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) (Mexico v. United States of America) - Court t

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. 2009/1
8 January 2009

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)
(Mexico v. United States of America)

Court to deliver its Judgment on Monday 19 January 2009 at 3 p.m.

THE HAGUE, 8 January 2009. On Monday 19 January 2009, the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of th e United Nations, will deliver its Judgment in the

case concerning the 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) (Mexico v.
United States of America).

A public sitting will take place at 3 p.m. at th e Peace Palace in The Hague, during which the
President of the Court, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, will read the Court’s Judgment.

History of the proceedings

On 5 June 2008, Mexico filed a Request fo r interpretation of the Judgment delivered on
31March2004 by the Court in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals

(Mexico v. United States of America) . In its Request, Mexico invoked Article 60 of the Statute of
the Court, which provides that: “In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the
judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the requ est of any party.” A request for interpretation
opens a new case. Mexico noted that the Court had ruled in previous cases that its jurisdiction to
provide an interpretation of one of its own judgments “[was] a special jurisdiction deriving directly

from Article 60 of the Statute”. Mexico recalled that, in the Avena Judgment, the Court, inter alia,
had found “that the United States had breached Article 36 of the Vienna C onvention [on Consular
Relations] in the cases of 51 of the Mexican nationals by failing to inform them . . . of their rights
to consular access and assistance” and further recalled that the Court had determined, in
paragraph153(9) of the Judgment, the remedial obligations incumbent upon the United States.

Mexico contended that “a fundamental dispute” had arisen “between the parties as to the scope and
meaning” of paragraph 153 (9) and that the Court needed “to provide guidance to the parties”. It
therefore sought the interpretation of that paragraph, which reads as follows:

“153. For these reasons,

The Court . . .

(9) By fourteen votes to one, - 2 -

Finds that the appropriate reparation in this case consists in the obligation of the
United States of America to provide, by means of its own 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 Article36 of the [Vienna] Convention [on Consular Relations]
and of paragraphs 138 to 141 of [the present] Judgment.”

In its Request for interpretation, Mexico stated 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 States understands the Judgment to constitute merely an

obligation of means”. Mexico argued that “wh ile 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 the 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
and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted from the violation.”

Mexico went on to explain that Texas ha d scheduled the execution of Mr. José Ernesto

Medellín Rojas, one of the Mexican nationals mentioned in the Avena Judgment, for
5 August 2008. It stressed the fact that “[t]he 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 observed that “at least four more Mexican nationals
are also in imminent danger of having execution dates set by the State of Texas”.

Accordingly, at the end of its Request, Mexico asked the Court:

“to adjudge 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 i ndication that the United States must provide

‘review and reconsideration of the convi ctions and 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 necessary to provide the reparation of
review and reconsideration mandated by the Avena Judgment; and

(2) the United States must take any and all steps necessary to ensure that no Mexican
national entitled to review and r econsideration 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.”

Mexico’s Request was accompanied by a requ est for the indication of provisional measures
in order to preserve its rights pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits, in particular
“Mexico’s paramount interest in the life of its nationals” (see Press Release No.2008/15 of

5 June 2008). Public hearings were held on 19 an d 20 June 2008 to hear the oral arguments of the
Parties on the request for the indication of provisiona l measures. In its Order of 16 July 2008, the
Court declared, inter alia, that the United States of America should take “all measures necessary” to
ensure that five Mexican nationals, including Mr .Medellín, were not executed pending its final

Judgment (see Press Release No. 2008/20 of 16 July 2008). On the same day, after consulting the
Parties, the Court, pursuant to Article 98, paragra ph 3, of the Rules of Court, fixed 29 August 2008
as the time-limit for the submission by the United States of its written observations on the Request
for interpretation filed by Mexico. - 3 -

On 5 August 2008, Mr. Medellín was executed in Texas, United States of America.

In its written observations submitted on 29August2008, the United States indicated in
particular that it “agrees with Mexico’s requ ested interpretation [and ] agrees that the Avena
Judgment imposes an ‘obligation of result’”, before concluding that “[t]here is thus nothing for the
Court to adjudicate, and Mexico’s application must be dismissed”.

By letters of 2 September 2008, the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court had decided
to afford each of them the opportunity of furnis hing further written explanations, which they did
within the fixed time-limits. In its further written explanations, the Government of Mexico

reiterated the claims contained in its Request, and asked the Court to adjudge and declare “that the
United States breached the Court’s Order of 16July2008 and the Avena Judgment by executing
José Ernesto Medellín Rojas without having provided him review and recons ideration consistent
with the terms of the Avena Judgment”.

The Government of the United States, in its further explanations, repeated its contention that
it shared the interpretation of the Avena Judgment put forward by Mexico, and requested the Court
to dismiss Mexico’s claims as set out in the latter’s further written explanations.

Following the filing of these further explanations, the Court did not deem it necessary to
hold hearings in the case, thus abiding by its previous practice.

*

NOTE TO THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

1. The public sitting will be held in the Gr eat Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace in
The Hague, Netherlands. Mobile telephones and beepers are permitted in the courtroom provided

they are switched off. Any offending device will be temporarily retained.

2. Media representatives are subject to an accreditation procedure, the details of which
can be found in the Media Advisory No. 2009/a attached to this Press Release.

3. Individual visitors (with the exception of members of the Diplomatic Corps) and groups
are subject to an admission procedur e. They are kindly requested to give advance notification of

their attendance by filling out the relevant form on the C ourt’s website (to the right of the screen
under Calendar, click on “Attending a Hearing”, then under “Admission for individuals” or
“Admission for groups”, click on “Online Application Form”).

4. At the end of the sitting, a Press Release, a summary of the Judgment and the full text of
the Judgment will be distributed. All of these docum ents will be made available at the same time
on the Court’s website.

___________

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)
Mrs. Barbara Dalsbaek, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0) 70 302 2396)