexican State will express the factual and legal grounds upon which this concern is based.
4. With the permission of the Court, the statement by Mexico will be delivered as follows:
- 12 -
(a) Mr Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, Legal Adviser at the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will
introduce the context of the present case and the request for provisional measures.
(b) Mr Alfredo Uriel Pérez Manríquez, Director for International Tribunals and Organizations, will
deliver a brief recount on the relevant facts.
(c) Ms Liliana Oliva Bernal, International Legal Counsel, will present Mexico’s considerations
regarding the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the present request.
(d) Ms Fadia Ibrahim Nader, Director for the Settlement of Disputes regarding Privileges and
Immunities, will state the rights of Mexico that must be protected, and their link with the
provisional measures requested.
(e) Mr Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo, Deputy Legal Adviser, will present Mexico’s position
regarding the existence of a real and imminent risk of irreparable damage.
(f) Finally, Mr Alejandro Celorio will present this Court with Mexico’s concluding statement and
final submissions.
5. I thank you for allowing me to address you, and now, with the permission of this honourable
Court, I will ask you, Mr President, to invite Mr Alejandro Celorio Alcántara to the podium to present
the context of this case and the request of provisional measures.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Co-Agent of Mexico for her statement. I now invite
Mr Alejandro Celorio Alcántara to take the floor. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr CELORIO ALCÁNTARA:
II. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF THE REQUEST
1. Mr President, honourable judges, it is an honour to appear before you and to present the
context of this case, which must be underscored.
2. Your Excellencies, there are lines in international law which should not be crossed.
Regrettably, the Republic of Ecuador has crossed them. The actions undertaken by Ecuador not only
transversed the established boundaries of international law, but also have served a disconcerting
precedent that reverberates across the international community. This very Court has stated, in the
Hostages case, that the inviolability of diplomatic premises is a rule protected by the Vienna
- 13 -
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which has binding force upon both States party to the present
dispute. Moreover, it has asserted that this rule is of a fundamental character. With its actions,
Ecuador has infringed upon one of the cornerstones that governs the relationships between States.
3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has taken a stance regarding the matters of the
case at hand. A day after the violent and aggressive incursion by Ecuador into the Mexican Embassy,
the Secretary-General released a statement emphatically reaffirming that “the cardinal principle of
the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel . . . must be respected in all cases,
in accordance with international law”.
4. At the core of this case lies not only the egregious transgression against Mexico, but also
the legal certainty of every other sovereign State, international organization and tribunals in the
sacrosanct principles that govern the inviolability of diplomatic premises and personnel, a tenet this
honourable Court has deemed a cornerstone for the conduct of relations between States.
5. The forceful and violent incursion of Ecuadorian authorities into the premises of the
Mexican Embassy, and the unjustified exercise of violence against members of our diplomatic
mission, alongside the blatant attempt to justify a grave violation of international law, vividly
showcase Ecuador’s disregard for fundamental, universally accepted and long-standing norms. This
conduct creates an imminent risk that another violation could occur. A worrisome doubt arises about
the true intentions of Ecuador now that the Mexican diplomatic premises and private residences are
vacant, with documents and property therein, that might be of interest to Ecuador.
6. In addition, the abrupt and inexplicable change of dynamics that took place on 4 and 5 April
deepens our scepticism. Notwithstanding the extensive diplomatic dialogue, including the exchange
of information regarding the asylum request of Mr Jorge David Glas, the former Vice-President of
the Republic of Ecuador, and even after the declaration of the Mexican Ambassador as persona non
grata, along with the exchange of Notes Verbales concerning the request and denial of entry to the
premises, diplomatic personnel witnessed a heightened level of surveillance imposed by Ecuador
that resulted in the assault of our Embassy.
7. Ecuadorian authorities not only breached international law. They exhibited wilful
negligence that posed an enormous risk to the security and lives of the members of the mission. Had
the gun aimed at the Mexican Deputy Chief of Mission been fired, we would now be addressing a
- 14 -
far more serious and irreparable violation of international law. The declarations made by Ecuador’s
authorities after the incident, instead of allaying our concerns regarding a potential recurrence of
breaches to the inviolability of our premises and archives, only serve to exacerbate them.
8. While we acknowledge and are mindful of the security situation in Ecuador, and of the
measures implemented by its Government to address it, we remain determined in recognizing that
this circumstance cannot serve as an exemption to Ecuador’s obligations under the Vienna
Convention. There is no rule under international law that could nullify the inviolability of the
Embassy of Mexico, and no standard under which the assault could be deemed as a lawful operation.
9. The inviolability of diplomatic premises is even recognized under Ecuadorian law which
explicitly states: “diplomatic premises, consular offices and those of international organizations, as
well as their belongings and archives, will be inviolable and will enjoy immunity against search,
requisition, confiscation, expropriation, and any other form of intervention”. This law makes no
distinction regarding acts of authority ordered by administrative, executive, judicial or legislative
authorities1.
10. It must be stressed that throughout this ordeal, Mexico consistently adhered to international
law. Nevertheless, despite Mexico’s compliance, the inviolability of its premises and diplomatic
personnel was violated. There is not a valid justification for the incursion that occurred on 5 April
2024, nor for the harassment in the preceding days. Let me be clear, there will never be a valid
justification for any breach of international obligations owed to Mexico. States cannot invoke internal
dispositions, like the measures taken by Ecuador to address its security situation, to exempt
themselves from complying with their international obligations. This Court has the opportunity to
firmly reiterate this well-known principle of international law by granting the provisional measures
that Mexico respectfully asks for.
11. This case is not only of concern for Mexico. Sixty-eight States and international
organizations, both at the regional and universal level, have united to express solidarity with Mexico
and their disapproval to Ecuador’s actions. The international community has lost confidence in
1 Ecuadorian Law of Diplomatic Immunities, Privileges and Franchises. Available at: https://www.cancilleria.gob.ec/
wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/ley_inmunidades.pdf.
- 15 -
Ecuador’s commitment and capacity to honour its most basic obligations under international law,
raising justified concerns of potential recurrence of similar breaches.
12. Your Excellencies, it is most likely that Ecuador will attempt to justify its disregard for
international law, and its attack on the Mexican Embassy. First, Ecuador might allege that through
the protection and eventual granting of asylum to Mr Jorge Glas, Mexico supposedly violated
Article 41 of the Vienna Convention. Second, Ecuador might also argue that the granting of such
status was against the 1954 Caracas Convention on Diplomatic Asylum. Mexico will certainly, in
due course, provide this Court with the information that supports the legality of its decision under
international law.
13. However, as clearly stated in Practice Direction XI adopted by this Court, these hearings
shall only address the request for provisional measures submitted by Mexico, and not the merits of
the case.
14. Distinguished judges, the assault on the Mexican Embassy unequivocally constituted a
breach of the inviolability of the diplomatic premises and personnel. No credible and reliable
assurance has been provided to prevent further violations, nor has there been full acknowledgment
by Ecuador of its obligation to refrain from entering the Mexican premises. Therefore, we
respectfully ask this Court to grant provisional measures, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the
Statute.
15. With the permission of the Court, I would ask you now, Mr President, to give the floor to
Mr Alfredo Uriel Pérez Manríquez to present the facts on which the request for provisional measures
is based.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent of Mexico for his statement. I now give the floor to
Mr Alfredo Uriel Pérez Manríquez. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr PÉREZ MANRÍQUEZ:
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Honourable Members of the Court, I stand before you to recount the harrowing sequence of
events leading up to the blatant violation of international diplomatic law by the Government of
- 16 -
Ecuador against the premises of the Mexican Embassy. These events represent an unfortunate and
pivotal precedent that stress the imperative necessity to grant provisional measures.
2. On the night of 5 April 2024, Ecuadorian special operation agents forcibly entered the
Mexican Embassy in Quito. Approximately 15 agents and a couple of vehicles raided the Embassy.
During this raid, our Deputy Chief of Mission, Mr Roberto Canseco Martínez, was subjected to
physical assault while attempting to prevent the illegal intrusion and subsequent apprehension of
Mr Glas, who at the time of the events was under our protection, in accordance with both Mexican
and international asylum law. These actions egregiously violate the sanctity of diplomatic missions
as enshrined in international law.
3. Unfortunately, these were not isolated events, but rather the culmination of a sequence of
intimidation and harassment tactics directed against the Mexican diplomatic mission since Mr Glas’
arrival at the Embassy on 17 December 2023. Considering the circumstances of persecution targeting
individuals affiliated with the political party of former President Correa, Mr Glas sought asylum to
protect his life and personal safety. Following his formal application for asylum, the Embassy and
diplomatic personnel were subjected to constant surveillance by Ecuadorian authorities, evidencing
a systematic disregard for diplomatic norms.
4. In response, Mexico initiated diplomatic efforts, exemplified by high-level meetings
between Mexican and Ecuadorian foreign affairs representatives, aimed at resolving the situation
through peaceful diplomatic dialogue. Despite these efforts, the situation escalated, as evidenced by
the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry’s requests in early 2024 to enter our Embassy to detain Mr Glas —
a request our Government denied. This refusal was notified by a Note Verbale transmitted to Ecuador
on 4 March 2024, which also requested all necessary means to safeguard the integrity and
inviolability of the diplomatic premises of Mexico.
5. However, these diplomatic efforts were met with increasing hostility. By 4 and 5 April
2024, Ecuador had drastically intensified its actions against Mexico. Firstly, Ecuador declared
Mexico’s Ambassador — Raquel Serur — as persona non grata. Secondly, Ecuadorian authorities
significantly increased surveillance and harassment tactics by police forces in the vicinity of the
Embassy. All this culminated in the violent events of 5 April.
- 17 -
6. In the morning of 5 April, the President of Mexico publicly requested the support of the
Mexican air force to retrieve our Ambassador, in order to vindicate her dignity and guarantee her
return to Mexico. Later that day, through a press release, Mexico protested the decision to declare
our Ambassador as persona non grata, as well as the increase of Ecuadorian police presence at the
Embassy. Additionally, Mexico announced its decision to grant asylum to Mr Glas and the intention
to request a safe conduct to transfer him from Ecuador through diplomatic means.
7. In a press release issued on 5 April 2024, shown as Annex 2 of the judges’ folder, the
Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave false assurances to Mexico, stating that “in strict
compliance with the norms of the Vienna Convention, it would continue to provide protection to the
premises of the Mexican Embassy in Quito”. However, as this honourable Court will note, Ecuador
did not keep its word.
8. Up to this point and albeit the disturbing presence of security forces, Mexico believed that
the diplomatic dialogue would prevail. Surprisingly, the Republic of Ecuador deployed a
military-style operation in the vicinity of the Embassy and, at around 10 p.m., personnel of
Ecuadorian security forces entered the Mexican Embassy without authorization. In the video which
will be shown, this honourable Court will observe that Ecuadorian agents scaled our walls, forcibly
knocked down the door, subdued the private police officer of the Embassy, assaulted our diplomatic
personnel and forcibly substracted Mr Glas.
9. Honourable Members of the Court, as shown in the video, the operation not only entailed
the physical assault of Mr Canseco but also a significant violation of his personal dignity, as he was
pointed at with a firearm and forcibly restrained.
10. It is crucial to note what it seems the disabling of communication devices during the raid,
a tactic that points to a premeditated effort to isolate our staff during these critical moments.
11. As these events demonstrate, the raid was carried out in a violent and premeditated manner.
Although there were only unarmed diplomatic personnel in the Embassy, Ecuador decided to deploy
an operation with tactical and military-style equipment with long firearms to subdue whoever was
necessary.
12. This also demonstrates Ecuador’s capacity and intention to carry out this type of operation
whenever they deem it necessary, bypassing the norms of international law.
- 18 -
13. In light of these severe violations, and the sustained threat to the safety and dignity of our
diplomatic personnel, Mexico was compelled to break off diplomatic and consular relations with
Ecuador. As a consequence, our diplomatic premises are empty and unprotected from any actions
Ecuador may take to re-enter, inspect, seize or damage Mexico’s property and archives.
14. Ecuador’s actions demonstrate its disregard for international law, which is why Mexico is
turning to the Court to request provisional measures.
15. This, your Excellencies, concludes my presentation on the factual background to the
present dispute. I am grateful for your kind attention. With the permission of the Court, I would ask
you now, Mr President, to give the floor to Ms Liliana Oliva Bernal, who will present how this Court
has prima facie jurisdiction in the present request.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr Alfredo Uriel Pérez Manríquez for his statement. Je donne à
présent la parole à Mme Liliana Oliva Bernal. Vous avez la parole, Madame.
Mme OLIVA BERNAL :
IV. JURIDICTION PRIMA FACIE
1. Monsieur le président, Madame la vice-présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c’est
un grand honneur de prendre la parole devant la Cour aujourd’hui au nom du Mexique. Comme
Mme l’ambassadrice Moreno Toscano l’a avancé, je vais adresser dans ma plaidoirie la question de
la juridiction prima facie de la Cour pour indiquer les mesures conservatoires demandées dans
l’espèce.
2. Comme votre jurisprudence l’a confirmé à plusieurs reprises, dans les procédures visant une
indication de mesures conservatoires, la Cour « n’a pas besoin de s’assurer de manière définitive
qu’elle a compétence quant au fond de l’affaire »2. Au contraire, à ce stade, la Cour est seulement
appelée à avérer, et je vous cite dans l’affaire Avena, « si les dispositions invoquées par le demandeur
2 Immunités et procédures pénales (Guinée équatoriale c. France), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
7 décembre 2016, C.I.J. Recueil 2016 (II), p. 1155, par. 31.
- 19 -
semblent prima facie constituer une base sur laquelle la compétence de la Cour pourrait être
fondée »3.
3. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, en l’occurrence, le Mexique
satisfait manifestement à ce critère. Le présent différend a été introduit en prenant pour base de la
compétence de la Cour l’article XXXI du pacte de Bogotá, qui prévoit :
« Conformément au paragraphe 2 de l’article 36 du Statut de la Cour
internationale de Justice, les Hautes Parties Contractantes en ce qui concerne tout autre
État américain déclarent reconnaître comme obligatoire de plein droit, et sans
convention spéciale tant que le présent Traité restera en vigueur, la juridiction de la Cour
sur tous les différends d’ordre juridique surgissant entre elles et ayant pour objet :
a) L’interprétation d’un traité ;
b) Toute question de droit international ;
c) L’existence de tout fait qui, s’il était établi, constituerait la violation d’un
engagement international ;
d) La nature ou l’étendue de la réparation qui découle de la rupture d’un engagement
international. »
4. Il ne s’agit pas de la première affaire dans laquelle la Cour affirme sa compétence sur la
base du pacte de Bogotá. Ce traité a servi en fait à ce propos dans près de 20 affaires. En outre, dans
l’affaire relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière, la Cour
s’est déclarée compétente prima facie sur la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires du
Costa Rica sur la base inter alia du pacte de Bogotá4.
5. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, le pacte de Bogotá prévoit deux conditions pour donner
compétence à cette Cour. Premièrement, l’existence d’un différend juridique lié aux matières listées
en son article XXXI et, secondement, que les deux parties aient précédemment tenté de régler leurs
différends par des négociations directes suivant les voies diplomatiques ordinaires.
6. En ce qui concerne la première condition, je vous rappelle qu’après les regrettables
événements du 5 avril et la rupture des relations diplomatiques et consulaires annoncée par le
Mexique le 6 avril, le ministère des affaires étrangères de l’Équateur a publié, le jour même, un
3 Avena et autres ressortissants mexicains (Mexique c. États-Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 5 février 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 87, par. 38 ; Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine
c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 129, par. 57.
4 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 18, par. 52.
- 20 -
communiqué de presse, figurant à l’annexe 3 de votre dossier, justifiant les actions des forces
équatoriennes par une prétendue violation par le Mexique de l’article 41 de la convention de Vienne
sur les relations diplomatiques5. Cet argument a été réitéré par le vice-ministre des affaires étrangères
de l’Équateur, M. Alejandro Dávalos, lorsqu’il a déclaré, le 9 avril, à l’occasion de la réunion
spéciale convoquée par le Conseil permanent de l’Organisation des États américains pour traiter du
conflit entre le Mexique et l’Équateur, que les actions du Mexique étaient contraires à l’article 41 de
ladite convention.
7. Le Mexique a déployé plusieurs démarches, au niveau bilatéral comme multilatéral, afin
d’exprimer et de clarifier sa position sur les règles de droit international en jeu dans la présente
affaire. Ces démarches comprennent, notamment, une lettre adressée au Secrétaire général des
Nations Unies, datée du 12 avril et figurant à l’annexe 4 du dossier, portant sur « les graves violations
commises par la République de l’Équateur à l’encontre de l’ambassade du Mexique dans ce pays et
de son personnel diplomatique ».
8. Les divergences entre les deux États concernant les obligations qui découlent de la
convention de Vienne, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ne sauraient être plus aiguës. Alors que,
d’une part, le Mexique insiste, pour sa part, sur le fait que l’inviolabilité des locaux diplomatiques et
du personnel diplomatique ne connaît pas d’exception en droit international, l’Équateur a tenté de
justifier la violation des obligations lui incombant en vertu de la convention de Vienne.
9. Comme cette Cour l’a rappelé dans l’affaire des Îles Marshall « pour qu’un différend
existe, … “[l]es points de vue des deux parties, quant à l’exécution ou à la non-exécution” de
certaines obligations internationales, “[doivent être] nettement opposés” »6. Le Mexique et
l’Équateur n’ont manifestement pas la même conception de la manière dont ils doivent s’acquitter
des obligations qui découlent de la convention de Vienne. Or, cela met bel et bien en évidence qu’un
5 Communiqué de presse du ministère des affaires étrangères de l’Équateur du 6 avril 2024 (annexe 3 du dossier de
plaidoiries).
6 Obligations relatives à des négociations concernant la cessation de la course aux armes nucléaires et le
désarmement nucléaire (Îles Marshall c. Royaume-Uni), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2016 (II), p. 849,
par. 37.
- 21 -
différend de nature juridique entre le Mexique et l’Équateur existait au moment où la requête
introductive d’instance a été déposée7 et que ce différend subsiste, voire, il s’élargit.
10. En ce qui concerne la deuxième condition, permettez-moi de rappeler le contenu de
l’article II du pacte :
« Les Hautes Parties Contractantes acceptent l’obligation de résoudre les
différends internationaux à l’aide des procédures pacifiques régionales avant de recourir
au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies.
En conséquence, au cas où surgirait, entre deux ou plusieurs États signataires, un
différend qui, de l’avis de l’une des parties, ne pourrait être résolu au moyen de
négociations directes suivant les voies diplomatiques ordinaires, les parties s’engagent
à employer les procédures établies dans ce Traité sous la forme et dans les conditions
prévues aux articles suivants, ou les procédures spéciales qui, à leur avis, leur
permettront d’arriver à une solution. »
11. À cet égard, la Cour a dit pour droit que l’article II du pacte constitue « une condition
préalable du recours aux procédures pacifiques du pacte » ; et donc il s’ensuit que la Cour doit
examiner comment cette condition s’applique dans l’affaire en cause8.
12. En l’espèce, il convient de rappeler qu’après les efforts diplomatiques déployés visant une
solution au différend entre les Parties, et le refus du Mexique d’accorder l’accès à ses locaux
diplomatiques, les autorités équatoriennes ont lancé une opération pour prendre d’assaut l’ambassade
du Mexique et enlever M. Jorge Glas, au lieu d’entamer des négociations à ce sujet. Après l’attaque,
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, le ministère équatorien des affaires étrangères a indiqué, dans son
communiqué de presse du 6 avril, qu’il avait épuisé les voies diplomatiques pour régler ce différend.
13. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Membres de la Cour, les actions
perpétrées par l’Équateur contre le Mexique auront non seulement aggravé le conflit, mais elles ont
également prouvé qu’il n’y avait aucune possibilité raisonnable d’essayer de régler le différend par
le biais des négociations diplomatiques. Ainsi, d’ores et déjà, les conditions fixées par le pacte de
Bogotá pour avoir recours à la Cour sont tout à fait satisfaites.
14. Il convient, en outre, de rappeler que les traités dont le Mexique se prévaut pour donner à
la Cour compétence de la présente affaire étaient en vigueur entre les Parties quand la requête
7 Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 149, par. 48.
8 Actions armées frontalières et transfrontalières (Nicaragua c. Honduras), compétence et recevabilité, arrêt, C.I.J.
Recueil 1988, p. 94, par. 62.
- 22 -
introductive d’instance a été déposée, et qu’ils le sont toujours. Le Mexique est partie à la convention
de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques depuis 1965, tandis que l’Équateur en est partie depuis
1964. En ce qui concerne le pacte de Bogotá, le Mexique en est partie depuis 1948, tandis que
l’Équateur l’est depuis l’année 2008. Tout cela démontre que les critères permettant de constater la
compétence prima facie de la Cour ratione materiae, ratione temporis et ratione personae sont en
l’occurrence clairement remplis.
15. Enfin, j’attirerai l’attention de la Cour sur le fait que l’Équateur n’a pas, à ce jour, contesté
la compétence de la Cour. Et cela est bien parce que l’article XXXI du pacte de Bogotá est
manifestement applicable au présent différend.
16. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, les deux États sont parties à la
convention de Vienne sur les relations diplomatiques et au pacte de Bogotá, les conditions fixées par
le pacte pour saisir la Cour sont remplies et il existe un différend lié à un traité en vigueur entre les
Parties, en l’occurrence la convention de Vienne. Le Mexique est de l’avis, donc, que vous avez
compétence prima facie pour ordonner des mesures conservatoires conformément aux critères
énoncés par la Cour elle-même.
17. Avec ces conclusions, Mesdames et Messieurs les Membres de la Cour, je clos ma
plaidoirie et je vous remercie sincèrement de votre attentive écoute. Monsieur le président, je vous
saurais gré maintenant d’appeler Mme Fadia Ibrahim à la barre. Merci beaucoup.
Le PRÉSIDENT : Je remercie Mme Liliana Oliva Bernal pour son exposé. I now invite
Ms Fadia Ibrahim Nader to take the floor. You have the floor, Madam.
Ms IBRAHIM NADER:
V. PLAUSIBILITY OF THE RIGHTS THAT MEXICO SEEKS TO PROTECT AND THE LINK
BETWEEN THEM AND THE PROVISIONAL MEASURES REQUESTED
Introduction
1. Mr President, Madam Vice-President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great
honour for me to appear before you on behalf of Mexico.
2. Today, I will address the rights that Mexico seeks to preserve through its request for
provisional measures. These rights are fundamentally straightforward, as they pertain to the
- 23 -
fundamental rules underpinning diplomatic relations between States. Specifically, I am referring to
the inviolability of diplomatic premises, their property and archives.
3. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to definitively determine the
existence of the rights Mexico seeks to protect. Instead, this Court is solely required to decide whether
the rights claimed by Mexico on the merits, and for which it is seeking protection, are plausible9.
4. In the case at hand, the rights asserted by Mexico not only meet but significantly exceed the
threshold of plausibility, as they are explicitly granted by the Vienna Convention. Therefore, I would
like to draw your attention to:
(a) the rights and corresponding obligations outlined in the Vienna Convention;
(b) the link between said rights and the provisional measures requested;
(c) the complementary provisional measures needed to preserve those rights.
A. Rights and obligations under the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations
5. The Vienna Convention was concluded bearing in mind “the purposes and principles of the
Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of
international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations”10.
6. The principle of inviolability stands as a core requisite to conduct diplomatic relations
between States. This right is explicitly enshrined in the Vienna Convention in Article 22 for
diplomatic premises, in Article 24 for archives and documents of the mission, and in Article 30 for
the private residences of diplomatic agents.
7. This Court has previously stated the fundamental relevance of inviolability, as it did in
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran:
“38. Whereas there is no more fundamental prerequisite for the conduct of
relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, so
that throughout history nations of all creeds and cultures have observed reciprocal
obligations for that purpose;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9 Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Provisional Measures, Order of
7 December 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (II), p. 1167, para. 78.
10 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Preamble.
- 24 -
41. Whereas, while no State is under any obligation to maintain diplomatic or
consular relations with another, yet it cannot fail to recognize the imperative obligations
inherent therein, now codified in the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963”11.
8. Therefore, honourable Members of the Court, there is no doubt as to the critical importance
of the principle of inviolability, which prevails in all situations with no exceptions. As affirmed by
Article 45 of the Vienna Convention which states that in case of the breach of diplomatic relations
between two States, the receiving State must respect and protect the premises of the mission, together
with its property and archives12.
9. Article 45 describes an obligation for the receiving State, which correlates to the right of the
sending State to have its diplomatic premises, property and archives respected and protected. This
Court interpreted this in its provision in the Hostages case, observing that:
“The fundamental character of the principle of inviolability is . . . strongly
underlined by the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Convention of 1961 . . . Even
in the case of armed conflict or in the case of a breach in diplomatic relations those
provisions require that both the inviolability of the members of a diplomatic mission
and of the premises, property and archives of the mission must be respected by the
receiving State.”13
10. Thus, Article 45 is the source of the right that Mexico seeks to preserve and it applies to
the present dispute since 6 April 2024. On this date, Mexico notified through a Note Verbale the
termination of diplomatic and consular relations with Ecuador. This action was taken in response to
the unauthorized intrusion by Ecuadorian authorities into the Mexican Embassy in Quito, as well as
its heinous acts against diplomatic personnel.
11. Now that both States have severed their diplomatic relations, Ecuador is unequivocally
obligated to uphold and safeguard Mexico’s diplomatic premises, their property and archives.
12. The present case revolves around Ecuador’s egregious violation of the principle of
inviolability under a non-existent justification. Ecuador’s actions implied a perceived exception to
the principle of inviolability where none exists. In contrast, Mexico firmly asserts that this principle
is of the utmost importance in the conduction of diplomatic relations and that no justification can
legitimately exempt its application.
11 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Provisional Measures,
Order of 15 December 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1979, pp. 19-20, paras. 38 and 41.
12 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 45 (a).
13 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1980, p. 40, para. 86.
- 25 -
13. The same criteria apply with Article 45, which enshrines the principle of inviolability even
when diplomatic and consular relations have been broken off. There are no exceptions to this
provision, although the Government of Ecuador has expressed that it is of a different view, and that
the inviolability of diplomatic premises can be set aside upon the discretion of the receiving State, as
evidenced in the press release contained in the judges’ folder as Annex 314.
14. Your Excellencies, it is worth mentioning that, should the Government of Ecuador advance
that there may be an exception to this provision, this would be a matter for the merits.
15. Up to this point, Your Excellencies, it is clear that the rights of Mexico, whose protection
is requested, are more than plausible and must be preserved.
16. For these reasons, the Government of Mexico seeks from this Court to declare that Ecuador
must comply with Article 45 (a) of the Vienna Convention, in order to undertake all appropriate and
immediate measures to ensure the respect and protection of the premises of the mission, its property
and archives15.
17. Your Excellencies, the principle of inviolability lies at the heart of this dispute, even
following the severance of diplomatic relations. The existence of this principle, along with the rights
and obligations they confer upon the concerned parties is unquestionable. This underscores that the
threshold for the plausibility of the rights Mexico seeks to preserve before this Court has been duly
met.
18. Only the preservation of those rights by means of an order of provisional measures may
subsequently allow this Court to adjudge upon them.
B. The link between the rights claimed and the provisional
measures requested
19. Your Excellencies, please allow me to recall the four provisional measures Mexico
requested before this Court in its Application for the institution of proceedings:
“a) That the Government of Ecuador takes appropriate and immediate steps to provide
full protection and security of diplomatic premises, their property, and archives,
preventing any form of intrusion against them.
14 Press Release. Gabriela Sommerfeld, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility. 6 April 2024.
https://x.com/CancilleriaEc/status/1777125118164017406?t=vTMMRnO2ePqnWllM2xJP7A&s=08.
15 Application and Request for provisional measures of the United Mexican States, 11 April 2024
(hereinafter “Application and Request of Mexico”), p. 10, para. 52.
- 26 -
b) That the Government of Ecuador allows the Mexican Government to clear
diplomatic premises and the private residence of diplomatic agents.
c) That the Government of Ecuador ensures that no action is taken which might
prejudice the rights of Mexico in respect of any decision which the Court may render
on the merits.
d) That the Government of Ecuador refrains from any act or conduct likely to aggravate
or widen the dispute of which the Court is seized.”16
20. This Court has stated that, in addition to the plausibility of the rights claimed by the
requesting State, “a link must exist between the rights which form the subject of the proceedings
before the Court on the merits of the case and the provisional measures being sought”17.
21. In this regard, Your Excellencies, the first two provisional measures Mexico has requested
are clearly linked to the right asserted regarding the principle of inviolability embodied in Article 45.
22. The first provisional measure corresponds to the application of the principle of inviolability
in its performative character, that is: an obligation upon the concerned State whereby, by means of
its own choosing, it is bound to provide protection and security to the mission and its property. This,
without prejudice to the obligation to respect the premises of the mission, its property and archives.
23. Your Excellencies, ordering Ecuador to provide full protection and security of the
diplomatic premises, their property and archives would not only restate the content of this protection
as enshrined in the Vienna Convention. It would also respond directly to Ecuador’s previous breach
of the inviolability bestowed by the Vienna Convention on the Mexican mission and prevent the real
possibility that such violation occurs again. This measure seeks to ensure that Ecuador takes the
appropriate and immediate action to thwart any further breach.
24. The second provisional measure naturally follows the severance of diplomatic relations
and is essential for the retrieval of all items from the diplomatic premises and private residences of
diplomatic agents. This measure is necessary to ensure the safe return of all property and archives to
Mexico, minimizing the risk of further transgression by Ecuadorian authorities.
16 Ibid., pp. 12-13, para. 66.
17 Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Provisional Measures, Order of
7 December 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (II), p. 1166, para. 72.
- 27 -
C. Complementary provisional measures
25. In addition to the provisional measures requested to preserve specific rights, “the Court . . .
possesses by virtue of Article 41 of the Statute the power to indicate provisional measures with a
view to preventing the aggravation or extension of the dispute whenever it considers that
circumstances so require”18. The Court has on several occasions issued provisional measures
directing the parties not to take any action which could aggravate or extend the dispute or render
more difficult its settlement, usually accompanying other measures protecting specific rights19.
26. Therefore, the last two measures requested by Mexico have a complementary nature and
will serve for the protection of its rights provided in the Vienna Convention, in order to ensure the
orderly administration of justice in the present case.
27. These complementary measures bear similarities to those requested in other cases before
this Court, such as Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, where
Costa Rica sought “that Nicaragua shall refrain from any other action which might prejudice the
rights of Costa Rica, or which may aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court”20. In that case,
the Court considered “whereas the final provisional measure sought by Costa Rica, being very
broadly worded, is linked to the rights which form the subject of the case before the Court on the
merits, in so far as it is a measure complementing more specific measures protecting those same
rights”21.
28. The third and fourth provisional measures seek to ensure that Ecuador will not take any
steps to cause further prejudice to Mexico’s rights, and to safeguard the status quo before the Court
decides upon the merits.
29. With the leave of the Court, I respectfully ask you, Mr President, to give the floor to
Mr Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo, who will now delve into Mexico’s argument regarding the
existence of real and imminent risk of irreparable damage.
18 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Provisional Measures, Order of 10 January 1986, I.C.J.
Reports 1986, p. 9, para. 18.
19 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2007,
I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 16, para. 49.
20 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 11, para. 19.
21 Ibid., p. 21, para. 62.
- 28 -
The PRESIDENT: I thank Ms Fadia Ibrahim Nader for her statement. I now give the floor to
Mr Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr REYES MONCAYO:
VI. RISK OF IRREPARABLE DAMAGE AND URGENCY OF
THE NEED FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES
1. Mr President, Madam Vice-President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is certainly a
great honour for me to appear before you as Agent for the United Mexican States, in spite of the
regrettable circumstances that bring us before this Court today. With the leave of the Court, I will
address the element of urgency due to the existence of a real and imminent risk of irreparable damage
upon the rights of Mexico.
A. Risk of irreparable prejudice
2. As previously mentioned, Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Thus,
Article 45 (a) of the Vienna Convention establishes that the receiving State must respect and protect
the premises of the mission, its property and archives. Consequently, even in the case of the breach
of diplomatic relations, the premises of the mission, including the private residences of the diplomatic
agents, its property and archives, must continue enjoying the status of inviolability established in
Articles 22, 24 and 30 of the Vienna Convention.
3. To put in context the irreparable prejudice that the rights and interests of Mexico could
suffer, I shall recall the Court that: (a) Mexico is the owner of the building located at 6 de Diciembre
Avenue and Naciones Unidas Street, which housed the premises of the Embassy; (b) there are lease
agreements in force for the private residence of the diplomatic agents of the Embassy, including the
Head of Mission; (c) given the sudden departure of the members of the mission, both physical and
digital archives and documents of the Embassy were left in the diplomatic premises. These contain
confidential and sensitive information regarding the diplomatic functions that Mexico performed in
Ecuador.
4. Thus, Ecuador is under a performative duty to protect. This duty can be fulfilled by means
of its own choosing. However, Ecuador is under an unrestricted obligation to provide full protection
- 29 -
and security to the premises, the property and archives of Mexico from physical invasion or
interference, and from any impairment to their status.
5. Concerning the irreparability of a prejudice against diplomatic inviolability, in the case of
Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), this Court established: “any
infringement of the inviolability of the premises may not be capable of remedy, since it might not be
possible to restore the situation to the status quo ante”22.
6. In consequence, any act, omission or negligence of Ecuador that endangers or infringes the
inviolability granted to the premises, property and archives of the Mexican Embassy will cause an
irreparable harm to the legal rights and interests of Mexico in the present proceedings.
7. Distinguished Members of the Court, we cannot go back in time and restore the status quo
ante before the violent attack of 5 April 2024 on the Mexican mission. The damages suffered by our
rights and interests thereby are irreparable. This is why we appeal to this Court to issue the
provisional measures requested in these proceedings, in order to avoid further irreparable damages
upon the rights of Mexico protected by the Vienna Convention.
B. Urgency
8. Mr President, Your Excellencies, I will now address how there is a real and imminent risk
that justifies the provisional measures requested to the Court.
9. This Court stated that it will indicate provisional measures only if there is urgency. As
previously established by this Court, the condition of urgency is met when the acts susceptible of
causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment” before the Court makes a final decision on
the case23.
10. In this regard, Mexico is deeply concerned about the possibility that Ecuador causes an
irreparable prejudice to its rights which it claims pendente lite and that are enshrined in the Vienna
Convention.
11. The concerns of Mexico are based on the following arguments.
22 Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Provisional Measures, Order of
7 December 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (II), p. 1169, para. 90.
23 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 24, para. 65.
- 30 -
12. First, the environment of distrust created by Ecuador, as reasonable indications of a risk
upon the rights of Mexico.
13. On this matter, we have to bear in mind that the principle of good faith is one of the
cornerstone principles of international law. As this Court has recognized in the Nuclear Tests case,
good faith is a basic principle that governs the creation and performance of legal obligations. Trust
and confidence are inherent in co-operation between States24.
14. In the context of diplomatic relations, the principle of good faith is of the utmost
importance, since only with trust and confidence can States develop effective diplomatic relations. It
was under those assumptions that Mexico conducted its relationship with Ecuador, since there were
reasonable expectations that Ecuador would abide by its obligations and duties under international
law.
15. Those expectations were based on: (i) the public defence that Ecuador made about
inviolability of diplomatic premises in the case of Mr Julian Assange for seven years; (ii) its active
participation within the framework of General Assembly resolution 75/139 concerning
“Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and
consular missions and representatives”; (iii) the existence of a Diplomatic Immunities, Privileges and
Franchises Act, enacted by Ecuador, and still in force today; (iv) the Note Verbale of 29 February
2024, submitted as Annex 5, in which Ecuador asked for Mexico’s consent to execute a warrant upon
Mr Glas inside the diplomatic premises; and (v) the statement of 2 April 2024, in which the
representative of Ecuador to the Security Council of the United Nations reaffirmed the obligation
that all States, in accordance with international law, must respect the immunity and inviolability of
diplomatic and consular premises. The representative of Ecuador also mentioned that any violation
of the Vienna Convention in that regard is a serious incident that causes damage and negatively
affects the promotion of the shared values of the international community.
16. All these facts created reasonable expectations for Mexico that Ecuador would comply
with its obligations concerning diplomatic privileges and immunities. However, the events of 5 April
2024 show that even with these international and national regulations in force, and running counter
24 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 268, para. 46.
- 31 -
to the position it upheld along years in the case of Mr Julian Assange, Ecuador decided to act contrary
to international law.
17. As previously stated by my Co-Agent, Ecuador’s actions have created an environment of
distrust in the region. This is aggravated due to the security policies implemented by the Government,
including the establishment of three states of exception from January to this day, which entail the
suspension of rights such as the inviolability of domiciles.
18. Our second argument on urgency is the continuous disregard of Ecuador for the privileges
and immunities of Mexico in accordance with the Vienna Convention, which might be indicative of
further law enforcement operations into the premises.
19. As previously stated, on 29 February 2024 Ecuador asked for Mexico’s consent to enter
into the Embassy. However, on 4 March the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded through
a Note Verbale that the consent would not be granted and reminded Ecuador of the obligation to
respect the inviolability of the premises. Notwithstanding the inviolability, Ecuador illegally entered
into the diplomatic premises.
20. Additionally, on 15 April 2024, SBS News published an interview with President Noboa,
in which he declared that he did not have any regrets about the illegal entry into the Mexican Embassy
in Ecuador since “they were on the right side of history”25. Later, on 23 April, Minister Sommerfeld
questioned the validity of the Vienna Convention during an interview in the following terms: “Do
conventions of which we are signatories respond to the realities that the world faces today regarding
organized crime and all the industries that derive from it? They were created 50 or 70 years ago,
I think that today they do not respond to reality.”26
21. Upon the analysis of the aforementioned facts, it becomes evident that there is clear and
convincing evidence that Ecuador, despite being fully aware of the inviolability afforded to the
diplomatic premises, property and archives of the Embassy of Mexico, willingly decided to disregard
those obligations. Despite such knowledge, Ecuador proceeded with an illegal raid into diplomatic
25 “Ecuador’s President Noboa defiant in the face of international outrage over embassy raid”, 15 April 2024.
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5HrgegT3dY
26 “Foreign Ministry removed video of Gabriela Sommerfeld’s statements at the Concordia 2024 event”,
23 April 2024. Available at: https://twitter.com/ecuainm_oficial/status/1782575730959823054?s=48&t=_bggkmtNsGQ7
aQMkngF2-A
- 32 -
premises. Moreover, the declaration of President Noboa shows a total lack of respect for international
obligations, which in his view can be ignored.
22. Finally, since the breaking-off of diplomatic relations, the building on 6 de Diciembre
Avenue, along with the archives, documents and other property of the former Embassy, remain
unprotected and vulnerable to possible damage, confiscation or inspection from national authorities
or even from private individuals.
23. The urgency of the measures stems from the vulnerability and need for protection based
on the possibility that Ecuadorian authorities could try to enter and conduct searches upon the
premises, archives and documents of the former Embassy, due to the habeas corpus judicial
procedure initiated by Mr Glas on 7 April 2024. There could be, moreover, other judicial proceedings
involving Mr Glas, of which Mexico is not cognizant, where search mandates were issued and
enforced inside our former Embassy in Quito, and the property and documents found therein.
24. The aforementioned bears a striking resemblance to the case Immunities and Criminal
Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), in which this Court granted provisional measures, due
to the fact that there was a risk of intrusion to the diplomatic premises of Equatorial Guinea, since
there was a possibility that French authorities could conduct new searches due to pending judicial
procedures27.
25. In consequence, the arguments previously raised sustain the possibility of a continuous
risk of intrusion and confiscation upon the premises, property, archives and documents of the former
Mexican Embassy.
26. It is also important to mention, your Excellencies, that Ecuador did not provide any
appropriate and credible assurances to Mexico that its rights under the Vienna Convention will be
respected.
27. Mexico recognizes that, on 9 April 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador sent
a Note Verbale, as shown on Annex 6 in the judges’ folder, assuring the respect and the protection
of diplomatic premises, property and archives in accordance with Article 45 (a) of the Vienna
27 Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Provisional Measures, Order of
7 December 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (II), p. 1169, para. 89.
- 33 -
Convention. However, such Note Verbale did not mention anything about its duty to protect its
inviolability.
28. Furthermore, it is important to recall that on 5 April 2024, hours after the declaration of
persona non grata of our Ambassador, through a press release, as shown in the judges’ folder as
Annex 1, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed that the Government of Ecuador was going to
respect and comply with its obligations under the Vienna Convention. Nevertheless, in the course of
the night, Ecuador orchestrated a police operation at the Embassy doing the opposite.
29. Moreover, in the frame of the present proceedings, on 19 April 2024, through a Note
Verbale of its Embassy to the Netherlands, Ecuador reiterated its acknowledgment of its obligations
under the Vienna Convention, along with assurances to this Court and to Mexico that it would respect
and protect the premises of the Mexican Embassy in Quito. Those same acknowledgments and
assurances were given to Mexico on 5 April 2024, just before raiding the Embassy.
30. It is true that this Court has recognized that an undertaking by the respondent State might
deprive the urgency character of the request, like in the case of Questions relating to the Obligation
to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal). However, in the case of Certain Documents and
Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), even though it was considered that a written undertaking of the
respondent State makes a significant contribution towards mitigating the imminent risk of irreparable
prejudice, this Court concluded that the undertaking did not remove the risk in its entirety.
31. In the present case, both Notes Verbales may seem as a commitment by Ecuador to respect
and protect the premises, property and archives of Mexico in terms of Article 45 of the Vienna
Convention. However, in the Hostages case, this Court established that the same article requires the
respect of the inviolability of the premises, property and archives of the mission. Without a credible
and express commitment from Ecuador to respect the inviolability of the Mexican mission, its
property and archives, both Notes Verbales fall short on Ecuador’s obligations and, therefore, the
imminent risk and the urgency of the measures remain.
32. It must be recalled, moreover, that Minister Sommerfeld mentioned at an interview,
submitted by Mexico as Annex 8, that the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs only has
informative and advisory functions within the Government, and that said Ministry has no final word
concerning security strategies like the one deployed against the Mexican Embassy. Hence, it is
- 34 -
reasonable to conclude that the assurances given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are insufficient
since other government agencies or departments might act on their own.
33. The above-mentioned Notes Verbales do not provide credible and appropriate assurances
that Ecuador will quash each and any risk upon the premises, property and archives of the former
Embassy. Furthermore, the Notes do not remove the risk nor the sense of urgency to grant the
provisional measures requested by Mexico.
34. On the contrary, only a binding order of provisional measures from this Court will provide
the necessary assurances to Mexico that its rights will be protected pending litigation. Thus, if
Ecuador fails to comply with the provisional measures dictated by this Court, Mexico may recourse
to one of the compliance mechanisms established within the UN Charter.
35. In the present state of diplomatic relations, the issuance of the requested provisional
measures is imperative to establish a vital precedent affirming the absolute inviolability of diplomatic
premises, property and archives, under all circumstances. It is essential to compel Ecuador to adhere
to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Vienna Convention and customary international law.
36. Mr President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your attention and would kindly ask
you, Mr President, to give the floor again to Mr Alejandro Celorio to conclude the oral pleadings on
behalf of the United Mexican States.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr Miguel Angel Reyes Moncayo for his statement. I now give the
floor back to the Agent of Mexico, Mr Alejandro Celorio Alcántara. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr CELORIO ALCÁNTARA:
VII. CONCLUDING STATEMENT AND FINAL SUBMISSIONS
18. Honourable judges of the International Court of Justice, I am honoured to conclude
Mexico’s oral pleadings and make Mexico’s final submissions regarding its urgent request for the
indication of provisional measures.
19. Let me reiterate Mexico’s gratitude for the opportunity to present before this Court our
request for the indication of provisional measures, along with the facts and legal considerations that
support this petition.
- 35 -
20. Mexico is satisfied that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the request, that we are
entitled to rights that must be protected, that these rights face a real and imminent risk of irreparable
damage, and that they bear a link with the provisional measures that we respectfully ask this Court
to grant.
21. It is important to note that in addition to Ecuador’s obligation to respect and protect the
premises of the diplomatic mission, as well as its properties and archives in accordance with
Article 45 of the Vienna Convention, Ecuador is also obligated under the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including
Diplomatic Agents to sanction any violent attack against the official premises of Mexico and any
threat to commit such an attack.
22. This orchestrated raid against the premises and diplomatic staff of Mexico poses a serious
threat to the maintenance of international relations and is a cause of grave concern for the
international community. In this regard, through these measures, Mexico seeks to protect its
premises, properties and archives, and ensure that incidents like the one on 5 April 2024 do not recur
while the merits of this case are being decided.
23. Ecuador’s actions demonstrate its disregard for international law, which is why Mexico is
turning to the Court to request provisional measures. The discrepancies observed in Ecuador’s
declarations and conduct prevent Mexico from fully trusting its assurances. Consequently, Mexico
is seeking the imposition of provisional measures, which are binding for States, to ensure that
Ecuador’s adherence to its international obligations is not left to its own discretion.
24. For the aforementioned reasons:
“The United Mexican States respectfully requests, that pending final judgment in
these proceedings, the Court indicates the following provisional measures:
a) That the Government of Ecuador refrains from acting against the inviolability of the
premises of the Mission and the private residences of diplomatic agents, and that it
takes appropriate measures to protect and respect them, as well as the property and
archives therein, preventing any form of disturbance.
b) That the Government of Ecuador allows the Mexican Government to clear
diplomatic premises and the private residence of diplomatic agents.
c) That the Government of Ecuador ensures that no action is taken which might
prejudice the rights of Mexico in respect of any decision which the Court may render
on the merits.
- 36 -
d) That the Government of Ecuador refrains from any act or conduct likely to aggravate
or widen the dispute of which the Court is seized.”
25. Mexico respectfully requests the Court to affirm the necessity of adhering to international
norms and to grant the requested provisional measures, ensuring violations of the inviolability do not
recur. Through your decision, this honourable Court can reaffirm to the world the importance of the
law on privileges and immunities and the international rule of law.
26. On behalf of the Government of Mexico, I thank you for your attention in this matter. This
concludes Mexico’s presentation this morning.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent of Mexico, Mr Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, whose
statement brings to an end the single round of oral argument of Mexico, as well as this morning’s
sitting. The Court will meet again tomorrow, Wednesday 1 May 2024, at 10 a.m., to hear Ecuador
present its single round of oral argument. The sitting is adjourned.
The Court rose at 11.35 a.m.
___________
Audience publique tenue le mardi 30 avril 2024, à 10 h 5, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Salam, président, en l’affaire de l’Ambassade du Mexique à Quito (Mexique c. Équateur)