EMBAJADA DE MÉXICO
PBA-03026
The Hague, 26 November 2003
Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague
The Netherlands
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Dear Sir:
On Mexico's behalf, and in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court, I
write to request leave to submit a number of strictly selected additional documents to
address certain arguments made by the United States in its Counter-Memorial.
***
On 5 February 2003, in its Order indicating provisional measures, the Court stated
that it was "clearly in the interest of both Parties that their respective rights and
obligations be determined definitively as early as possible" and that it was "therefore
appropriate that the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, ensure that a final
judgment be reached with all possible expedition." Avena and Other 1'vfexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America), Request for the Indication of Provisional
Measures, Order of5 February 2003, para. 57.
In view of the Court's Order, Mexico and the United States agreed to limit the
written phase of the proceedings to one round of pleadings, consisting of a Memorial by
Mexico and a Counter-Memorial by the United States. The Parties also agreed to file the
written pleadings within a tight time-limit of originally four and later four and a half
months.
On 20 June 2003, Mexico filed its Memorial. In accord with Practice Direction
III, in which the Court "strongly urge[d] parties to append to their pleadings only strictly
Burgemee ~atnaan 1930.25~5CB The Hague. ;\letherlanùs. Ph131-70_"<60.::General anC~>n~u .fais 1:
3454058 !CulturaAffairs\'45:!569iPolitic.-\ffairsL Fax: <31-70) 3560543· !Geanda:;()17t1iC.liNilarl. .
EMBAJADA DEMÉXICO
1
selected documents," Mexico deliberately limited the factual materials it submitted in
arder to ensure that, on the one band, it supplied evidence sufficient to support its daims,
but, onthe other, did not unduly burden the resourcesof the Court.
Specifically, as Annex 7 to its Memorial, Mexico submitted a swom statement by
Ambassador Rodriguez Hernandez, the Director General for Protection and Consular
Affairs at Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Relations, and bencethe official responsible for
supervision of Mexico's consular protection program. In that statement, Ambassador
Rodriguez set forth the essential facts with regard to each of the fifty-four cases. He
based his declaration on the extensive documentation gathered by Mexican consular
officiaisin the United States, as weil as interviews conducted by Mexican consular
officiais and lawyers working for the Mexican capital assistance program. 2 Mexico also
submitted six other declarations and a number of additional documents, which, although
strictly limited and carefully selected,cover more than 1100 pages in three volumes of
Annexes. On filing its Memorial, Mexico advised the Court that it was "prepared to
submit to the Court any of the documents cited to in the Memorial and the expert 3nd
witnessdeclarations contained in the Annexes to the Memorial, if so requested."
Had Mexico submitted a full documentary record for each of the fifty-four
nationals, in arder to anticipate any possible factual allegations by the United States,
Mexico would have submitted dozens of volumes of annexes, consisting of many
thousands of pages of documentation gathered and produced by Mexico's forty-five
consular offices in the United States, including voluminous excerpts from consular files,
court transcripts, excerpts from legal briefs, and excerpts from habeas corpus
proceedings. The magnitude of this submission would have placed an enormous burden
on the Members of the Court, who would have studied the record, and on the staff and
budget of the Court's Registry, which would have had to provide the Court with
4
translations.
1The Court issued Practice Direction III in order to address "an excessive tendency towards the
proliferation and protractionnnexes to written pleadings."
2See also Mexico's Memorial, Declaration of Ambassador Rodriguez Hernandez, Annex 7, at para. 40.
3
Letter dated 20 June 2003 of the Agent of Mexico to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.
4
The United States itselfacknowledges the enormity ofthe full factual record of the 54 cases. Mexico's
claims arise from proceedingscourts in the United States, and thus, in order to conduct its
investigation, theted States could cali upon the full resources of the Department of Justice, the
Attorneys Generalf the severa! states in which the prosecutions took place, and the offices ofthe
local prosecutors. Yet the United States advises that it has "been unable to review the complete
recordin each case." Declaration P.W. Mason, U.S. Counter-Memorial, Annex 2etseq.The
United States explains: "The records in most of the 54 cases consist ofthousands of pages of
21618869v5
Burg~mee Pstjean 1930.25~ 5B The Hague. Netherlands. Phones: (~60291 0G~ner aadlConsular .\rf1:rs
U<;.lf lrni~tuArfi<t·lU'ï""AU IPnliricAffairsl. Fax: 131-7.:;560 tG~neal) and .:;6t768tCon~ulan.EMBAJAOA DE MÉXICO
On November 3, 2003, the United States filed its Counter-Memorial.
Notwithstanding Mexico's factual showing, the United States contended that Mexico had
failed to submit sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proof that (1) the individuals
who are the subject of the Application are Mexican nationals, and (2) in each of their
cases the competent authorities of the United States failed to provide. the consular
notification required by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 5 ..
The United States also made a series of affirmative factual allegations, most of them ..
unsupported on their own terms.
* **
In order to address the suggestion of the United States that Mexico has not proven
the requisite nationality or the alleged violation with respect to the individuals who are
the subject of its Application, Mexico seeks leave, pursuant to Article 56 of the Rules of
Court, to submit the documents enclosed with this letter as Annexes 67 to 71. In
Mexico's view, the evidence included with its Memorial fully suffices to prove the facts
on which this Court's Judgment should rest. However, unlike in the case concerning the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of Germany) and
in LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), the United States has chosen not to
concede the violations that, in many of the underlying cases, have already been conceded
or determined in courts in the United States and, in the remainder, should not be subject
to serious dispute. Given the United States' position here, Mexico seeks leave to submit
the enclosed documents in order to eliminate any possible doubt about the basic facts of
the case before this Court.
In order to comply with Practice Direction Ill, Mexico has again carefully limited
its submission so as to minimize any burden on the Court. Given the short period of time
between the filing of the Counter-Memorial by the United States on 3 November 2003,
and the opening of the hearings on 15 December 2003, Mexico has also made its best
efforts to produce these documents as expeditiously as possible, in order to allow the
United States sufficient time to review them. In addition, on Wednesday, 26 November
2003, consistent with the courtesies that the Parties have extended one another, Mexico
provided a copy of these documents directly to the United States so as to avoid any
possible delay.
transcripts and, except in cases in which the fust stage of appeal is still pending, hundreds of pages of
legal briefs and memoranda." Indeed, though the United States has had Mexico's Application since
early January, it advises the Court that even on the datee filing of the Counter-Memorial, sorne
ten months later, its investigation of the underlying cases was stiJl "ongoing." U.S. Counter
Memorial, Chapter VII,'I7.1.
5
U.S. Counter-Memorial, Chapter VII, pp. 147 et seq.
21618869v5
Burgemeester Patijnlaan 1930. 25H5 CB The Hague. Netherlanùs. Ph31-70) 360:!9001General anù Cnnsular .-\t1:irs
>'""·'"".r ..•···.u'f;r,.,1-J.:;")oPnliri,.,Aff,irl~="x· i'\l-701''i605-B·tGenerallanù 36176SS 1Consulan. * **
EMBAJADA DEMÉXICO
Mexico seeks leave to submit three categories of documents.
1. Nationality. Mexico established the nationality of each of the fifty-four
nationals in the Declaration of Ambassador Rodriguez. The General Division of
Protection and Consular Affairs supervises the network of Mexican consulates and the
consular services they provide. One of the primary functions of the consulates, in turn, is
to confirm and document the nationality of Mexican nationals within their respective
jurisdictions for a variety of purposes, such as the issuance of ID cards and passports,
arrangements in case of death, and notification pursuant to Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention. The Declaration of Ambassador Rodriguez therefore provides sufficient and
conclusive evidence of the Mexican nationality of each of the fifty-four individuals.
a. Mexico 'saffirmative proof The United States contends, however, that Mexico
has failed to prove the Mexican nationality of the individuals narned in the Application.
U.S. Counter-Memorial, para. 7.7. Since the United States has contested the adequacy of
the showing, Mexico seeks leave to submit (a) the birth certificates of, with one
exception, 6 each of the individuals narned in its Application; (b) declarations, from each
of the 41 Mexican nationals as to which there is no record of a judicial finding of an
Article 36 violation from a United States court or a stipulation of such a violation, that
they have not acquired U.S. nationality; 7 and (c) certain additional documents
establishing Mexican nationality. These documents are attached as Annexes 67, 70 and
68, respectively.
b. US. defense of dual nationa/ity. The United States alleges that there is a
"substantial possibility" that sorne Mexican nationals "were also United States citizens at
the time oftheir arrests." U.S. Counter-Memorial, para. 7.8. The United States does not
adduce a single document to support this allegation. Indeed, even though in the United
States immigration and naturalization are the province of the federal government, the
United States concedes that it cannot "confmn[]" its allegation. Id.
6 In the time available, Mexico was unable to obtain the birth certificate of Abelino Manriquez Jaquez
(# 14). For his nationality, which the United States does not appear to seriously contest (see U.S.
Counter-Memorial, Annex 2, A 131), Mexico rests on the Rodriguez Declaration.
7 Because Mexican nationality would constitute a predicate to an Article 36 violation premised on failure to
notify the Mexican consul, a finding or concession of a violation would also constitute a finding or
concession ofMexican nationality.
8
See also id. n. 334 (suggesting that parent ofspecific national is "likely [a] United States citizen" and that
there is "sorne possibility" that certain nationals acquired U.S. citizenship).
21618869v5
BurgemeesterPatijnlaa1930. ~5HC5B The: Hague. NetherlanPhones:31-701 3602900!General :.ù\msular .-\lf1:rs
1.l"i40"itrnlrnr'Affair1~ .i'"if..tPoliri .\f~fai ra:l131-701 35o05.B·!General);md ~61768 8C•lllsulan.EMBAJADA DE MÉXICO
While the United States' candor on the point should be applauded, its decision to
raise the issue should not. lt is well-established that a respondent alleging a specifie fact
in its defense carries the burden to prove that fact. Temple of Preah Vihear, Merits,
Judgment, LC.J. Reports 1962, p.6, 16-16 ("burden of proof ... will of course lie on the
party asserting or putting" forward claim on series of facts or contentions); Minquiers
and Ecrehos, Judgment, LC.J. Reports 1953, p.47 ("each Party has to prove ... the facts
upon which it relies"); Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, 1925, P.C.LJ., Series A,
No. 5, p.29 (respondent alleging that concessions were not valid had burden to prove
invalidity). Renee, the United States bears the burden of proving that any specifie
individual named in the Application had U.S. nationality in addition to Mexican
nationality. If it cannot do so, it should not make the allegation.
That point carries special force here, because it is the United States- not Mexico
- that possesses the necessary information to establish whether an individual has United
9
States citizenship. As the United States acknowledges, the INS keeps extensive record
10
files("A files") for all naturalized citizens. The United States should therefore be able
to provide documents demonstrating U.S. citizenship if, in fact, any of the Mexican
11
nationals had acquired it. It has not, and it therefore should not be permitted to contest
Mexico's showing.
Again, however, in order to eliminate any conceivable doubt, Mexico seeks leave
to submit the declaration of Karen F. Ellingson, Esq. Ms. Ellingson is an attorney
specializing in immigration law and serves as an Adjunct Professer at the Immigration
Clinic of the University of Minnesota School of Law. ln her declaration, Ms. Ellingson
concludes that, based on the lack of any apparent documentation regarding U.S.
nationality, the highly rigorous requirements for acquiring U.S. nationality, and the
known facts regarding the nationals' parentage and date ofentry into the United States, it
9See U.S. Counter-Memorial, Declaration ofD. Gentile, Annex 19. See also id., Declaration ofE.A.
Betancourt, Annex 18, para. 7.
10The United States suggests that Mexican nationals may have acquired U.S. citizenship either because one
oftheir parents may have been a U.S. citizen or because they moved as minors to the United States. It
does not deny, however, that in either case the Mexican national would have received U.S. nationality
by means of a forma! process of naturalization.
11
The only case in which the United States has provided proof of U.S. nationality is that ofMr. Enrique
Zambrano (#28). Having considered that proof, Mexico is satisfied that Mr. Zambrano possesses U.S.
nationality, and consequently, by a letter dated this date to the Registry, has advised the Court that it
amends its submissions to withdraw its request for relief in his case.
2161BB69v5
Burgemeester Patijnlaan 1930. 2585 CB The Hague. :'>letherl<mds.Phones: t.'l-70) 3602900 tG<!neral and Consular .\tïairs 1:
~··-··"-n,,.•· ·-·.\ ....•."l-1.:;.'1.t:::.....l.n·.,;t:=·•vt~l_ï()\~C\f\1\'1.l~·"n~r:1:l) "'fli76XX1rt)n...1.1hr\EMBAJADA DE MÉXICO
is highly unlikely that any of the Mexican nationals subject of the Application have
acquired United States citizenship. She also observes that, where, as here, a claim of
U.S. citizenship for a person born abroad is at issue, documentation of naturalization
would be normally available from United States immigration records and under the
exclusive control of the United States. Ms. Ellingson's declaration is attachedas Annex
69.
2. Article 36 violations. Mexico established the Article 36 violations by the
evidence subrnitted with its Memorial. First, in ten cases, U.S. courts havefoundthat the
United States violated Article 36(1)(b). Mexico included extracts from the relevant
decisions as Annexes to its Memoria1. 12
Second, in an eleventh case, the United States entered into a stipulation
acknowledging that it violated Article 36(1)(b). Mexico submitted the stipulationas an
13
Annex toits Memorial.
Final/y, Ambassador Rodriguez testified in his declaration as to the violation of
Article 36(1)(b) in the case of, with one exception, each of the fifty-four Mexican
14
nationals. He based this testimony on interviewswith the fifty-four Mexicannationals,
12 Jmirez Suarez (#10), Mexico's Memorial, Annex 36, at A706; see also A62, para. 54; Eduardo Vargas
(#26), Annex 35, at A699; see also A81, para. 139; Hemândez Llanas (#34), Annex 50 at Al037;
see also at A94, para. 200; Sanchez Ramirez (#23), Annex 64, at A1325; see also at A77, para. 121;
Ignacio G6mez (#33), Annex 61, at Al297; see also at A93, para. 195; FélixRocha Diaz (#42),
Annex 41, at A764; see also at AllO, para. 271; Ramiro Ibarra (#35), Annex 62, at A1306; see a/so
A96, para. 210; Humberto Leal Garcia (#36), Annexes 51-52, at A1072 and A1156; see a/so at A98,
para. 218; Virgilio Maldonado (#37), Annex 53, at All83; see also at A98, para. 226; and José
Trinidad Loza (#52), Annex 44, at A868; see a/so at Al31, para. 348. There is also ajudicial finding
with regard to Mr. Aguilar Saucedo (#56), which we address below.
13
Mr. Villa Ramirez (#20), Mexico's Memorial, Annex 65, at Al329; see also at A74, para. 106. There is
also a stipulation with regard to Mr. Miranda Guerrero (#55), which we address below.
14
ln the case ofMr. Hemandez Alberto, Ambassador Rodriguez testified that Mexico was "still
investigating the circumstances of [his] case" and had not been able to verify the account of the law
enforcement official that he had timely informed Mr. Hemândez of his right to contact the consul.
Mexico's Memorial, Declaration of Ambassador Rodriguez Hernandez, Annex 7, at para. 326. ln a
letter to the Registry dated this date, Mexico informs the Court that, having completed its
investigation and concluded that there was no failure to notifYprior to interrogation, it now amends its
submissions to withdraw its request for relief in the case ofMr. Hemândez Alberto.
21618869v5
Burgernee Pa~tjlaan 1930. ~5R5 CB The Hague. :-l.:therlands. ?hones: 131-70) 360:!9tGeneral and Con~ul A fairq:
1 1 1
·" fl'Q ,r .h ...., ....·.,'1t.c;,.::tD"'..;, .~,..-ç.,:J:'~v,·~1..7. ~"\ntl'.Jtlrant-"r:t.tncl~fd'"'h~ rnn,ul:tnEMBAJADA DE MÉXICO
their defense counsel, and U.S. authorities conducted by Mexican consular officers and
lawyers working under his supervision. There is considerable additional evidence of the
violations in these cases, including the pattern of United States' noncompliance with its
Article 36 obligations, particularly during the years in which most of the capital
proceedings at issue here took place.
The United States contends, however, that Mexico has failed to prove the
violations it alleges. Since the United States has contested the sufficiency of the
showing, Mexico seeks leave to submit a declaration demonstrating the violation from
each of the 41 individuals subject of the Application as to which the record does not
include a judicial finding or stipulation of the violation. 15 The declarations are attached
as Annex 70.
3. Messrs. Miranda Guerrero and Agui/ar Saucedo.
By letter dated 14 October 2003, Mexico informed the Court that it amended its
submissions to include two additional Mexican nationals, Messrs. Miranda Guerrero and
Aguilar Saucedo, who, since the date of Mexico's Memorial, had been sentenced to death
as a result of criminal proceedings in which the United States failed to comply with its
obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. By letter dated 2 November
2003, the United States objected that "Mexico has submitted no evidence conceming
these cases, and in the available time the United States has been unable to investigate the
facts alleged."
There is no basis for the United States' objection. In the case of Mr. Miranda
Guerrero (#55), U.S. authorities entered into a stipulation acknowledging the violation of
Article 36(l)(b). In the case of Mr. Aguilar Saucedo (#56), a U.S. court found that
Article 36(l)(b) had been violated.
The documents constituting the stipulation and the finding are not only in the
possession of the United States, but are publicly available. 16 Given the United States'
15
In addition, Mexico submits a declaration by Mr. Virgilio Maldonado (#37), although there is ajudicial
finding asto the violation of Article 36(l)(b) of the Vienna Convention.
21618869v5
Burgemeester P:nijnlaan 1930. :::585CB The Hague. :-.letherlanus. Phones: (31-70) 3602900 (General and Cnnsui:1r:\!T:.lirs\:
1.J.<; ,llr.l <~ff:1~· ir~l<;: ':!l:'aioAffairs\Fax: (31ï()35605-D ïGeneralland 361i68S .Con~ulan.EMBAJADA DEMÉXICO
objection, however, Mexico seeks leave to submit them at this time. They are enclosed
as Annex71.
***
Article 56 of the Rules of Court permits a party to submit further documents after
the closure of the written proceedings if the other party so consents, or absent such
consent, if the Court considers the documents necessary. While Practice Direction IX
states that documents will be admitted after the close of the written submissions only in
"exceptional circumstances," the Direction also confirms that the Court will admit
documents at this stage if the production "appears justified to the Court." In the
circumstances here, the production of the documents Mexico seeks leave to submit is
fullyjustified.
First, where, as here, the proceeding is limited to one round of pleadings, an
applicant will be denied its right fully to present its case unless it has the opportunity to
submit additional documents in response to new factual allegations by the respondent or
an allegationthat the factual showing made is insufficient. In a proceeding consisting of
two rounds of written pleadings, the applicant is entitled under Article 50 of the Rules to
submit additional evidence to rebut allegations raised in the respondent's counter
memorial. Where, however, proceedings consist of only one round of written pleadings,
the applicant would be deprived of this right unless the Court permitted it to submit
selecteddocuments pursuant to Article 56.
No applicant can anticipate the precise arguments that a respondent will make.
The Court has indicated that "a single round of written pleadings is to be considered as
the norm in cases begun by means of an application." 17 If the Court wishes future
applicants to agree to a single round, it should not discourage future applicants from
doing so by denying Mexico leave here to submit a limited set of additional documents.
Considerations of fairness dictate that result in any event.
16The judicial finding of a violation of Article 36(l)(b) with regard to Mr. Aguilar Saucedo (#56) is
available at <http://www.courtminutes.Maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022003/m0903660.pdt&…;
. The
stipulation with regard to Mr. Miranda Guerrero (#55) is a pubiicly available court document.
.17l.C.JPress Release 2002/12.
21618869v5
Burgemee P~aielan 1930. ::!585CB The Hague. :'-lerherlanùs. Phones: (31-iOl 1General and Consular .\tfairs l:
'•~tfl.:or- ..•1.,ff,,ir 1...,'if.tPnlir..,.\tl',ir<j::,.n-01 \'in05-B 1Generail and 3oli6XX •Cün~ul;in.EMBAJADA DE MÉXICO
-
Second, the Court has repeatedly requested that parties submit only a strictly
limited set of documents with their pleadings, and it has emphasized the importance of 18
that request to the Court's ability to do its work with the resources available to it. In
submitting its Memorial, Mexico took that requestseriously. Now that the United States
has tried to turn that approach to Mexico's disadvantage by challenging the adequacy of
Mexico's showing, Mexico should be granted leave to submit additional documents on
matters that should not be subject to fair dispute.
Again, in formulating its submissions, no applicant can anticipate the precise
arguments that a respondent will make. A decisiondenying an applicant the opportunity
to submit additional documents to refute a challenge by the respondent to the
documentary record would encourage future applicants liberally to append
documentation to written pleadings in order to preempt any conceivable future
evidentiary challenge. The Court recognized the potential for tension between its request
that the parties limit their annexes and a party's interest in protecting against evidentiary
challenges when, in its 1998 Note containing Recommendations to the Parties, it stated
that, in order to ease the parties' task in strictly selecting documents during the written
proceedings, it would "more readily accept the production of additional documents
during the period beginning with the close of the written proceedings." Again, therefore,
if the Court wishes future applïcants, and particularlythose with the benefit of only one
round of briefing, to exercise discipline in putting together their annexes, the Court
should grant Mexico leave in the circumstances here.
Third, Mexico has agreed to conduct thisproceeding on a timetable whose brevity
19
is unprecedented. To be sure, as the Court observed,that schedule was "in the interest
18
In addition to Practice Direction III, see the Note containing Recornmendations to the Parties to New
Cases, issued for the first time in 1998 (The Court ·'stronglyurges parties to append to their pleadings
only strictly selectedcuments"); l.C.J. Press Re/ease 98/14 ("With regard to the written
proceedings in general, the Court has asked the Parties to see to it that the content of memorials is
clear and that the annexes are more strictly selected"); Address by the President of the International
Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations , 27 October 1998 (the Court "has
asked parties to cases to attach only strictly needed annexes to their pleadings"); Address by the
President of the International Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 30
October 2001 (the Court "has again informed [the parties] of its desire to see a decrease ... in the
volume of annexes to pleadings ... However, old habits die hard"); Address by the President of the
International Court of Justice to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 29 October 2002 (the
Court asks parties "to be rigorously selective in the documents which they append to their
p1eadings").
19
For example, in LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), which arose from a single case
involving only two individuals, the parties had six and a halfmonths to prepare their written
pleadings.
21618869v5
Burgemeester Patijnlaan 1930. 25X5CB The H<lgue.Netherbnds. Phones: (31-31101900 G.:neral and Consular AffaJ:s
' c lf\CO.r- ...1..Hl'·,;r~,l"')" 1fnl<"ll ~rfi< 1 J:,,.1~1-ïOI >-160543 rGener:I)):.~n361ï6S8 !Consulan.EMBAJADA DE MÉXICO
of both Parties." 20 But that mutual interest was driven by a single fundamental
consideration: the shorter the proceedings, the shorter the period during which the bar of
the Order indicating Provisional Measures would remain in effect. Given its interest in
avoiding an irreparable prejudice, Mexico has fully cooperated with the Court's objective
of expedition.
Combined with the single round of pleadings, the expedited timetable necessarily
had a greater impact on Mexico as applicant than the United States as respondent. While
Mexico had only four and a half months to put together its submissions, the United
States, with full access to the records in the underlying capital proceedings through state
authorities, had twice as long. ·
Where parties agree to time-limits such as those here in order to expedite the
proceedings, general considerations of fairness counsel in favor of permitting an
applicant to submit additional documents pursuant to Article 56. Yet again, a decision
denying Mexico leave here would discourage parties from agreeing to such time-limits in
future proceedings before the Court.
Final/y, the nature of this case, more than any other case, counsels in favor of
granting leave. Where, as here, human lives are at stake, the Court should ensure that it
bases its decision on a full and fair evidentiary record.
* * *
May I take this opportunity to provide you the assurance of my highest esteem.
Ambassador Santiago Oiiate Laborde
Agent of Mexico
20
Avena and Other Mexican Nationa/s (Mexico v. United States of America), Order of5 Febntary 2003,
para. 57.
21618869v5
BurgemeesterPatijnlaan1':130.2585 CB The Hague. :'-'c:thcrlanùs. Phones: (:o02900 tGeneral :.mùCunsular .\r"fal:s
"l.11)6\:Q trttltu.1.tl'·~ ,icr~..:\·"...o..l.\n· .. :t:.n.·t-::1_7(1~f..()1 ~.i.1..an·P•ti~\hli(,~~ ~·f"'nn"'nl:!r\ Annex to Mexico's Nonmber 27, 2003 Letter
Table of Contents
Annex 67 Birth Ccrtificates ............................Al-t63.....................
Appendix 1 Avena Guillen. Carlos (tH)........................ A1464
Appendix 2 Ayala, Hector Juan (f:2)............................. A1465
Appendix 3 Benavides Figueroa. \'tcente (#3) ............. A1467
Appendix 4 Carrera Montenegro. Constantino (#4) ...... A1468
Appendix 5 Contreras Lopez. Jorge (:::5)...................... Al469
Appendix 6 Co\·arrubias Sanchez. Daniel (#6) ............. A1470
Appendix 7 Esquivel Barrer~larc (#s)................... A1471
Appendix 8 Gomez Perez, Ruben (=S).......................... A1-t72
Appendix 9 Hoyos, Jaime Armando (;;9)...................... .-\1473
Appendix 10 Juarez Suarez. Arturo (:::10)....................... A1-t74
Appendix 11 Lopez, Juan Manuel (#11)...........•............. A1476
Appendix 12 Lupercio Casares. Jose (#12)..................... A1477
Appendix 13 ~lact Hem!andez, Luis Alberto (#13)......A1478
Appendix 14 Fuentes Martinez. Omar (also known as Luis
A viles de la Cruz) (:=15).....................•...... A1479
Appendix 15 Martmez Sanchez. ~ltgu Angel (#16) •...A1482
Appendix 16 Mendoza Garcia. Martin(# 17).................. A1483
Appendix 17 Ochoa Tamayo. Sergto U=\8)..................... Al484
Appendix 18 Parra Duei1as.Enrique(#19) ..................... A1485Appendix 19 Ramirez Villa, Juan de Dios(#20) ........•..•A1486
Appendix 20 Salazar. Magdaleno U:2 1)..........................A1487
Appendix 21 Salcido Bojorquez. Ramon(#22) ..............A1488
Appendix 22 Sanchez Ramirez, Juan Ramon(#23)........A1489
Appendix 23 Tafoya Arriola. Ignacio(#24)....................A1490
Appendix 24 Valdez Reyes, Alfredo (#25).....................Al491
Appendix 25 \'argas, Eduardo Da\·id(#26)....................Al492
Appendix 26 Verano Cruz. Tomas (==27.).............A149~.....
Appendix 27 Zamudio Jimenez. Samuel(#29)...............A1495
Appendix 28 Alvarez. Juan Carlos U=30.)....................... A1496
Appendix 29 Fierro Reyna. CésarRoberto(#31)............A1497
Appendix 30 Garcia Torres. Hector(:i32).......................Al498
Appendix 31 Gomez. IgnaciO(r:33)................................A1499
Appendix 32 Hernandez Llanas. Ramiro(#34)...............Al500
Appendix 33 Ibarra. Ramiro Rubi(#35)......................... A1501
Appendix 3~ Leal Garcia, Humberto(#36)..................... A1502
Appendix 35 Maldonado.VJrgilio (#37).......................... A1505
Appendix 36 Medellm Rojas. Jose Ernesto (#38)...........A1506
Appendix 37 Moreno Ramos, Roberto(#39)..................A1507
Appendix 38 Plata Estrada. Dame! Angel (#40)............. A1508
Appcndix 39 Ramirez Cardenas. Rubén(#41)................A1509
Appcndix ~0 Rocha Diaz. FeiJ:'i(.:=42)............................ Al511Appendix 41 Regalado Soriano, Oswaldo (#43) ............. Al512
Appendix 42 Tamayo, Edgar Arias (#44) ....................... Al514
Appendix 43 Caballero Hernandez, Juan (#45) .............. A1515
Appendix 44 Flores Urban, Mario (#.t6) ......................... A1516
Appendix 45 Solache Romero, Gabriel (#47) ................. Al517
Appendix 46 Fong Soto, Martin Raul (#48).................... A1518
Appendix 47 Camargo Ojeda, Rafael (#.f9) .................... A1519
Appendix 48 Pérez Gutiérrez, Carlos René(#51) ........... A1521
Appendix 49 Loza, Jose Tnnidad (#52) .......................... A1522
Appendix 50 Torres Aguilera. Osvaldo~etzahualc #5yo)tl
.......................................Al524.......................
Appendix 51 Reyes Camarena, Horacio Alberto (#54) ..Al525
Appendix 52 rvliranda Guerrero. Victor (#55) ................ Al526
Appendix 53 Aguilar Saucedo. Tonatihu (#56) .............. Al527
3Annex 68 Additional ~ationa l icuy cnts ........................... A1528
Appendix 1 Letter to Mexican Consulate re: Contreras Lapez,
Jorge(#5) ..............................A1529................
Appendix 2 Jail Custody Record for Gomez Perez, Ruben (#8)
........................................A1530......................
Appendix 3 Booking Forrn for Martinez Sanchez, Miguel
Angel (#16) ............................A1531...............
Appendix 4 Arrest Reports forOchoa Tamaya, Sergio (#18)
........................................A1532......................
Appendix 5 Arrest Supplement for Ramirez Villa. Juan de
Dios (#20) ................................................. A1535
Appendix 6 Fmgerprint Card for \'aidez Reyes, Alfredo (#25)
........................................A1536......................
Appendix 7 Police Reports for PérezGutiérrez,Carlos René
(#51) ..................................Al537..................
Appendix 8 Police Arrest Reports for Torres Aguilera,
Osvaldo Netzahualc6yotl (#53) ..........Al540.
Appendix 9 Excerpts from Consular Files of Reyes Camarena,
Horacio Alberto (#5-l) ............................... A1542
Annex 69 Declaration of Karen F. Ellingson, Attorney and Expert
on llnited States Immigration Law .......................... A1556
Anncx 70 Declarations of Mexican :\ationals .......................... A1579
Appendix 1 A\·ena Guillen. Carlos (ltl) ........................ A1580
Appendix 2 Ayala. Hector Juan (:r2)............................. A1583
Appendix 3 Bena\·ides Figucroa. Vicente (#3) ............. Al586
4Appendix 4 Carrera Montenegro. Constantino (#4)......Al589
Appendix 5 Contreras Lapez. Jorge (#5) ...................... Al591
Appendix 6 Covarrubias Sanchez. Daniel (#6)............. Al594
Appendix 7 Esquivel Barrera. Marcos (#7)................... Al598
Appendix 8 Gomez Perez, Ruben (#S).......................... A1601
Appendix 9 Hoyos. Jaime Armando (#9)...................... Al605
Appendix 10 Lapez, Juan Manuel (#Il )......................... A1608
Appendix 11 LupercioCasares.Jose(#l2) ..................... A1611
Appendix 12 Maciel Hemandez, Luis Alberto (#l3) ......A1615
Appendix 13 Manriquez Jaquez. Abelino (#14) ............. A1617
Appendix 14 Fuentes !\tartinez. Omar (also known as Luis
A\·ilesde la Cruz) (:riS) ............................ A1619
Appendix 15 1\lartmez Sanchez. l\11guelAngel (#16) ....A1622
Appendix 16 i\lendoza Gama.l\lartm (t=l7).................. A1624
Appendix 17 Ochoa Tamayo, Sergio (#l8) ..................... A1626
Appendix 18 Parra Dueilas. Enrique (#19)..................... A1628
Appendix 19 Salazar. 1\lagdaleno(#21).......................... Al632
Appendix 20 Salcido Bojorquez. Ramon (#22) .............. A1634
Appendix 21 Tafoya Arriola. Ignacio U=24.)................... A1635
Appendix 22 Valdez Reyes, Alfredo (#25)..................... A1637
Appendix 23 \'erano Cruz. Tomas (#27)........................ A1639
Appendix 24 Zamud1oJimenez. Samuel (#29) ............... Al642
5.1
Appendix 25 Alvarez. Juan Carlos (#30)........................ Al644
Appendix 26 Fierro Reyna. CésarRoberto(#31)............ Al6-t6
Appcndix 27 Garcia Torres. Hector(#32)....................... A1651
Appendix 28 Maldonado.Yirgtlio (#37).......................... A1654
Appendix 29 Medellin Rojas. Jose Ernesto (#38)........... A1658
Appendix 30 Moreno Ramos, Roberto(#39).................. A1662
Appendix 31 Plata Estrada, Daniel Angel(#40) ............. A1666
Appendix 32 Ramirez Cardenas. Rubén(#41)•••••••••••••A••668
Appendix 33 Regalado Soriano. Oswa\do (#43)............. A167l
Appendix 34 Tamayo, Edgar Arias ( #44)....................... A1675
Appendix 35 Caballero Hernandez. Juan (#45) .............. A1676
Appendix 36 Flores Urban. i\lario (=46)......................... A1680
Appendix 37 So\ache Romero. Solache (#47) ............... Al682
Appendix 38 Fong Soto. i\.lartinRaul (#48).................... A1689
Appendix 39 Camargo Ojeda. Rafael(#49).................... A1692
Appendix 40 PérezGutiérrez.Carlos René(#51)........... A1694
Appendix 41 Torres Agutlera, Osvaldo Netzahualcoyotl
(#53) ..........................................................
Appendix 42 Reyes Camarena. Horacio Alberto (#54) ..A170l
6Anncx 71 Documents Relating to Miranda Gucrrcro, Victor (#55)
and Aguilar Sauccdo, Tonatihu (#56) ..................... Al705
Appendix l Judicial Stipulation for Miranda Guerrcro, Victor
(#55) .......................................................... Al706
Appendix 2 Judicial Finding for Aguilar Saucedo, Tonatihu
(#56) .......................................................... Al717 •
EMBAJADA DEMÉXICO
1herebycertifythatali documentssubmittedaretruthfulcopies of theiroriginal,andthat
theEnglishtranslationof documentswhose originalis in Spanishis accurate.-
EMBAJA:Jl, DE MEXICO
Agentof Mexico
LA HAY,~. PtliSES BAJOS
TheHague,26 November2003
Burgemee~ P:i_niaan l930. 2585 CB The Hag~etherla Phones: 131-711) 36029General :111dCun,ular .\tl:ur> J:
3454058 iCulturalAffairs13452569 IPnlitiea:-\tlairF:.1:c !31-7_i561)543 1Genèr:.1ll :md 36i7,c,liNilarJ.EMBAJADA DE MEXICO
PBA-03070
The Hague, 2 December 2003
Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
The Hague
The Netherlands
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Dear Sir:
On Mexico's behalf, 1write to supplement Mexico's submission of additional
documents under Article 56 of the Rules of Court of28 November 2003 to include the
birth certificate ofMr. Abelino Manriquez Jaquez (#14) in Annex 67.
By letter filed on 28 November 2003, Mexico submitted, inter alia, the birth
certificates of 53 of the 54 Mexican nationals subject of the Application as Annex 67.
As Mexico explained in that letter, in the short time available, it had been "unable to
obtain the birth certificate of Abelino Manriquez Jaquez (#14)."
Mexico has now located Mr. Manriquez' birth certificate and therefore
supplements its submission under Article 56 ofthe Rules of Court to include Mr.
Manriquez' birth certificate in Annex 67.
May 1take this opportunity to provide you the assurance of my highest
esteem.
mbassador Santiago Oiiate Laborde
Agent of Mexico
Bur),!t.:lllt.:t.:,ll:r P;tti2:'\S:'iCB Th.: lb~u:\.h:rlan,k l'il<•n1_1-7111.\h02'J00 1Ci.:n.:ral ami C"n,A!lair, 1:
.''4:'\40:'\S tCu\t.-'ÜI.tir,_\4:'2:'\h'J tl'uli.llirl. ·LI\ 1.>1-lllt_\:'hl1:'t(i.:n.:raand .>hi/hS.'tC.>rhular<
F-m~t t:l!:llh.db.J.rCJltndL'lllh t"t:hllL'-Il.<nl \\ ~f•,\t\\\ .cmhalllt.:\-c' •111
Documents submitted by Mexico after the Closure of the Written Proceedings