Separate opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE PARKA-ARANGUREN

The CO~.WII[of lhe Unilud Stales nol to ruise prel~rnirtaryobjeclion-
Mextcn did not discharge ilYburdenof proving theMP-Y~CU nHiionnlity oj~hc
52 persons illdicated In it.$ e~norial- Mul~rple r~uiii~ttulcases - Tlte
exhaustion 14 1r)culretnpdiasrul- Ohl~goliilto rcj11ytoull thcquestlnnsrrs
slated hy Mesicu in its$nrrlcubnlissions- Final consideroions.

1. My vote in favour of subparagraphs (2), (3),(10) and (I 1)of para-
graph 153 does not mean that I share each and every part of the reason-
ing followedby theCourt in reaching its conclusions. Timeconstraints to
present this separate opinion within the period fixedby the Court do not

permit me to make a completeexplanation of my disagreement with the
remaining subparagraphs of paragraph 153. However 1 wish to advance
some of my main reasons Forvoting against them.

2. Operative paragraph 153(1) of the Judgment:

"Rejects the objection by the United Mexican Statcs to the
admissibility of the objcctiotls presented by the United States of
America to thc jurisdiction of the Court and lo the admissibility of

the Mexican claims."
3. I11my opinion, the contention of thc United Mexican States (here-
inafter 'Mexico") should have bcen upheld, bccause the Partics agreed to

a single round of pleadings and nothing was said aboul preliminary
objections. The United States of America (hereinafter"the Unitcd States")
thus gave its consc~~tnot to raise preliminary objections, and conse-
quently its objectians were not to be examined as such. This reason
explains my vote against paragraph 153, subparagraph (I), where the
Court rejects Mexico's contention that it should disregard the prelimi-
nary objections raised by the Unitcd States against Mexico'sclaims based

on violations by the United States of Article 36 of the 24 April 1963
Vienna Convention on Consular Rclations (hereinafter "the Vienna
Convention").

4. However, it is to be kept in mind that in any case thc Court has to
be satisfied of itsjurisdiction and therefore the Court may examine it at

any time, bcfore renderingjudgment on the merits, either ex officioor at
the requcst of any of the parties (Appeal Rrlufing lothe Jzrrisclicfionofthe ICAO Council(India v.Pakistan), Judgmenl,I.C.J. Reports 1972,
p. 52,para. 13; Applicationofthe Convention on the Preventionand Pun-
isllmeat ofihe Crinze of Genocide, PrclirnirzuiyUbjeclions, Jubmen t,
I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), p. 622, para. 46). Furthermore, as Mexico
acknowledges, the inadmissibility objections presented by the United

States as preliminary objections "overlap the arguments on the merits to
a large extent" (CR2003124,p. 23, 'para. 59,Garnez-Robledo).

5. The firstof Mexico'sfinal submissions requeststhe Court toadjudge
and declare, infer ulia, that the Unitcd States has '"violatedits interna-
tional legal obligations to Mexico,in its own righland in the exerciseof
its right of diplomatic protection of its nationals" by failing to comply
with Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vicnna Convention (Judgment,
para. 13 ;emphasis added). It also indicates that the Court need not "rc-
examine and redetermine the facts and reweigh the evidence" in each of
the 52 cases, becausethere are only two factual issueslo be resolved.The

first relates to the Mexican nationality of the individuals concernedand
the second to the violalions of Article 36, paragraph 1 (h) (CR2003124,
p, 27, para. 83, Babcock).

6. Mexico expresslyacknowIedges that, since the United States "has
chosen to vehementlydeny any wrongdoing". it isfor Mexico todemon-
strate in all2cases the alleged violations of Article 36, paragraph 1(b),
ofthe Vienna Convention (CR2003124, pp.29-30, para. 94, Babcock);
and it claimsit has mct this burden by providing lo theCourt the birth
certificates of these individuals, and declarations fro42 of them stating

their Mexican nationality.

7. Mexico maintained in the oral proceedings that all of them auto-
matically acquired jure soli Mexican nationality under Article 30 of its
Constitution. However Mexico did not present any evidence to demon-
strate thecontents of such Article 30.

8. Itwas for Mexico lo discharge this burden of proof because, as
Judge John E. Read recalled, "municipal Iaws arc merely facts which
express the wilIand constitute:the activities of States" indicating that this

ruIe had been established by the Permanent Court or International
Justice in a long scries of decisions and the following in particular:

"Poli.l-hUpper Sil~.~i- Series A, No. 7,page 19.
SerbianLoans - Series A, Nos. 20121,page 46.
Brazilidn Lman.r - SeriesA, Nos. 20121,page 124.
Lighlhouses Cuse (FrancelGreece) - Series A/B, No. 62, page 22. Puaevezys-Sal&!iskis Railway Cuse - Series AIB, No. 76,
page 19." (Nutrebohm, Second Pha,~e, Judgment, I C.J. R~porls
1955, p. 35, dissenting opinion of Judge Read.)

9. Moreover it is a generally accepted principle.Opyenheinl'sInterna-
tional Law explains:
"From the standpoint of international law, a national law is gen-
erally regarded as a fact with reference to which rules of interna-

tional iaw have to be applied, rather than as a rule to be applied on
the international plane as a rule of law; and insofar as the Interna-
tional Court of Justice iscalled upon to express an opinion as to thc
effectof a ruleof national law it willdo so by treating the matter as
a question of fact to be established as such rather than as a question
of law to be decided by the court." (Oppenheim'slnl~rnationalLaw,
4th ed., edited by Sir Robert Jennings, Q.C., and Sir Arthur Watts,
K.C.M.G., Q.C., Vol. 1, "Peace", Introduction and Part 1, 1996,
p.83, para. 2 1.)

10. This notwithstanding, paragraph 57 of thc Judgment states:
"The Court findsthat it is for Mexico to show that the 52 persons
listed in paragraph 16 above held Mexican nationality at the time al'
their arrestThe Court notes that to this end Mexicohas produced
birth certificates and declarations of nationality, whose contents
have nol bcen challenged by the United Slates."

11. Etis difficult for me to agree with this conclusion bccause Mexico
has not discharged itsburden of proof. The declarations from 42 of all
the persons concerned are ex par& documents, which cannot, by them-
selves, demonstrate Mexican nationality; and thc birth certificatespre-
sented by Mexico for each of the 52 individuals undoubtedly demonstrate
that they were born in Mexico, but do not prove their Mexicannation-
ality because Mexico did not provide the text of Article 30 of the Mexi-
can Constitution. In view of this omission itcannot be established, from

thc evidence presented by Mexico, that the 52 pErSOnSidentified in its
Memorial automalicalIy acquired M~xicannationality at the time or their
birth by virtue of thc jus sola'.For this reason, unless I were to rely on
extralegal considerations, as thc Judgment itself does, I had no alterna-
tive but to conclude that the claims presented by Mcxico against the
United States cannot be upheld sincethe Mexican nationality of the 52
persons concerned was not demonstrated and this is, in the present case,
a necessarycondition for the application of Article 36 ofthe ViennaCon-
venlion and for Mcxico'sexerciseof its right to diplomatic protection of
its nationals. Therefore, inmy opinion, subparagraphs (41,(5), (61(7),
(8) and (9) of paragraph 153were lo be rejected. 12. Among the persons identified in Mexico's Memorial, the United
States provided proof that Enrique Zambrano was a United States
national. Then Mexicoamended its submissionson 28 November 2003to
withdraw the claim presentedin its own name and in exerciseof its right
of diplomatic protection, explaining that it did not contest,or the pur-
pose of this litigation, that dual nationals have no right to be advised,
under Article 36, paragraph I (B), of their rights lo consular notification
and access (CR2093124, p. 28, para. 87, Babcock).The withdrawal was
not objected to by the United States, as indicated in paragraph 7 of the
Judgment, and for this reason the case of Mr. Enrique Zambrano was
not examined.

13. Even though the question was not disputed between the Parties, it
is to be observed that the reasons given by Mexico for withdrawal in the
case ofMr. Enrique Zambrano findno support in the conclusions reached
by the luternational Law Commission in its recently prepared Draft
Articles on Diplomatic Protection. Article 6 thereof prescribes that

"A State of nationaiilymay not exercisediplomatic protection in
respect of a person against a State of which that person is also a
national unless the nationality of the former State is predominant,
both at thelime of the injury andat the date of the officialpresenla-
tion of the claim."

14. The lnternational Law Commission explains that the solution
adopted in Article 6followsthe position adopted in arbitral decisions,in

particular by the Italian-United States ConciEiation Commission, the
Iran-United Stales Claims Tribunal and the:United Nations Compensa-
tion Commission cstablished by the Security Council to provide for com-
pensation for damages caused by Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Morc-
over, the International Law Commission indicates that it is consistent
with developmentsin international human rights law, whichaccords legal
protection to individuals even against Slate ofwhich theyare nationals.
It also specifiesthat the negative language used in thc provision "is
intended to show that the circumstances envisagedby article 6 are to be
regarded as exceptionat", making it clear "that the burden of proof is on
the claimant State to prove that its nationality is predominant" (United
Nations, Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-fourth Ses-
sion (29 April-7 June and 22 July-16August 2002), OSficialRecords of
the GenercrlAssembly, Fifir-seventh Session, Supplement No. 10 (A1571
101, pp. 169-1873,

15. Therefore, Draft Article 6 would have entitled Mexico to exercisediplomatic protection on behalf of Enriquc Zambrano, upon presenting
evidence that he wasa Mexican national and that his Mexican ~zational-
ily predominated his United States nationality.

16. Paragraph 40 of Ihc Judgment examines the application orthc rule
of exhaustion of local remedieswhen dealing with the second preliminary
objection to admissibility presented by the United States.

17. It indicates:

"The Court would first observe that the individual rights of Mexi-
can nationals under subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention are rights which are to be asserted, at any rate in the
first place, within the domestic legal system of the United States.
Only when that processis completedand local remediesare exhausted
would Mexico be entilled to espouse the individual claims of its
nationals lhrough the procedure of diplomatic protection."

18. Paragraph 40 adds :
"In the present case Mexicodoes not, however, claim lo be acting
solely on that basis.11also asserts its own claims, basing Zhcmon the

injury which itcontends that it ho.v irselfsujj>red>direcrly and
rhro~igh irnafionais, as a result of the violatioby thc United States
of the obligat~ons incumbent upan it under Article 36, para-
graph 1 (a), (hj and (c)."

19. Then paragraph 40 recalls the LaGrund Judgmcnt, where it was
recognized that Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vicnna Conveotion
creates individual rights of the foreign national concerned which may be
invoked in this Court by the national State of the detained person (I.C.J.
R~PUTI2 S001, p. 444, para. 77). Paragraph 40 further observes

"that violations of the rights of the individual under Article 36 may
entail a violation of the rights of the sending State, and lhai viola-
tions of the rightsof the latter may entaila violation of the rights of
the individual. In these special circumstances of interdepcndcne of
the rights of the Siatc and of individual rights, Mexico may, in sub-

mitting a claim in its own narnc, request the Court to rule on the
violation of rights whichit claims to have suffered both directly and
through the violation of individual rights conferred on Mexican
nationals undcr Article 36, paragraph 1 (b) ." 20. Paragraph 40 of the Judgment concludes :
"The duty to exhaust local remedies does not apply to such a
request. Further, forreasons just explained, the Court does not find
il necessarylo deal with Mexico'sclaimsol'violation under adistinct

heading of diplomatic protection. Without nceding to pronounce at
this junctureon the issues raised by the procedural default rule, as
explained by Mexico in paragraph 39 above, the Court accordingly
finds that the second objection by the United States to admissibility
cannot be upheld."

2 E. In my opinion, this conclusion is misleading. Paragraph 40 should
have stated that the local remediesrequirement does not apply when thc:
injury is claimed to have been done directly to the rights of Mexico and
not that itisnot applicable tothe claim made by Mexicoin its own name.
Now, the claims presented by Mexico in the exercise of'diplomatic pro-
tection of its nationals are claims of Mexico in its own right, as was
acknowledged in the well-knowndictum of the 30 August 1924Judgment
of the Pcrrnancnt Court of Tntcrnational Justice in the Muvromnquiis
Palesfine Concessionscase, where it wasspecifiedthat

"Bytaking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to
diplomatic action or international judicial proceedingson his behalf,
a State isin reality asserting its own right- its right to ensure, in
thc pcrson of its subjects, rcspccfor the:rulesof international law."
(JudgmentNo. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., SeriesA, No. 2, p. 12.)

22. This principle is generally accepted and has recently been repro-
duced in Article 1,paragraph I. of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Pro-
tection prepared by the Fnternational Law Commission, indicating that :

"Diplomatic protection consists of resort to diplomatic action or
other means of peaceful settlement by a State adopting in its own
right the cause of its national in respect of an injury to that national
arising from an internationally wrongful act of another State,"

23. Therefore, in the present case, the relevant element in deciding
whether local remedies had to be exhausted is whether Mexico was
directly injured by the actions of the United States. As the International
Law Commission explains
"The exhaustion of local remedies rule applies only to cases in

which the claimant Stale has been injured 'indirectly', that is,
through its national. It does not apply where the claimant State is
directly injured by the wrongful act of another State, as here the State has a distinct reason of its own for bringing an international

claim."
24. Consequen~lyArticle 9 or its Draft Arlicles on Diplomatic Protec-
tion provides that

"[ljocalremedies shallbe exhausted where an international claim, or
request.for a declaratory judgment related to the claim, is brought
preponderanlly on the basis of'an injury to a national or other pcr-
son rcfcrrcd to in articlc 7 [B]".
25. However the International Law Commission also observes that

"In practice it is difficult to decide whether the claim is 'direct'or
'indirect' whereit is 'mixed',in the sensethat it contains elements of
both injury to lhc Statc and injury to thc ~~ationalsof lhe State .. .
Io the case of a mixed claim it is incumbent upon the tribunal to
examine the different elements of the claim and to decide whether
the dirccl or the indirectelement is prepondcranl .. Closelyrelated
to the preponderance test is the sine qua non or 'but for' test, which
asks whether the claim comprising elements of both direct and
indirect injury would have been brought were it not for he claim
on behaif of the injured national. If this question is answercd ncga-

tively, the claim is an indirect one and local remedies must be
exhausted. There is, however, lillle lo distinguish the preponderance
testfrom the 'but for' test. If a claim is preponderantly based on
injury to a national this is evidence of the fact that the claim would
not have been brought but for the injury to the national. In these
circumstances the Commission preferred to adopt one test only -
that of preponderance." (United Nations, Report of the lntesna-
tional LawCommission, Fifty-fifthSession(5 May-6 June and 7July-
8 August 20031,Ofjcial Records oJ rhe General Assembly, Fqty-
eighih Scssion, Supplemen t No. 10 (AJ58/1O),pp. 89-90).

26. In the present case Mcxico has advanced, in its own right, a claim
against the United States. However, theapplication of Ihc cxhaustion of
local remediesrule depends not on whclhcr Mcxico presents the claim in
its own right, but Onwhether Mexico was directly irijured by the alleged
actions of the United States.

27. Mexico maintains that there was a breach by the United States of
the Vienna Convention, an unlawful act in the relalions bclwccn the
two Slates, on each occasionthe United States authorities did not inform
the Mexican nationals arrested of their rights under Articlc 36, para-
graph 1 (b). Consequently, Mexico'sclaim is a "mixed" claim, to use
the terminology of the International Law Commission, as recognized
in paragraph 40 of the Judgment where it is stated that there arc
"special circumstances of interdependence af he righls or the Slate andof individual rights". Therefore, it was for the Court to determine
whether Mexico'sclaim was preponderantly basedon injury to anationaI
and would not have been brought but Torthe injury to its national.

28. In my opinion, Mexico wouldnot have presented its claimagainst
the United States but for the injursy uffered by its nationals. Conse-
quently the IocaI remediesrule applies to the claims "in its own right"
submittcd by Mexicoin its first final submissionand therefore the Court
should have examined eachof the individual casesto determinewhether
the local remedieshad been exhausted, which do not includc "approach
to the executiveFor reliefin the exercise of itsdiscretionary power. . .

remedies as of grace or those whose 'purpose is to obtain a favour and
not to vindicate a right'". If that was not case, the claims presented by
Mexicoin the exerciseof diplomatic protection of itsnationals wereta be
dismissed,unless coveredby any of thecustomarily accepted exceptions
to the local remedies rule, taking into consideration Article 10of the
Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection prepared by thc International
Law Commission (United Nations, Report of the International Law
Commission,Fifty-fifthSession(5 May-6 June and 7July-8 August 2003),
Oflcia Rlecords ofthe General Assembly, Fgdy-eigh th Session,Supple-
ment No. 10 (A/S8110),pp. 88, 92-102). Therefore, it is not possible for
me to agreewiththeconclusion reachedinparagraph 40 of the Judgment.

29. On 14 February 2002, the Court stated:
"The Court would recall the well-established principlethat 'itis
the duty of the Court not onlyto replyto thc questions as statein
the finalsubmissionsof theparties, but also to abstain fromdeciding

pointsnot includedin those submissions'(Asylum,Judgment,I. C.J.
Reports 1950, p.402).Whilethe Court is thus not entitled to decide
upon questions not asked OF it, the non ultpetitu rule nonetheless
cannot precludethe Court from addressingcertain legalpoints in its
reasoning."(Arrest Warrunf ~lII April2000 (Democralic Republic
of theCongov. Belgium),Judgment,I. C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 18-19,
para. 43.)
30. In my opinion this statement supports the followingobservations
on the Judgment in the present case.

31. In its first final submission Mexico requeststhe Court to adjudge
and declare: "That the Unitcd States of America, in arresting, detaining, try-
ing, convicting, and sentencing the 52 Mexican nationals on death

row described in Mexico'sMemorial, violated its international legal
obligations to Mcxico, in its own right and in the exercise of its
right to diplomatic protection of its nationals,by failingto inform,
without delay, the 52 Mexican nationals after their arrest of their
right to consular notification and acccss under Articlc 36 (1) (b)
of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by depriving
Mexico of its right to provide consular protection and the 52 natio-
nals'right toreceivesuch proleclion as Mexico wouId provide under
Article 36 (I) (a) and (c) of the Convention." (J~ldgmcnt,
para. 14 (I).)

32. Subparagraphs (41,(5), (6), (7) and (8) of paragraph 153, in a
rather sophisticated way, adjudge and declare that "the United States

breached the obligations incumbent upon il" under Article 36, para-
graph 1 (b) (subparas. (4) and (5)); that "lhc United States breached the
obligations incumbent upon itunder Article 35,paragraph 1 (a) and (c)
of'Ihc Convention" [subpara. (6)); that "the United States . .. breached
thc obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (c) of
the Convention" (subpara. (7)); and that "the Unitcd States breached the
obligations incumbent upon it under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Con-
vention" (subpara. (8)). However,that is not an answer to the first final
submission presented by Mexico,whcre Mexico asks the Court to adjudge
and declare that the United Statcs violated "its international legal obli-
gations to Mexico, in its own right and in the:exercise of its right to
diplomatic protection". Thererorc, in my opinion, the operative part
of the Judgment should have responded ro the request made by Mexico
in its first final submission.

33. In itssecondfinalsubmission Mexicorequeststhc Court to adjudge
and declare:

"Thatthe obligation in Article 36 (1) of the Vienna Convention
requires notification of consular rights ana reasonablc opportunity
for consular acccss before the competent authorities of the rcceiv-
ing State take any action potentially detrimental to the foreign
national's rights." (Judgment, para. 14(21.)

34. In my opinion, thc sccond final submission of Mexicoshould have
been expressly decidedin the operative part of the Judgment and not
only considered in its rcasoning. 35. Finally it seems appropriate to me to mention that Mexico has
insistently requestedre.s~iiutioininlegrum as a remcdy for the alleged
violationsof Article 36 of the Vienna Convcntiw by the United Stales,
because il considers that depriving a Ibreinational facing criminal pro-
ceedings of the right to consular notification and assistance renders those

proceedings fundamentally unfair (Judgment, para. 30).Mexico has also
reminded the Court throughout the present proceedings of the facts of
the LnCrmd case. However, it did not mention that in the LnCrunclcase
the question of fair trial was not originally raised by the highest State
organs of Germany with their Unitcd States counterparts, as isevidenced
by the followingdocuments:

(a) The German Minister of Justicewrote lo theUnited States Attorney
Gencral on 27 January 1999acknowledging that
"nor are there any doubts about the fact that the proceedings

were conducted under the Rule of Law - uttimately leading to
imposition of the death penaltieswith finaland binding effect-
before the courts of the State of Arizona and before the Fedcral
Courts" (Memorial of Germany, Vol. 11,Ann. 20, pp. 539-542).
(h) In his letter of 5 February 1999 to the former President of the
United States, the German President, acting as Head of State, indi-

cates that"[i]n no way do I doubt the legitimacy of the conviction
nor the fairness of the procedure before the courts of thc State of
Arizona and the federalcourts" (Memorial of Germany, Vol. 11,
Ann. 14,pp. 509-512).

(Signed )onzalo PARRA-ARANGU LH.

Bilingual Content

SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE PARKA-ARANGUREN

The CO~.WII[of lhe Unilud Stales nol to ruise prel~rnirtaryobjeclion-
Mextcn did not discharge ilYburdenof proving theMP-Y~CU nHiionnlity oj~hc
52 persons illdicated In it.$ e~norial- Mul~rple r~uiii~ttulcases - Tlte
exhaustion 14 1r)culretnpdiasrul- Ohl~goliilto rcj11ytoull thcquestlnnsrrs
slated hy Mesicu in its$nrrlcubnlissions- Final consideroions.

1. My vote in favour of subparagraphs (2), (3),(10) and (I 1)of para-
graph 153 does not mean that I share each and every part of the reason-
ing followedby theCourt in reaching its conclusions. Timeconstraints to
present this separate opinion within the period fixedby the Court do not

permit me to make a completeexplanation of my disagreement with the
remaining subparagraphs of paragraph 153. However 1 wish to advance
some of my main reasons Forvoting against them.

2. Operative paragraph 153(1) of the Judgment:

"Rejects the objection by the United Mexican Statcs to the
admissibility of the objcctiotls presented by the United States of
America to thc jurisdiction of the Court and lo the admissibility of

the Mexican claims."
3. I11my opinion, the contention of thc United Mexican States (here-
inafter 'Mexico") should have bcen upheld, bccause the Partics agreed to

a single round of pleadings and nothing was said aboul preliminary
objections. The United States of America (hereinafter"the Unitcd States")
thus gave its consc~~tnot to raise preliminary objections, and conse-
quently its objectians were not to be examined as such. This reason
explains my vote against paragraph 153, subparagraph (I), where the
Court rejects Mexico's contention that it should disregard the prelimi-
nary objections raised by the Unitcd States against Mexico'sclaims based

on violations by the United States of Article 36 of the 24 April 1963
Vienna Convention on Consular Rclations (hereinafter "the Vienna
Convention").

4. However, it is to be kept in mind that in any case thc Court has to
be satisfied of itsjurisdiction and therefore the Court may examine it at

any time, bcfore renderingjudgment on the merits, either ex officioor at
the requcst of any of the parties (Appeal Rrlufing lothe JzrrisclicfionofOPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. LE JUGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

Conseilt~men icsEIUISU - nisa lieus snuletred'exceptionsprilin~inuira-
Le Mexlqu~ne s'estpas rruyulrtede la rmhurgcr:prouver la ~~ationolrt uxi-
rmuincdc.scinqunn~e-de~xpuaunnes cirkes cianssun tndmn~re - Cas Ilr natiu-
nalitPmulliplc- Rkglede l'ipuiuernentdes voiesdc recours i~~ren-.~Obliga-
tionclerkpontlraircnutesIESque~iiun~IL'IIEqSeformult?espur IrMe-nquedans

ses conclusivnsjinale- Uonsidirurions$nales.

1. Le fait d'avoir vote en faveur dcs points 2, 3, 10 et 1 l du para-
graphe 153ne signifiepasqueje partage en lolalite lesmotifssur lesqucls la
Cour s'cslfondee pour parvcnir A sesconclusions. Lc delai imparti par la
Cour pour la presentation de cetlc opinion individuelle ne mc perrnet pas
d'expliquer de maniere exhaustive Ics raisons de mon desacxord sur les
autres points du paragraphe 153.Je tiens toulefois exposeroertaincs des

raisons ~najcuresqui m'ont amen@a voter contre lesdits points.

2. Le point 1 du paragraphe 153 de I'arrit est libell&comrne suit:

c(RejefreI'cxceptionopposke par les Etats-Unis du Mexique a la
recevabilitedes exceptions soulevkcspar les Etats-Unis dYAmcrique
a la competence dc la Cour et i la reccvabilite des dernaildes dcs
Etats-Unis du Mexique. )j

3. Seloi~moi, I'argument des Etdts-Unis du Mexique (ci-apres ctle
Mexique),) aurait db 2tre accueilli: car Ics Parties avaient convcnu de
limiter laprocedure kcrile a un seul echange de pieces et rien n'avait CIC
dit sur la question des exceptions prkliminaires. Les Etats-Unis dYAme-
riyue (ci-apres(clesEtats-Unis n)avaient par consequent consenti h ne pas
souleverd'exceptionsprkliminaireset, db lors, cellesqu'ilsont prkstnlkes

n'auraient pas dG Etrc cxaminkes comme tcllcs. C'est pour cette raison
que j'ai votC contrc Ic point 1 du paragraphe 153, dans lequcf la Cour
rcjclte I'argument du Mcxique selon lequel elle devait refuser d'examiner
lesexceptionspreliminaircs opposkespar lesEtats-Unis aux clemandes du
Mexique fondkes sur des violations par lesEtats-Unis des dispositions dc
I'article 36 de la conventioii de Vienne sur les relations consulaires
du 24 avril 1963(ci-apres ula convention de Vieme),).

4. I1convient. toutefois, de garder present h I'espritque, quoi qu'il en
soil, laCour doit s'assurer qu'ellca compktence et que, par consequent,
elle peut cxaminer cette question B tout moment, avant de rendre son
arrkt au fond, soit d'office ou ri la dernande dc l'une quelconque dcsthe ICAO Council(India v.Pakistan), Judgmenl,I.C.J. Reports 1972,
p. 52,para. 13; Applicationofthe Convention on the Preventionand Pun-
isllmeat ofihe Crinze of Genocide, PrclirnirzuiyUbjeclions, Jubmen t,
I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), p. 622, para. 46). Furthermore, as Mexico
acknowledges, the inadmissibility objections presented by the United

States as preliminary objections "overlap the arguments on the merits to
a large extent" (CR2003124,p. 23, 'para. 59,Garnez-Robledo).

5. The firstof Mexico'sfinal submissions requeststhe Court toadjudge
and declare, infer ulia, that the Unitcd States has '"violatedits interna-
tional legal obligations to Mexico,in its own righland in the exerciseof
its right of diplomatic protection of its nationals" by failing to comply
with Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vicnna Convention (Judgment,
para. 13 ;emphasis added). It also indicates that the Court need not "rc-
examine and redetermine the facts and reweigh the evidence" in each of
the 52 cases, becausethere are only two factual issueslo be resolved.The

first relates to the Mexican nationality of the individuals concernedand
the second to the violalions of Article 36, paragraph 1 (h) (CR2003124,
p, 27, para. 83, Babcock).

6. Mexico expresslyacknowIedges that, since the United States "has
chosen to vehementlydeny any wrongdoing". it isfor Mexico todemon-
strate in all2cases the alleged violations of Article 36, paragraph 1(b),
ofthe Vienna Convention (CR2003124, pp.29-30, para. 94, Babcock);
and it claimsit has mct this burden by providing lo theCourt the birth
certificates of these individuals, and declarations fro42 of them stating

their Mexican nationality.

7. Mexico maintained in the oral proceedings that all of them auto-
matically acquired jure soli Mexican nationality under Article 30 of its
Constitution. However Mexico did not present any evidence to demon-
strate thecontents of such Article 30.

8. Itwas for Mexico lo discharge this burden of proof because, as
Judge John E. Read recalled, "municipal Iaws arc merely facts which
express the wilIand constitute:the activities of States" indicating that this

ruIe had been established by the Permanent Court or International
Justice in a long scries of decisions and the following in particular:

"Poli.l-hUpper Sil~.~i- Series A, No. 7,page 19.
SerbianLoans - Series A, Nos. 20121,page 46.
Brazilidn Lman.r - SeriesA, Nos. 20121,page 124.
Lighlhouses Cuse (FrancelGreece) - Series A/B, No. 62, page 22. AVENA ETAUTRPS (OP. INU.I'ARRA-ARANGUREN) 85

parties (Appel concernant lu copnpklence du Cr>nsgilde I'OACI, urrgl,
C f.,R Jecueil 1972, p. 52, par. 13; Applicariode lu conveniionpour 10
privenlir~net la ripresriondu crimdc ginocide,except ionsprt2liminuir~s,
arrPt, C.I,J. Recueil 1996 (IIj, p. 622, par. 45). En outre, ainsi que le

Mexique le reconnait, les exceptions d'irreeevabilite, prescnties par les
Etats-Unis en Pantqu'exceptions preliminaircs, ctchevauchent largement
les arguments au fond,) (CR 2003124,p. 23, par. 59, Gbmez-Robledo).

5. Dans sa premiere conclusion finale,le Mexique pric la Cour de dire
etjuger notamment que ((lesEtaks-Unisd'AmCriqueont viole leurs obli-
gations juridiques internationales cnvers le Mexique,n son nom propre
cl dans l'exercicedu droit qu'a cet Etat d'assurer la protection diploma-
tique desesressortissanls)}pour ne s'Ctrepas confomCs au paragraphc 1
de E'articlc36de la convention de Vienne(arrkt, par. 13;lesitaliques sont
de rnoi). I1indique Cgalementquc la Cour ne doit pas (~[riexamineret] se

prononcer inouvcau sur lesfaits et..appricierA nouveau lesmoyens de
preuve>> dans chacun des cinquante-deux cas, para que seulesdeux ques-
tions factuelles doivent Etre tranchkes. La premiere concerne la nationa-
lite mexicaine des personnesconcernkeset la seconde, l'existencede vio-
lations des dispositions de l'alinka b) du paragraphe 1 de l'article 36
(CR2003124,p. 27, par. 83, Babcock).
5. Le Mexique reconnait expresskment que, puisque les Etats-Unis
({ant choisi de nier avec vkhimenccEtreles auteurs de la moindre infcac-
tion)),c'estau Mexiquequ'il incombe d'apporter la preuve dcs violations
allCguCesde I'alinCabj du paragraphe 1 de l'article 36 de la convention

de Vienne pour chacunc des cinquante-deux personnes citkes dans son
memoire (CR2003124,p. 29-30, par. 94, Babcock); et il soutienl qu'il
s'est acquittde cette charge enfournissant .h.la Courdes extraits d'acte
de naissance de cespcrsonnes ainsi queIcs dCclarations de quarantc-deux
d'entre elles attestant qu'elles sont de nationalitk mexicaine.
7.A I'audience,le Mexique a soutenu que toutcs ces personnes avaient
automatiquement acquis la nationaliti: rnexicaine envertu du drodu sol
prkvuk l'article30 desaConstitution. Toukfois, le Mexique nk produit
aucun element de preuvc pour Ctayer cekte affirmation concernant la
teneur de cet article 30.
8, Or, Eacharge d'une tcllepreuveincornbaitau Mexique car, ainsique
lejugc John E. Read I'arappel&, rlesloisnationales sont desimplesfaits,

manifestations de la volonte et de I'activitt des Etatsn, lejugc indiquant
ensuite quc cette regleavait CtCetablie par la Cour permanente de Justice
internationale dans une longue seriede decisions, notamment dans les
suivantes:
cHuuie-Silisie polonnise, sEriA no 7, p. 19.
Ernpruntsserbe.7,skrieA n09O/221,p. 46.
Empruntsbrtsiliens, sCrieA nu" 20121,p. 124.
dff~ir~dcsphures(FrancelGrece), skrieAll3 no 62, p. 22. Puaevezys-Sal&!iskis Railway Cuse - Series AIB, No. 76,
page 19." (Nutrebohm, Second Pha,~e, Judgment, I C.J. R~porls
1955, p. 35, dissenting opinion of Judge Read.)

9. Moreover it is a generally accepted principle.Opyenheinl'sInterna-
tional Law explains:
"From the standpoint of international law, a national law is gen-
erally regarded as a fact with reference to which rules of interna-

tional iaw have to be applied, rather than as a rule to be applied on
the international plane as a rule of law; and insofar as the Interna-
tional Court of Justice iscalled upon to express an opinion as to thc
effectof a ruleof national law it willdo so by treating the matter as
a question of fact to be established as such rather than as a question
of law to be decided by the court." (Oppenheim'slnl~rnationalLaw,
4th ed., edited by Sir Robert Jennings, Q.C., and Sir Arthur Watts,
K.C.M.G., Q.C., Vol. 1, "Peace", Introduction and Part 1, 1996,
p.83, para. 2 1.)

10. This notwithstanding, paragraph 57 of thc Judgment states:
"The Court findsthat it is for Mexico to show that the 52 persons
listed in paragraph 16 above held Mexican nationality at the time al'
their arrestThe Court notes that to this end Mexicohas produced
birth certificates and declarations of nationality, whose contents
have nol bcen challenged by the United Slates."

11. Etis difficult for me to agree with this conclusion bccause Mexico
has not discharged itsburden of proof. The declarations from 42 of all
the persons concerned are ex par& documents, which cannot, by them-
selves, demonstrate Mexican nationality; and thc birth certificatespre-
sented by Mexico for each of the 52 individuals undoubtedly demonstrate
that they were born in Mexico, but do not prove their Mexicannation-
ality because Mexico did not provide the text of Article 30 of the Mexi-
can Constitution. In view of this omission itcannot be established, from

thc evidence presented by Mexico, that the 52 pErSOnSidentified in its
Memorial automalicalIy acquired M~xicannationality at the time or their
birth by virtue of thc jus sola'.For this reason, unless I were to rely on
extralegal considerations, as thc Judgment itself does, I had no alterna-
tive but to conclude that the claims presented by Mcxico against the
United States cannot be upheld sincethe Mexican nationality of the 52
persons concerned was not demonstrated and this is, in the present case,
a necessarycondition for the application of Article 36 ofthe ViennaCon-
venlion and for Mcxico'sexerciseof its right to diplomatic protection of
its nationals. Therefore, inmy opinion, subparagraphs (41,(5), (61(7),
(8) and (9) of paragraph 153were lo be rejected. AVENA ET AUTRES (OF.IND. PAI~RA-AKANGUREN) 86

dffuirrcdu cherninde fkr Puaevezys-Suld~ti sCskeA~,IB no 76,
p. 19.}j(Nottebohrn,dcuxi2nre phase, arrcd, C.I.J. Recueil 1955,
p. 36, opinion dissidentc du luge Read.)

9. En outre, ils'agit18d'un principcgeneralernent admis. Oppcnheim's
InlcrnationulLaw I'expliquecomme suit :
c<Dupoint de vue du droit international, une loi nationale cst
gkneralerncnlconsiderie comme un fait par rapport auquel lesrkgles

de droit international doivent 2tre appliquees plutdt quc comme une
rkglei appliquer sur Icplan international en tant que rkgledcdroit ;
et, si la Cour internationalc de Justice est appeliedoliner un avis
quant aux effets d'une regle de droil interne, elle le fera en traitant
de la qucstion comme d'une question dc rail qrpidoit 2tre Ctablie
comme telle et non comme un point de droit qui doit etre tranchk
par la Cour. >)(cPeace - Introduction and Part 1 P, Oppenheina's
International Law, sir Robert Jennings et sir Arthur Watts (dir.
publ.), vol. 1,9" ed., 1496,p. 83, par. 21 [tratluction du Greffej.)

10. Nonobstant ce qui prkdde, la Cour dit au paragraphe 57de 1'arrEt:
({La Cour estime qu'il appartient au Mexique de dCrnontrer que
lescinquante-deux personnes identifccs au paragraphe 16 ci-dessus

ktaient de nationalilk mexicaineau moment de leur arrcstation. Elle
constate que le Mexiquc a produit a cet effet des extraits d'actde
naissancc et des dkclarations de nationalilk, dont le contenu n'a pas
Cti:contest6 par les Elals-Unis.,)
11. I1m'estdifficiledc souscrire a cette conclusion, car Ic Mcxique ne
s'estpas acquitte de lacharge de la preuve qui lui incombail. Les decla-

rations de quarante-deux des personnes concernkes sont dcs documents
unila~krauxqui ne peuvent en soi dernontrer la nationalite mexicaine de
ces personnes; et,siles cxtraits d'acte de naissance prksentks par le Me-
xique pour chacune des cinquantc-dcux personnes encause prouvent sans
aucun doute que celles-ci son1 nCes au Mexique, ces documenls ne
dtmontrent pas qu'elles on t la nationalit6 mexicaine, puisque le Mexiquc
n'a pas produit le texte de l'articlcde sa Constitution. Du fait dc cctte
omission, il ne peut 6tre Ctabli, sula base des klkments de preuve prC-
sentCs par leMexique, que les cinquante-deux personnes citCesdans son
rnkmoireont automatiquement acyuis la nationalit6 mexicaine k la nais-
sance en vertu du droit du sol. Pour ce motif, sauf h rn'appuycr sur des

considkrations J'ordre extra-legal, comme cela est faitdans l'arrEt,je ne
peuxque conclure que lesgrief'sSorrnulCspar le Mexique h I'encontre des
Etats-Unis ne sauraient Etreaccueillis,puisque la preuve de la nationalit6
mexicaine des cinquante-deux personnes concernCcsn'a pas kt6 ktablie,
alors qu'il s'agit1$ en I'cspkce,d'une condition nkcessaircpour l'appli-
cation de I'article36 de la conventionde Vienne et pour l'exercice,par le
Mexique, de son droit aassurer la protection diplornatique de ses ressor-
tistiants.Par conskquent,j'acstimi:qu'ilfallait rejeter lespolnts 4,6,7,
8 et 9du paragraphe 153. 12. Among the persons identified in Mexico's Memorial, the United
States provided proof that Enrique Zambrano was a United States
national. Then Mexicoamended its submissionson 28 November 2003to
withdraw the claim presentedin its own name and in exerciseof its right
of diplomatic protection, explaining that it did not contest,or the pur-
pose of this litigation, that dual nationals have no right to be advised,
under Article 36, paragraph I (B), of their rights lo consular notification
and access (CR2093124, p. 28, para. 87, Babcock).The withdrawal was
not objected to by the United States, as indicated in paragraph 7 of the
Judgment, and for this reason the case of Mr. Enrique Zambrano was
not examined.

13. Even though the question was not disputed between the Parties, it
is to be observed that the reasons given by Mexico for withdrawal in the
case ofMr. Enrique Zambrano findno support in the conclusions reached
by the luternational Law Commission in its recently prepared Draft
Articles on Diplomatic Protection. Article 6 thereof prescribes that

"A State of nationaiilymay not exercisediplomatic protection in
respect of a person against a State of which that person is also a
national unless the nationality of the former State is predominant,
both at thelime of the injury andat the date of the officialpresenla-
tion of the claim."

14. The lnternational Law Commission explains that the solution
adopted in Article 6followsthe position adopted in arbitral decisions,in

particular by the Italian-United States ConciEiation Commission, the
Iran-United Stales Claims Tribunal and the:United Nations Compensa-
tion Commission cstablished by the Security Council to provide for com-
pensation for damages caused by Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. Morc-
over, the International Law Commission indicates that it is consistent
with developmentsin international human rights law, whichaccords legal
protection to individuals even against Slate ofwhich theyare nationals.
It also specifiesthat the negative language used in thc provision "is
intended to show that the circumstances envisagedby article 6 are to be
regarded as exceptionat", making it clear "that the burden of proof is on
the claimant State to prove that its nationality is predominant" (United
Nations, Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-fourth Ses-
sion (29 April-7 June and 22 July-16August 2002), OSficialRecords of
the GenercrlAssembly, Fifir-seventh Session, Supplement No. 10 (A1571
101, pp. 169-1873,

15. Therefore, Draft Article 6 would have entitled Mexico to exercise AVENA ET AUTKtS (OF. IND. PARRA-.~RANGUREN) 87

12. Parmi les personnes citles dans le rnkrnoii-edu Mcxique, les Etats-
Unis on1 Eournila preuve que M. Enrique Zambrano Ctait un ressortis-
sant arnericain.Le Mexiquc a alors amende ses conclusions le 28 no-
vembre 2003 pour retirer la demande presentee en son nom propre et
dans l'exercicede son droit a assurer la protection diplomatique de ses
ressortissants, en expliquant qu'il ne contestait pas, cn I'espkce,que

I'obligation d'informer les ressortissants Ctrangers de leurs droits cn
maticre de notification consulaire et de communication entre consulats et
ressortissants itrangcrs decoulant de l'alinkab) du paragraphe 1de l'ar-
ticle 36 ne s'applique pas aux pcrsonnes ayant la double nationalitl
(CR2003124,p. 28, par. 87, Babcock). Comme cela est indiqui. au para-
graphe 7 de l'arrkt, lesEtats-Unis ne s'etaiepas opposes a ce retrait, et
le casde M. Entique Zambrano n'a donc pas Ctt examine.
13.Meme siles Parties n'ont pas contesti:ce point, ilconvient de noter
gue les raisons avancccs par le Mexiquepour justifier le retrait du cas de
M. Enrique Zambrano ne soot point eldykespar Ics conclusionsaux-
quclles est parvenue la Commission du droit international dans le projet
d'articles sur la protcclion diplomatique qu'elle a Ctabli rkcemment.

L'article 6 du projet d'articles dispose:
t4Un Etat dc nalionalite ne peut exercer la protection diploma-
tique;iI'Cgardd'une personne contrc un Elal dont cette personne est
kgalement un national, rimoins que la nationalitk prkdominanle de
cclui-cisoilcelledu premier Etat en question rant au moment ou le
dommage a ktkcausCqu'8 la date i laquelle la reclamation estoff-

ciellernenlprtscntee})
14. La Commission du droit inlcrnational explique que la solution
choisic hl'article 6 s'inspire de la position adoptdans diKbrentcssen-
tences arbitrales, renduecn particulier par la commission de conciliation
itala-americaine, leTribunal des rkclamatians Etats-Unidlran et la com-
mission de compensation dcs Nations Unies Ctablie par le Conseil de
securiti:pour indemniserlesdommagcscausCspar l'occupation iraquienne

du Kowe'it.En outre, la Commission du droit international indique que
cette solution est conformei i'kvolutiondu droit international relatif aux
droits de l'homme, qui accorde une protection juridique aux personnes
meme h I'Cgardd'un Etat dont elles sont les ressortissants. ElleprCcise
Cgalemenl que la tournure negative utiliske dans la disposition vise B
r<montrerque lescirconstances envisagks a l'article5 doivent Etrecansi-
dkreescornme exceptionnelles>),et souligne crquela charge de la preuve
incombe A 1'Etatqui prksente la riclamation, [lequel]daitprouvcr quc sa
nationalitk est prkdominante>>(Nations Unies, rapport de la Commission
du droit international, cinquante-qualriirne session (28 avril-7 juin et
22juillet-16 aoiit 20021Docurnenis rjJjcielsde I'Assenzblgintrale, cirn-
quanie-septikmesession,supplirnenrno 10, doc. A157110p , .169-187).

15. Par conskquent, au vu de l'article6 du projct d'articles, le Mexiquediplomatic protection on behalf of Enriquc Zambrano, upon presenting
evidence that he wasa Mexican national and that his Mexican ~zational-
ily predominated his United States nationality.

16. Paragraph 40 of Ihc Judgment examines the application orthc rule
of exhaustion of local remedieswhen dealing with the second preliminary
objection to admissibility presented by the United States.

17. It indicates:

"The Court would first observe that the individual rights of Mexi-
can nationals under subparagraph 1 (b) of Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention are rights which are to be asserted, at any rate in the
first place, within the domestic legal system of the United States.
Only when that processis completedand local remediesare exhausted
would Mexico be entilled to espouse the individual claims of its
nationals lhrough the procedure of diplomatic protection."

18. Paragraph 40 adds :
"In the present case Mexicodoes not, however, claim lo be acting
solely on that basis.11also asserts its own claims, basing Zhcmon the

injury which itcontends that it ho.v irselfsujj>red>direcrly and
rhro~igh irnafionais, as a result of the violatioby thc United States
of the obligat~ons incumbent upan it under Article 36, para-
graph 1 (a), (hj and (c)."

19. Then paragraph 40 recalls the LaGrund Judgmcnt, where it was
recognized that Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vicnna Conveotion
creates individual rights of the foreign national concerned which may be
invoked in this Court by the national State of the detained person (I.C.J.
R~PUTI2 S001, p. 444, para. 77). Paragraph 40 further observes

"that violations of the rights of the individual under Article 36 may
entail a violation of the rights of the sending State, and lhai viola-
tions of the rightsof the latter may entaila violation of the rights of
the individual. In these special circumstances of interdepcndcne of
the rights of the Siatc and of individual rights, Mexico may, in sub-

mitting a claim in its own narnc, request the Court to rule on the
violation of rights whichit claims to have suffered both directly and
through the violation of individual rights conferred on Mexican
nationals undcr Article 36, paragraph 1 (b) ."aurait pu exercer sa proleclion diplcl~natiqucen faveur de M. Enrique
Zambrano sur prksentation dc la prcuve que ce dernier Ctait un res-
sortissant mexicain et que sa nationalite rnexicainc Clail prkdominante
par rapport ;isa nationalitk amkricainc.

16. Au paragraphe 40 de I'arret, la Cour, trailant de la deuxikme

exception prkliminaire d'irrcccvabilili: prksen tke par les Etats-Unis,
examine I'application dc la r4gle de I'epuisement des voies de recours
internes.
17. Elleindique:
((La Cour fera d'abord observer que lesdroils individuels que les

ressortissants mexicains tirent de I'alinCahj du paragraphe 1 de
l'article6 de la convention deVienne sont des droits dont la rkalisa-
tion doit, cn toutcas en premier lieu, itre recherchee dans Ic cadre
du systgmejuridique interne des Etats-Unis. Cc n'est qu'une fois ce
processus mene B son lermc ct les voies de recours internes epuisees
quc Ic Mcxique pourrait hire siennes desdernandes individucllcsde
ses ressortissants par le micanisme de la protection diplomatique.))

18. Elle poursuit:
{(EnI'espkcele Mexique ne pretend cependant pas agir sculement
par ce mecanisme. 11prksente en outre des dernandes qui lui sont
propres en se fondant sur le prijudice qu'il declarc avoir subi hi-

rn611?el-,lirec!enaenijr fruver.sex ressorti.~.~untd,u fait de la vio-
lation par les Etats-Unis des obligations qui leur incornbent a
son Cgard cn vertu des alinkas u), 6) et r) du paragraphe 1 de
I'article6.n
19. Au m&mcparagraphe 40, elle rappelle ensuite I'arr2tLuGruncf,

dans lequel elle avail reconnu que I'alinCa6) du paragraphe 1 de l'ar-
ticle36 de la convention dc Vicnnecrkaitdes droits individuelspour leres-
sortissant Ctrangerconccrnd qui pouvaient dtre invoqub devant la Cour
par 1'Etatdont la pcrsonne ciitenue a la nationaliti. (C.I.J. Recu~i12001,
p. 494, par. 77). La Cour relcvccn outre au paragraphe 40 que
crtouteviolation des droits que l'individu tientde l'article 36 risque
d'entraher une violation des draits de 1'Elal d'cnvoi ct que toute

violation desdroits de cc dcrnier risque de conduire i une violation
dcs droils de I'individu. Dans ces circonstances toutes particulibes
d'interdependance des droits de I'Etat et des droits individuals, le
Mexique peut, ensournettant une demande cn son rrom propre, invi-
ter la Cour istatuer sur la violation desdroits dont il soutient avoir
Cte victime a la fois directement eth travers la violation des droits
individuels confkrCs a ses ressortissants par l'alinka bJ du para-
graphe 1de l'article 36)> 20. Paragraph 40 of the Judgment concludes :
"The duty to exhaust local remedies does not apply to such a
request. Further, forreasons just explained, the Court does not find
il necessarylo deal with Mexico'sclaimsol'violation under adistinct

heading of diplomatic protection. Without nceding to pronounce at
this junctureon the issues raised by the procedural default rule, as
explained by Mexico in paragraph 39 above, the Court accordingly
finds that the second objection by the United States to admissibility
cannot be upheld."

2 E. In my opinion, this conclusion is misleading. Paragraph 40 should
have stated that the local remediesrequirement does not apply when thc:
injury is claimed to have been done directly to the rights of Mexico and
not that itisnot applicable tothe claim made by Mexicoin its own name.
Now, the claims presented by Mexico in the exercise of'diplomatic pro-
tection of its nationals are claims of Mexico in its own right, as was
acknowledged in the well-knowndictum of the 30 August 1924Judgment
of the Pcrrnancnt Court of Tntcrnational Justice in the Muvromnquiis
Palesfine Concessionscase, where it wasspecifiedthat

"Bytaking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to
diplomatic action or international judicial proceedingson his behalf,
a State isin reality asserting its own right- its right to ensure, in
thc pcrson of its subjects, rcspccfor the:rulesof international law."
(JudgmentNo. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., SeriesA, No. 2, p. 12.)

22. This principle is generally accepted and has recently been repro-
duced in Article 1,paragraph I. of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Pro-
tection prepared by the Fnternational Law Commission, indicating that :

"Diplomatic protection consists of resort to diplomatic action or
other means of peaceful settlement by a State adopting in its own
right the cause of its national in respect of an injury to that national
arising from an internationally wrongful act of another State,"

23. Therefore, in the present case, the relevant element in deciding
whether local remedies had to be exhausted is whether Mexico was
directly injured by the actions of the United States. As the International
Law Commission explains
"The exhaustion of local remedies rule applies only to cases in

which the claimant Stale has been injured 'indirectly', that is,
through its national. It does not apply where the claimant State is
directly injured by the wrongful act of another State, as here the AVENA ET AUTRES (or.IND. PARRA-ARANCUREN) 89

20. La Cour tire la conclusion suivantedans cc paragraphe 40:
({L'obligationd'tpuiscr lcsvoiesde recours internes ne s'appfique
pasi une telledemande. Au demeurant, pour lesmotifs qui viennent

d'6tre exposes, la Cour n'estime pas nkcessairede traiter des de-
mandes mexicainesconcernant lesdilesviolalionssousI'angledistinct
dc laprotection diplomatique.Sansqu'ily ait lielicespaded'aborder
les questionssoulevkespar la rigle de la carence prockdurale, telles
qu'exposkespar le Mexique au paragraphe 39 ci-dessus, la Cour
conclwtquc la deuxikmeexception d'irrecevabiliti:sou1evCepar les
Etats-Unis ne saurait donc ktre accueilli)>

21. De mon point de vue, cette conclusioiiinduit en erreur. La Cour
aurait dd indiquer au paragraphe 40 que la rPgle de 1'Cpuisementdes
voiesde recours internes n'estpas applicabledans lecas oh il est allkgui
que leprkjudicea CtCcause directementaux droits du Mcxiqueau lieude
direque la reglene s'appliquepas a la demande formuleepar leMexique
en son nom propre. En l'espece,les demandes soumisespar le Mexique
dans le cadre de l'exercicede son droit a assurer la protection diploma-
tique de sesressortissantssont des demandes quele Mexique formule en
son norn propre, ainsi que la Cour perrnanente de Justice internationale
l'areconnu dans le cilkbre dictum de l'arr2t qu'ellea rendu en l'affaire

des C~jaces.vioasMuvxummr~tiseen Prslesrine,selon lequel,
cc[e]nprenant fait et cause pour l'undes siens, en mettant en mou-
vement, cn sa Iaveur, I'aclion diplomatique ou l'action judiciaire
internationalc,cetEtat fait,iivrai dire, valoir son droit propre, le
droit qu'il de faire respecter enla personne desesressortissants,le

droit international))urrztno 2, 19.24,C.P.J.I. skrit. An"2, p. 12).
22. C'est Iriun principegeneralementadmis, qui a kte repris derniire-
ment dans le paragraphc Ide l'articlepremier du projel d'articlessur la
protection diplomatique Ctahlipar la Commissiondu droit international,
cornmesuit :

cLa protection diplomatique consistedans lerccours riuneaction
diplomatique ou a d'aulrcs moycns de rkglcmcnt pacifique par un
Etat qui prend l'aitet cause, en son nom propre, pour l'un de scs
nationaux a raison d'unprijudice subipar ce dernierdkoulant d'un
fait internationalement illicited'un autre Etat.~

23. Dcs lors, l'dkmentpertinent quant au point dc savoir si lesrecours
internesdevaient2treepuisesest, enI'espkce,celuide savoir si leMexique
avait subi un prijudice direct rksultant du comportement des autoritis
americaincs.Comme la Commission du droil inlcrnational I'cxplique:

((Larkglede I'epuisementdes recours internesnes'appliquequ'aux
cas dans lcsquels1'Etatdemandeur a CtelCsC (<indirectement>>c',est-
8-direen la personnede son national. Elle nejoue pas lorsque 1'Etat
auteur de la reclamation est directement lesi:par le Eaitillicited'un

81 State has a distinct reason of its own for bringing an international

claim."
24. Consequen~lyArticle 9 or its Draft Arlicles on Diplomatic Protec-
tion provides that

"[ljocalremedies shallbe exhausted where an international claim, or
request.for a declaratory judgment related to the claim, is brought
preponderanlly on the basis of'an injury to a national or other pcr-
son rcfcrrcd to in articlc 7 [B]".
25. However the International Law Commission also observes that

"In practice it is difficult to decide whether the claim is 'direct'or
'indirect' whereit is 'mixed',in the sensethat it contains elements of
both injury to lhc Statc and injury to thc ~~ationalsof lhe State .. .
Io the case of a mixed claim it is incumbent upon the tribunal to
examine the different elements of the claim and to decide whether
the dirccl or the indirectelement is prepondcranl .. Closelyrelated
to the preponderance test is the sine qua non or 'but for' test, which
asks whether the claim comprising elements of both direct and
indirect injury would have been brought were it not for he claim
on behaif of the injured national. If this question is answercd ncga-

tively, the claim is an indirect one and local remedies must be
exhausted. There is, however, lillle lo distinguish the preponderance
testfrom the 'but for' test. If a claim is preponderantly based on
injury to a national this is evidence of the fact that the claim would
not have been brought but for the injury to the national. In these
circumstances the Commission preferred to adopt one test only -
that of preponderance." (United Nations, Report of the lntesna-
tional LawCommission, Fifty-fifthSession(5 May-6 June and 7July-
8 August 20031,Ofjcial Records oJ rhe General Assembly, Fqty-
eighih Scssion, Supplemen t No. 10 (AJ58/1O),pp. 89-90).

26. In the present case Mcxico has advanced, in its own right, a claim
against the United States. However, theapplication of Ihc cxhaustion of
local remediesrule depends not on whclhcr Mcxico presents the claim in
its own right, but Onwhether Mexico was directly irijured by the alleged
actions of the United States.

27. Mexico maintains that there was a breach by the United States of
the Vienna Convention, an unlawful act in the relalions bclwccn the
two Slates, on each occasionthe United States authorities did not inform
the Mexican nationals arrested of their rights under Articlc 36, para-
graph 1 (b). Consequently, Mexico'sclaim is a "mixed" claim, to use
the terminology of the International Law Commission, as recognized
in paragraph 40 of the Judgment where it is stated that there arc
"special circumstances of interdependence af he righls or the Slate and autre Etat, puisqu'ila alors lui-mEmeune riiisonparticuli2re d'intro-
duire une rCclamationinternationale.))
24. En conskquence, I'article 9 du projet d'articles de la Commission

sur la protection diplomatique dispose que
crles recours internes doivent Ctre epuisks lorsqu'une rkclamation
internationale, ou une dernandc dejugement diclaratif litc i la rkcla-
mation, repose principalernent sur un pr@judicecausCa un national
ou a une autre personnc visCe l'article 7 [BIN.

25. Tautefois, la Commission du droit international fait CgaIement
observer :

((En pratique, il est difficile de dkterrniner si la rcclamation est
crdirectN ou cindirecte)>lorsqu'elleccrnklange)>des Cltmcnlsconsti-
tutjfs dc prejudice pour 1'Etatet dcs klkmentsconstitutifs de preju-
dice pour scs nationaux ...Dans le cas d'une rklamation <cmjxre)>i,l
incombe au tribunal d'enexaminer lesdiffkrcnts ClCmentspour deci-
dcr si c'est l'ilkment direct ou indirect qui est prkponderant...Trks
proehe 6e celui de la prkpondkrance, le critire de la condition
sine quu non, ou {tenl'absencede)},pose la question de savoir si la
reclamation visant des ClCmentsde prkjudice tant direct qu'indirect
aurait Ctk introduite sans la dcmande pour le cornpte du national

lese. Si la rcponse est negative, la rcclamation est indirecte et les
recours internes doivent ktre Cpuises.Cela dil, il n'y a pas grand-
chose qui distinguc Ic critere de la prepondErance du critke cren
I'ahsence de)).Si unc rkclamation repose pour unc part prkpondk-
rante sur le prkjudicccausCBun national, cela 6tablil qu'ellen'aurait
pas Cti:introduite en I'abscnce de ce prijudice. Dans ccsconditions,
la Commission a prefere n'adopter qu'un seul critere - celui de la
pripondirancc. >)(Nations Unies, rapport de la Commission du
droit international, cinquante-cinquieme scssion (5 mai-6 juin et
7juillet-8aoiil2003), Docurnenr.o~rficir~lstieI'As,ronblbegkntrule, uin-

quunle-huili&me ,sc.s=~isu,yplinzenl a" 10, doc. A1581 1,p. 89-90.)
26. Dans la prksente affairc, le Mexique a, en son nom propre, intro-
duit unc instance contre les Elals-Unis. Cependant, ['application de la
reglede I'kpuisementdes voicsde recours internes ne dkpend pas du point
de savoir si le Mexique prCscntesa rkclamation en son norn propre mais
s'il a subi un preludicc resultant du comportcment qu'auraient eu les
Elats-Unis.

27. LCMexique soutient yue les Etats-Unis ont violcla convention de
Vietine,qu'il y a eu fait illicitedans Icsrelations entre lesdeux Etats, que,
dans chaque cas, Icsautoritks arnCricaincsn'ont pas inform&les rcssor-
tissc~ntmexicainsarrgtes des droits qu'ilstiennenl del'alinkabJ du para-
graphe 1 de l'article 36. En consequenc le,rkclamation du Mexique
cons~itue une rkclamation ccmixtei>p ,our reprcndrc la terminologie de la
Commission du droit international, ainsi qu'elle estreconnue au para-
graphe 40de I'arrtt, dans lequella Cour a indiqukqu'ilexistedes {(circons-of individual rights". Therefore, it was for the Court to determine
whether Mexico'sclaim was preponderantly basedon injury to anationaI
and would not have been brought but Torthe injury to its national.

28. In my opinion, Mexico wouldnot have presented its claimagainst
the United States but for the injursy uffered by its nationals. Conse-
quently the IocaI remediesrule applies to the claims "in its own right"
submittcd by Mexicoin its first final submissionand therefore the Court
should have examined eachof the individual casesto determinewhether
the local remedieshad been exhausted, which do not includc "approach
to the executiveFor reliefin the exercise of itsdiscretionary power. . .

remedies as of grace or those whose 'purpose is to obtain a favour and
not to vindicate a right'". If that was not case, the claims presented by
Mexicoin the exerciseof diplomatic protection of itsnationals wereta be
dismissed,unless coveredby any of thecustomarily accepted exceptions
to the local remedies rule, taking into consideration Article 10of the
Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection prepared by thc International
Law Commission (United Nations, Report of the International Law
Commission,Fifty-fifthSession(5 May-6 June and 7July-8 August 2003),
Oflcia Rlecords ofthe General Assembly, Fgdy-eigh th Session,Supple-
ment No. 10 (A/S8110),pp. 88, 92-102). Therefore, it is not possible for
me to agreewiththeconclusion reachedinparagraph 40 of the Judgment.

29. On 14 February 2002, the Court stated:
"The Court would recall the well-established principlethat 'itis
the duty of the Court not onlyto replyto thc questions as statein
the finalsubmissionsof theparties, but also to abstain fromdeciding

pointsnot includedin those submissions'(Asylum,Judgment,I. C.J.
Reports 1950, p.402).Whilethe Court is thus not entitled to decide
upon questions not asked OF it, the non ultpetitu rule nonetheless
cannot precludethe Court from addressingcertain legalpoints in its
reasoning."(Arrest Warrunf ~lII April2000 (Democralic Republic
of theCongov. Belgium),Judgment,I. C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 18-19,
para. 43.)
30. In my opinion this statement supports the followingobservations
on the Judgment in the present case.

31. In its first final submission Mexico requeststhe Court to adjudge
and declare: AVENA ET AUTKES (OP. IND. PARRA-AHAWGURFN) 91

tances toutes particulikres dlintcrdCpendance des droits de 1'Etatet des
droirs individuels)). I1apparkenait, par condquent, ;ila Cour de dCtermi-
ncr sila reclamation du Mexique Ctait fondkc de rnanikre prkpondlrante
sur Ic prkjudice subi par ses ressortissants et si cette rkclamation aurait
Cgalement C1cintroduite sans la dernande pour Eecompte de son national
I@sC.
28. Je suis d'avis quc 1cMexique n'aurait pas introduit sa riclamation
contre les Etaw-Unis sans la demande pour le prejudice subi par ses res-

sortissants. En consequence, la rkglede l'epuisement des voies de rccours
interncs s'applique aux demandes presentees par le Mexique <(enson
norn propro} dans sa premiere conclusion finale et, par suite, la Cour
aurait d6 examiner chacun des cas individuels pour dktermincr siles voies
de recours intcrrlesavaient etCCpuiskcs,ce qui n'inclut pas dc ccs'adresser
A l'exkcutifpour que celui-ci lui octroic reparation dans l'exercicede ses
pouvoirs discrktionnaircs ...les recours gracicux, ni ceux dont {clebut csl
d'obtenir une faveur et non dc faire valoir un droit>)>}S. i tel n'avait pas
ktk le cas, les demandes presentkes par le Mexique dans I'excrcicede son

droit riassurer la protection diplomatiquc de ses ressortissants auraient
d6 &Irerejetkes, h moins qu'elles n'aient ete couvertes par l'une qucl-
conque des exceptions reconnueb a la r2gle de I'epuisement des voies de
rccours internes, au sens de l'article 19du projet d'articles sur la protec-
tion diplornatique ktabli par la Commission du droit international
(Nations Unics, rapport de la Commission du droit intcmational, cin-
quante-cinquieme session (5 mai-6 juin et 7 juillet-8 ao6t 2003), Docu-
men rs officieisrfe I'A.s.srikegitlimie, cinyuuntci-huiliPrnesession, sup-

pbhnent n"10, doc. A/58110, p. 88, 92-102). Par consequent, je nc puis
souscrire A la conclusion B laquelle la Cour est parvenue au para-
graph~ 40 de IYarr2t.

29. Le 14fevricr 2002, la Cour a dit:

crLa Cour rappellera Icprincipe bien etabli sclon lequel elle a ale
devoir de repondre aux demandes des parlics telles qu'elles s'cx-
priment dans leurs conclusions finales, mais aussi celui de s'abslenir
de statuer sur des points non compris dans lesdites demandcs ainsi
exprimCes>) (Dmil d'usifr, urrPr,C.I.J. Rucueii 19.50,p. 402). Si la
Cour ne peut donc pas trancher des questions qui ne lui ont pas Ctk

soumises, en revanche la rkglenoraulrrra pefizane saurail I'ernpecher
d'aborder certains points de droit dans sa motivation.^ (Munduf
n'arr&t du I1 uvril2000 (R&puhliquedemocralique ~fuCongo c. Rel-
giquc), arrit,C.I.J. Rcctreil2002, p. 18-19,par. 43.)
30. Cette dklaration vient, selon moi, a l'appui dcs observations sui-

vanles sur I'arrit rendu en l'espkce.
31. Dans sa prenti2re conclusion finale, le Mexiquc,prie la Cour de
dire eljuger que: "That the Unitcd States of America, in arresting, detaining, try-
ing, convicting, and sentencing the 52 Mexican nationals on death