INTERNATIONAL COURT OF WSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:
[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2003/1
10 January 2003
Mexico brings a case against the United States of America
and reguests the indication of provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 10 January 2003. In the late afternoon of 9 January 2003, Mexico brought a
case against the UnitedStates of America to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a dispute
concerning alleged violationsf 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
nationalsof the sending State:
W 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;
(hl if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without
delay, inform the consular postf the sending State if, within its consular district,
a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending
trial ors detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the
consular post by the persan arrested,in prison, custody or detention shall be
forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform
the persan concerned without delayof his rights under this sub-paragraph;
(ç) 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
nationalof 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 behalfof 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, - 2-
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."
In 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 daims that, in at !east 49 of these cases, it has found no evidence that the
competent United States authorities attempted to comply with Article 36 before Mexico's nationals
were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. It further notes that in four cases sorne 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.
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
power's functions are international or internai 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, Mexico's 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 - 3 -
imposition, as a matter of municipal law, of any procedural penalty for the failure
timely to raise a daim 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 ofthe pattern and practice ofviolations set forth in this
Application, must provide Mexico a full guarantee of the non-repetition of the
illegalacts."
In its Application Mexico invokes as a basis for the Court's jurisdiction Article I of the
Vienna Convention's Optional Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, which
provides that "disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shaH 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 ali 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.
The full text of Mexico's Application and its request for the indication of provisional
measures will soon be available on the Court's website (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
Mexico brings a case against the United States of America and requests the indication of provisional measures