INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2008/15
5 June 2008
Mexico files a Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the case
concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)
and asks for the urgent indication of provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 5 June 2008. Today Mexico filed a Request for interpretation of the
Judgment delivered on 31 March 2004 by the Inte rnational Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case
concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America).
Mexico invokes Article 60 of the Statute of th e Court, which provides that: “In the event of
dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgmen t, the Court shall construe it upon the request of
any party.” A request for interpretation opens a new case. Mexico notes that in previous cases, the
Court ruled that its jurisdiction to provide an in terpretation of one of its own judgments “[was] a
special jurisdiction deriving directly from Article 60 of the Statute”.
In its Request Mexico recalls that, in the above-mentioned Avena Judgment, the Court
inter alia found “that the United States had breached Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations in the cases of 51Mexican nati onals by failing to inform them... of their
rights to consular access and assistance”; and that the Court determined, in paragraph153(9) of
the Judgment, the remedial obligations incumbent upon the United States. Mexico contends that “a
fundamental dispute” has arisen “between the parties as to the scope and meaning” of
paragraph 153 (9) and that the C ourt needs “to provide guidance to the parties”. It therefore seeks
the interpretation of said paragraph, which reads as follows:
“153. For these reasons,
The Court, . . .
(9) By fourteen votes to one,
Finds that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the United
States of America to provide, by means of its ow n choosing, review and reconsideration of the
convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals referred to in subparagraphs (4), (5), (6) and (7)
above, by taking account both of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Convention
and of paragraphs 138 to 141 of this Judgment.”
In its Request for interpretation, Mexico states that it “understands the operative
language . . . of the Avena Judgment to establish an obligation of result incumbent upon the United
States” while “it is clear that the United Stateunderstands the Judgment to constitute merely an
obligation of means”. Mexico explains that “w hile the United States may use ‘means of its own
choosing’ under paragraph 153 (9) [of the Court’s Judgment], the obligation to provide review and
reconsideration is not contingent on a success of any one means. As a result, the United States
cannot rest on a single means chosen; it must provi de the requisite review and reconsideration and
prevent the execution of any Mexican national name d in the Judgment unless and until that review - 2 -
and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted from the violation”.
Mexico further asserts that “requests by the Mexi can nationals for the review and reconsideration
mandated in their cases by the Avena Judgment have repeatedly been denied”. It also states that
“on 25March2008, the Supreme Court of th e United States determined in the case of
José Ernesto Medellín Rojas . . . that the Judgment itself did not directly require U.S. courts to
provide review and reconsideration under domestic law” and that “w hile expressly recognizing the
United States obligation to comply with the Judgment under international law, [it] further held that
the means chosen by the President of the Un ited States to comply were unavailable under the
U.S.Constitution and indicated alternate means involving legislation by the U.S. Congress or
voluntary compliance by the State of Texas”. Mexi co adds that “it understands the United States
obligation under paragraph153(9) to extend to taking the steps set forth by the Supreme Court,
including legislative action at the federal or state levels or compliance by state courts or the state
legislatures”.
In its Request for interpretation, Mexico goes on to explain that, since the decision of the
Supreme Court was issued, “Texa.s ..h as scheduled MrM . edellín for execution on
5August2008”. It insists that “the actions of Texas, a political subdivision of the United States,
engage the international responsibility of the United States” and that “the United States cannot
invoke its municipal law as justification for failure to perform its international legal obligation
under the Avena Judgment”. It also observes that “at least four more Mexican nationals are also in
imminent danger of having execution dates set by the State of Texas”.
Accordingly, Mexico asks the Court “to adj udge and declare that the obligation incumbent
upon the United States under paragraph 153 (9) of the Avena Judgment constitutes an obligation of
result as it is clearly stated in the Judgment by the indication that the United States must provide
‘review and reconsideration of the convictions a nd sentences’ but leaving it the ‘means of its own
choosing’;
and that, pursuant to the foregoing obligation of result,
(1) the United States must take any and all steps ne cessary to provide the reparation of review and
reconsideration mandated by the Avena Judgment; and
(2) the United States must take any and all step s necessary to ensure that no Mexican national
entitled to review and reconsideration under the Avena Judgment is executed unless and until
that review and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted
from the violation.”
Today Mexico also filed in the Registry an urgent Request for the indication of provisional
measures in accordance with Article 41 of the Statut e. This article provides that “the Court shall
have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provision or measures
which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either Party”. Mexico explains that
“provisional measures are clearly justified in order both to protect Mexico’s paramount interest in
the life of its nationals and to ensure the Court’s ability to order the relief Mexico seeks”.
Contrary to a request for interpretation, a re quest for the indication of provisional measures
does not open a new case but opens an incidental phase within an existing case.
Mexico requests the Court to indicate the following measures:
“(a)that the Government of the United States take all measures necessary to ensure that
Josérnesto Medellín, César Roberto Fie rro Reyna, Rubén Ramírez Cárdenas,
Humberto Leal García, and Roberto Moreno Ramos are not executed pending the conclusion of
the proceedings instituted this day; - 3 -
(b)that the Government of the United States inform the Court of all measures taken in
implementation of subparagraph (a); and
(c) that the Government of the United States ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the
rights of Mexico or its nationals with respect to any interpretation this Court may render with
respect to paragraph 153 (9) of its Avena Judgment.”
___________
The full text of Mexico’s Application for inte rpretation and of its request for the indication
of Provisional Measures will shortly be available on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org).
___________
Information Department:
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Messrs. Boris Heim and Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Assistant Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Mexico files a Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) and asks for the urgent indication of provisional measures