INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR
v.
UNITED MEXICAN STATES
29 April 2024
APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned, being duly authorized
by the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, states as follows:
1. In accordance with Articles 36(1) and 40 of the Statute of the Court and Article 38 of the
Rules of Court, I have the honor to submit this Application instituting proceedings by the
Republic of Ecuador ('Ecuador') against the United Mexican States ('Mexico').
I. Introduction
2. This Application concerns the violation by Mexico of a series of obligations owed to
Ecuador under international law, arising from Mexico's conduct between 17 December 2023
and 5 April 2024 in relation to Mr. Jorge David Glas Espinel, a national of Ecuador, who was
convicted under Ecuadorean law for corruption offences committed in Ecuador (specifically,
offences of illicit association and bribery) and was moreover being prosecuted for
embezzlement of public funds. This Application also concerns Mexico's false and injurious
statements calling into question the legitimacy of the 2023 elections in Ecuador.
3. After Mr. Glas had been temporarily released from prison in Ecuador (subject to certain
judicial restrictions), Mexico used the premises of its diplomatic mission in Quito between
December 2023 and April 2024 to shield Mr. Glas from enforcement by Ecuador ofits criminal
law. Despite Ecuador's repeated requests that Mexico cooperate with the competent
Ecuadorean authorities and hand over Mr. Glas, Mexico announced, in a press release on 5
April 2024, a decision to grant him "asylum" with a view to removing him from Ecuador.
These actions, which obstructed the proper administration of justice in Ecuador, constituted,
among other things, a blatant misuse of the premises of a diplomatic mission.
4. By this unacceptable conduct, Mexico has breached, inter alia, the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the Convention on Political Asylum of 1933 ('Montevideo
Convention;), the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954 ('Caracas Convention'), the
Inter-American Convention against Corruption of 1996, and the United Nations Convention
against Corruption of 2003 ('Merida Convention'). Moreover, by such conduct Mexico has
1
breached the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-intervention in the
internal affairs of other States enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of
the Organization of American States, and customary international law. Both Ecuador and
Mexico are parties to all of these international conventions and are bound as well by the
corresponding rules of customary international law.
II. The Court's Jurisdiction
5. Ecuador and Mexico are Members of the United Nations and parties to the Statute of the
Court. Article 36(1) of the Statute provides, in its relevant part, that the Court's jurisdiction
"comprises ... all matters specially provided for ... in treaties and conventions in force".
6. Ecuador and Mexico are also parties to the 1948 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement
('Pact of Bogota' or 'Pact'). Pursuant to Article II of the Pact:
" ... in the event that a controversy arises between two or more signatory states which, in
the opinion of the parties, cannot be settled by direct negotiations through the usual
diplomatic channels, the parties bind themselves to use the procedures established in the
present Treaty, in the manner and under the conditions provided for in the following
articles, or, alternatively, such special procedures as, in their opinion, will permit them to
arrive at a solution."
Article XXXI of the Pact provides that:
"In conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice, the High Contracting Parties declare that they recognize, in relation to any other
American State, the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory ipso facto, without the
necessity of any special agreement so long as the present Treaty is in force, in all disputes
of a juridical nature that arise among them concern mg:
a) The interpretation of a treaty;
b) Any question of international law;
c) The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute the breach of an
international obligation;
d) The -nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international
obligation."
2
7. The only condition for the seisin of the Court under these provisions is, therefore, the
existence of a legal dispute between High Contracting Parties that cannot be settled by direct
negotiations1. As shown below, this condition is met in the present case.
III. The Facts
8. Mr. Jorge David Glas Espinel, of Ecuadorean nationality, is an electrical engineer and
politician, who served as Ecuador's Minister for Telecommunications and Information Society
between 2009 and 2010, as Minister Coordinator of Strategic Sectors between 2010 and 2012,
and as Vice-President of the Republic of Ecuador between 2013 and 2018. During and after his
term of office as Vice-President, the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ecuador initiated
criminal investigations and pressed charges for corruption offences committed by Mr. Glas
while in office, which led to a series of criminal proceedings and convictions.
9. On 23 January 2018, Mr. Glas was found guilty of the offence of illicit association2
,
pursuant to Article 370 of Ecuador's Criminal Code, in connection with the commission of the
offences of, among others, embezzlement of public funds, bribery, illicit enrichment, trading
in influence, and money-laundering ('Caso Odebrecht'). He was sentenced to six years in
prison by Ecuador's National Court of Justice - the highest court in Ecuador's judicial system3
•
This conviction is final. It took place within the broader context of the Odebrecht corruption
scandal, the largest transnational bribery scheme in Latin America involving at least 10
countries (including Mexico) and more than 780 million USD in bribes in connection with
large-scale infrastructure projects. The uncovering of this scheme has given rise to several
criminal investigations and proceedings in Latin America and beyond.
10. On 26 April 2020, Ecuador's National Court of Justice found Mr. Glas guilty of bribery
pursuant to Articles 285 and 287 of Ecuador's Criminal Code (currently Article 280), and-he
1 Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Si/a/a River (Chile v. Bolivia), Judgment,· I.CJ Reports
2022, p. 634, para. 39; Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras}, Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, I.CJ. Reports 1988, pp. 92-99, paras. 58-76.
2 "lllicit association", under Ecuador's criminal law, means the association between two or more individuals with
the aim of committing offences that are punishable by law. Association with the aim of committing offences leads
to a deprivation ofliberty of three to six years when the association had for its objective the commission of serious
crimes and the participant in the association had a leading role.
3 National Court of Justice, Case no. 17721-2017-00222, judgment of23 January 2018.
3
was sentenced to eight years in prison, this time in the context of a different corruption scandal,
known as the Sobomos case ('Caso Sobornos')4• This second conviction, too, is final.
11. On 28 November 2022, Mr. Glas was temporarily released from prison5 following a
request for precautionary measures, claiming health issues; that request was granted by a court
of first instance in the Santo Domingo Canton in Ecuador. The court also determined that Mr.
Glas had an obligation to appear once a week before the competent judicial authorities, and
that he could not leave the country'. This temporary release was in effect until 28 February
2024, when the Constitutional Court of Ecuador determined that it had not been granted in
conformity with Article 27 of Ecuador's Organic Law on Constitutional Guarantees and
Oversight7.
12. Mr. Glas also pursued an action that requested early release from prison, having fulfilled
a portion of his sentences in the Odebrecht and Sobornos cases. This request was denied on 28
December 2023 by a Special Court on Penitentiary Guarantees, which determined that the
conditions for such release under Ecuadorean law were not met8. The Regional Court of Justice
of Pichincha rejected an appeal of this decision by Mr. Glas on 7 March 2024. It confirmed the
decision of the lower court and ordered that Mr. Glas be located and arrested so as to bring him
back to prison9.
13. In early January 2024, in separate proceedings, the National Court of Justice ordered the
pre-trial detention of Mr. Glas and other individuals suspected of embezzling public funds
provided under the Law on Solidarity and Citizen Co-Responsibility for the Reconstruction
and Reactivation of the Zones Affected by the Earthquake of 1 ~ April 2016, in violation of
4 National Court of Justice, Case no. l 7721-2019-00029G, judgment of 26 April 2020.
s Mr. Glas had also been released for a short time on 10 April 2022 by a decision of a local judge. However, the
decision ordering his release was annulled by a Regional Court becau_se of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the
local judge, and Mr. Glas was returned to prison (Court of Justice of the Province of Santa Elena, Case no.
24202202200017T, decision of 10 May 2022).
•6 Criminal Judicial Unit, Santo Domingo Canton, Province of Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas, Case no. 23281-
2022-05925, decision of 28 November 2022.
7 Constitutional Court of Ecuador, Case no. 12-23-JC/24, judgment of28 February 2024.
8 Special Court of Penitentiary Guarantees, Province of Pichincha, Case no. 17U06202300032G, decision of28
December 2023.
9 Court of Justice of the Province of Pichincha, Case no.17U062023.00032G, judgment of7 March 2024
4
Article 278 of Ecuador's Criminal Code ('Caso Reconstrucci6n de Manabi'). The National
Court of Justice issued an order for the location and arrest of Mr. Glas 1°.
14. Mr. Glas also faces a criminal investigation in Ecuador on the basis of a complaint filed
against him on 11 October 2023 by a former employee concerning gender violence
(intimidation and psychological violence) while he was Vice-President11. This investigation is
ongoing and Mr. Glas is required to appear before the competent authorities to give his version
of the facts.
15. In summary, as ofDecember 2023, there were two final convictions against Mr. Glas under
Ecuadorean criminal law for illicit association and bribery. In addition, he was subject to
ongoing criminal proceedings for suspected embezzlement of public funds, and he faced a
criminal investigation for gender violence. Although he was temporarily released from prison,
he had an obligation to appear before the competent judicial authorities of Ecuador, he was
prohibited from leaving the country, and arrest warrants were eventually re-issued against him.
The criminal proceedings against Mr. Glas were conducted throughout several years and
independently of the changes of Government.
16. It was against this background that, on 17 December 2023, Mr. Glas entered the Embassy
of Mexico in Quito with the permission of the latter. Shortly afterwards, he requested that
Mexico grant him "asylum" with a view to departing from Ecuador's territory. As will now be
described, numerous diplomatic exchanges took place between Ecuador and Mexico thereafter.
In those exchanges, Ecuador repeatedly requested Mexico to cooperate with Ecuador and to
surrender Mr. Glas to its competent authorities, in order to enforce Ecuador's criminal law and
to ensure compliance with the abovementioned judicial decisions and proceedings. Mexico
denied all of Ecuador's requests.
17. Specifically, on 17 December 2023, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador,-having
learnt of the presence of Mr. Glas in the Embassy of Mexico,_ wrote to the latter requesting
urgent cooperation by Mexican authorities on the matter. The Ministry moreover requested the
Embassy to immediately invite Mr. Glas to leave the premises of the mission in order to comply
10 National Court of Justice, Case no. 17721-2019-00033G, decisions of 5 and 7 January 2024. An appeal against
these orders was rejected on 21 February 2024.
11 Investigation no. 170101823101641.
5
with his obligation to appear before the competent judicial authorities of Ecuador. The Ministry
also asked the Embassy to explain the reasons why Mr. Glas was present in the premises of the
mission, noting that it was evident that granting asylum to Mr. Glas would not be lawfuJl2
•
18. The Embassy of Mexico responded on 18 December 2023, confirming that Mr. Glas had
entered the premises of the mission on 17 December 2023 and had requested "protection". The
Embassy indicated that Mr. Glas was present in the premises as a "guest", and that it would
consider a request for asylum in conformity with the Caracas Convention should Mr. Glas
formally make such a request. It also requested Ecuador to provide information about the legal
situation of Mr. Glas13.
19. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador responded on 20 December 2023, stating that
it would provide the information requested by the Embassy. It further indicated that there was
no basis for a grant of asylum pursuant to the Caracas Convention 14
•
20. On 21 and 31 December 2023, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador transmitted to
the Embassy of Mexico detailed information regarding the criminal proceedings against Mr.
Glas, which had been provided by the National Court of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior,
and the Office of the Prosecutor General1 5. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs transmitted further
information to the Embassy of Mexico on 10 January 202416
•
21. On 28 January 2024, the Embassy of Mexico informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Ecuador that Mr. Glas was still present in the Embassy, and that Mexico was evaluating an
12 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no. -rv!REMH-CGG-2023-O004-N,
17 December 2023 (Annex 1).
13 Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu02431, 18 December 2023 (Annex 2).
14 Ministry of Foreign AffairS and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no. -rv!REMH-CGG-2023-0005-N,
20 December 2023 (Annex 3).
if Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no. -rv!REMH-CGG-2023-0006-N,
21 December 2024, annexing a communication from the Office of the Prosecutor General dated 20 December
2023 (Annex 4); Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility ofEcuador, Note Verbale no. -rv!REMH-CGG-
2023-0008-N, 21 December 2023, annexing a communication of the National Court of Justice dated 20 December
2023 (Annex 5); Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH/MREMH/2023/0044/N, 31 December 2023, annexing a report by the Ministry of Interior dated 30
December 2023 (Annex 6).
16 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility ofEcuador,-Note Verbale no. MREMH-DAJIMH-2024-0009-
N, 10 January 2024 (Annex 7).
6
asylum request by Mr. Glas17. Ecuador responded the next day, recalling that it had already
provided relevant infonnation concerning the corruption offences for which Mr. Glas was
prosecuted and convicted, and indicating that a grant of asylum by Mexico would be unlawful
under, among others, the Charter of the United Nations, the Caracas Convention, the InterAmerican
Convention against Corruption, and the Merida Convention. Ecuador requested once
more that Mr. Glas be asked to leave the Embassy so that he could be submitted to Ecuador's
judicial authorities, with all the guarantees of due process18.
22. On 29 February 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador reiterated that granting
asylum to Mr. Glas would be contrary to international law and noted that there was a warrant
for his arrest. It also requested the Embassy's consent so that the Ecuadorean police could enter
the Embassy to take custody of Mr. Glas and ensure compliance with the arrest warrant19
•
23. On 6 March 2024, the Embassy of Mexico transmitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Ecuador a note verbale from Mexico's Foreign Ministry dated 4 March 202420• In this note,
Mexico denied Ecuador's request for consent for the police to enter the Embassy to take
custody of Mr. Glas, and stated that the Mexican Government continued studying an asylum
request. The Foreign Ministry also indicated that such request had been made on "17 December
2023" (contrary to what the Embassy had said on 18 December), and set out certain views in
relation to the institution of asylum. The Ministry proposed sending a special mission to
Ecuador to discuss the matter further.
24. By a note verbale of 12 March 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador asked the
Embassy of Mexico whether Mr. Glas was still present in its premises21 . The Embassy replied
affirmatively on 13 March22.
17 Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu00182, 28 January 2024 (Annex 8).
18 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility ofEcuadorJ Note Verbale no. MREMH-DAJIMH-2024-0042-
N, 29 January 2024 (Annex 9).
19 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH/MREMH/2024/0035/N, 29 February 2024 (Annex 10).
20 Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu00498, 6 Mai-eh 2024, annexing Note n. SRE/283/2024, 4
March 2024 (Annex 11).
21 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuado(, Note Verbale no.
MRE!vIH/MREMH/2024/0039/N, 12 March 2024 (Annex 12).
22 Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecuci0554, 13 March 2024 (Annex 13).
7
25. On 19 March 2024, Ecuador responded to the note verbale from Mexico's Foreign
Ministry of 4 March, providing further information regarding the legal situation of Mr. Glas
and reiterating that a grant of asylum would be an obstruction of justice and unlawful under
international law. Ecuador recalled the importance of respecting, inter alia, the principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, the Montevideo Convention, the Caracas
Convention, the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, and the Merida Convention23
•
Furthermore, Ecuador reaffirmed that it was open to dialogue on the matter and agreed to the
dispatch of a special mission by Mexico.
26. A meeting between representatives of both States took place in Quito on 21 March 2024.
During this meeting, Ecuador emphasized that the crimes for which Mr. Glas was prosecuted
and convicted were "common offenses" within the meaning of Article III of the Caracas
Convention, and that the threshold for establishing political persecution under that provision
was high ("clearly of a political nature"). Ecuador also recalled Mexico's obligations under
Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the anti-corruption
conventions. It was agreed that Ecuador would provide to Mexico further information
concerning the legal situation of Mr. Glas.
27. On 4 April 2024, Ecuador declared the Ambassador of Mexico persona non grata pursuant
to Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Ambassador was granted
72 hours to leave the cotmtry24. This decision was made following a number of baseless
statements by the President of Mexico calling into question the legitimacy of the presidential
elections in Ecuador held in August and October 2023, and grossly mischaracterizing the
murder of a presidential candidate in the context of one of the most violent internal armed
conflicts that Ecuador has faced in its history25. Ecuador considered these statements
unacceptable and an interference by Mexico in its internal affairs.
23 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Notes Verbales nos.
MREMH/MREMH/2024/0041/N and MREMH/MREMH2/2024/0040/N, 19 March 2024 (Annex 14). The
Embassy of Ecuador in Mexico City transmitted this information to the Foreign Ministry of Mexico once more in
Note Verbale no. 4-2~53/2024, 25 March 2024 (Annex.15).
24 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Notes Verbales nos.
MREMH/MREMH/2024/0045/N and MREMH/MREMH/2024/0044/N, 5 and 4 April 2024 (Annex 16); Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Press Release, 4 April 2024 (Annex 17). •
25 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no. MREMH-VRE-2024-0009-N,
3 April 2024 (Annex 18).
8
28. One day later, on 5 April 2024, and before Ecuador could provide Mexico with further
information concerning the legal situation of Mr. Glas as agreed during the 21 March meeting
in Quito, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico stated in a press release that, after a
"thorough analysis", it decided to grant "political asylum" to Mr. Glas, invoking the Caracas
Convention. The Ministry further announced that it would request from Ecuadorean authorities
that Mr. Glas be granted safe conduct so that he could be removed from Ecuador's territory26•
Mexico's purported grant of "political asylum" to Mr. Glas was not communicated to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador through official diplomatic channels.
29. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, in a press release of 5 April, condemned the
announced decision to grant to Mr. Glas "political asylum" as contrary to the asylum
conventions, as well as an abuse by Mexico of the privileges and immunities conferred by the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations27
•
30. That same day, the Embassy of Mexico was requested once more to surrender Mr. Glas or
to allow the Ecuadorean police to enter the premises of the mission to arrest him. The Embassy
denied these requests and, in the light of imminent risk that Mr. Glas would be removed by
Mexico from Ecuador's territory, the police proceeded to his arrest.
31. On 6 April 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador issued a public statement
noting, among others, that Mr. Glas could in no way be considered a victim of political
persecution, and that it was clear from Article I of the Montevideo Convention and Article III
of the Caracas Convention that asylum cannot be lawfully granted to ind1viduals prosecuted or
convicted for ordinary crimes; that Mexico had obstructed Ecuador's judicial system and
contravened the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States; that Mexico
was in breach its obligations under Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations; and that Mexico had to fulfil its obligations under the Inter-American Convention
against Corruption and the Merida Convention28
.
26 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Press Release No. 126, 5 April 2024 (Annex 19).
27 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Press Release, 5 April 2024 (Annex 20).
28 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Press Release, 6 April 2024 (Annex 21).
9
32. The arrest of Mr. Glas by the Ecuadorean police gave rise to a protest by Mexico, which
broke off diplomatic relations with Ecuador on 6 April 2024 and announced the immediate
departure of its diplomatic personnel29• Mexico further announced that the premises of its
diplomatic mission "will remain closed indefinitely"30
•
33. On 10 April 2024, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States adopted
a resolution that, inter alia, called on all States to respect the inviolability of diplomatic
premises and personnel; reaffirmed the duty of persons enjoying privileges and immunities to
respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State and not to interfere in the internal affairs
of that State, as well as the obligation not to use the premises of diplomatic missions in any
manner incompatible with the functions of the mission; and recognized "the obligation of States
Parties to the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954 to respect it in its entirety"31
•
34. The resolution of the Permanent Council also "urge[d] Ecuador and Mexico to initiate a
dialogue and take immediate steps, in accordance with international law, to resolve this serious
matter in a constructive manner" 32. However, rather than pursue such a dialogue, on the very
next day Mexico proceeded to institute proceedings against Ecuador before the Court, alleging
violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and certain other rules of
intemationa1 law33•
29 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Press Release No. 128, 6 April 2024 (Annex 22); Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Mexico, Note Verbale no. SRE/423/2024, 6 April 2024 (Annex 23).
30 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Press Release No. 129, 6 April 2024 (Annex 24).
31 OAS Permanent Council, Resolution 1253 (2484/24), 10 April 2024, eighth preambular paragraph and operative
paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 (Annex 25). Mexico was absent when the Permanent Council adopted the resolution.
Ecuador voted against the resolution because of its paragraph l. con_demning "the intrusion into the premises of
the Embassy of Mexico in Ecuador and the acts of violence against the well-being and dignity of the diplomatic
personnel of the mission". Ecuador stated its recognition of:and respect for the principles reflected in the
resolution, but the resolution had not expressly condemned Mexico for its multiple violations of rules and
principles ofintemational_law, including Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article
III of the Caracas Convention, Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, the Inter-American Convention against
Corruption, and the Merida Convention.
32 Ibid., para. 7.
33 Application instituting proceedings containing a request for provisional measures, filed in the Registry of the
Court by Mexico on 11 April 2024.
10
IV. The Legal Grounds for Ecuador's Claims
35. By its abovementioned acts and omissions, Mexico has committed serious violations
of rights owed under international law to Ecuador, thus engaging Mexico's international
responsibility.
36. By sheltering Mr. Glas in the premises of its diplomatic mission in Quito and refusing
to surrender him to the competent authorities of Ecuador, Mexico has breached Article 41 of
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which provides, in its relevant part:
"1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons
enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the
receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
3. The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the
functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general
international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the
receiving State".
37. Using an embassy to shield a local national who had been convicted by competent courts
( and was being further prosecuted) for corruption offences, and against whom there were valid
arrest warrants, is a clear violation of these provisions, as it contravenes the duty of Mexico's
diplomats to respect the laws and regulations of Ecuador and their duty not to interfere in the
internal affairs of Ecuador. Moreover, such use of the Embassy of Mexico is incompatible with
its functions, as specified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and under general
international law, and with additional obligations of Mexico vis-a-vis Ecuador under
international law.
38. Me~dco is also in breach of the Montevideo Convention and the Caracas Convention.
Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention provides:
"It shall not be lawful for the States to grant asylum in legations, warships, military camps,
or airships to those accused of common offenses who may have been duly prosecuted or
who may have been sentenced by ordinary courts of justice, nor to deserters of land or sea
forces.
11
The persons referred to in the preceding paragraph who find refuge in some of the abovementioned
places shall be surrendered as soon as possible as requested by the local
government".
Similarly, Article III of the Caracas Convention stipulates that:
"It is not lawful to grant asylum to persons who, at the time of requesting it, are under
indictment or on trial for common offenses or have been convicted by competent regular
courts and have not served the respective sentence, nor to deserters from land, sea, and air
forces, save when the acts giving rise to the request for asylum, whatever the case may be,
are clearly of a political nature.
Persons included in the foregoing paragraph who de facto enter a place that is suitable as
an asylum shall be invited to leave or, as the case may be, shall be surrendered to the local
authorities, who may not try them for political offenses committed prior to the time of the
surrender."
39. The "asylum" that Mexico purported to grant to Mr. Glas is contrary to these and other
provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the asylum conventions. Mr.
Glas has never been subjected to political persecution in Ecuador. As noted above, he has been
convicted in Ecuador for corruption offences (illicit association and bribery) and is being
prosecuted for a corruption offence (embezzlement of public funds), which constitute
"common offenses" within the meaning of the two asylum conventions. The criminal
proceedings against Mr. Glas are in line with Ecuador's strong commitment to the fight against
corruption, and in conformity with its obligations under the Inter-American Convention against
Corruption and the Merida Convention.
40. Mexico's obstruction of Ecuador's judicial system and law enforcement by shielding Mr.
Glas, refusing to surrender him, and purporting to grant him "asylum" with a view to removing
him from Ecuador's territory constitutes a serious breach of the principles of sovereign
equality, territorial integrity, and non-intervention protected by the Charter of the United
Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, and customary international law.
41. Specifically, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations reaffirms the principles of
sovereign equality and territorial integrity, of which the principle of non-intervention is a
12
corollary34. The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations
and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ('Friendly
Relations Declaration')35, which both interprets the Charter and reflects customary
international law, indicates that "no State ... has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly,
for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State", and that "all
. . . fonns of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State . . . are in
violation of international law".
42. The preamble to the Charter of the Organization of American States refers to the sovereign
equality of its Member States, while Article 1 indicates that the nature and purpose of the
Charter is to defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence. Article 3(e) of
the OAS Charter provides that every State "has the duty to abstain from intervening in the
affairs of another State". Article 19 further stipulates that "[n]o State ... has the right to
intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of
any other State".
43. In the Asylum case, the Court made it clear that:
"In the case of diplomatic asylum, the refugee is within the territory of the State where the
offence was committed. A decision to grant diplomatic asylum involves a derogation from
the sovereignty of that State. It withdraws the offender from the jurisdiction of the
territorial State and constitutes an intervention in matters which are exclusively within the
competence of that State. Such a derogation from territorial sovereignty cannot be
recognized unless its legal basis is established in each particular case. "36
44. Mexico's decision to grant "asylum" to Mr. Glas, contrary to the provisions of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Montevideo Convention, and the Caracas
Convention, was a derogation from the sovereignty of Ecuador and an unlawful intervention
in matters falling exclusively within the competence of Ecuador.
34 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits,
Judgment, LC.J. Reports 1986, p. 105, para. 202.
35 UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970.
36 Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case, Judgment of November 201h, 1950: I.C.J. Reports 1950, pp. 274-275.
13
45. Moreover, by refusing to surrender Mr. Glass to the competent authorities of Ecuador
despite the latter's repeated requests, Mexico failed to cooperate on anti-corruption matters as
required by the Inter-American Convention against the Corruption and the Merida Convention.
Article XIV(l) of the Inter-American Convention provides that:
"In accordance with their domestic laws and applicable treaties, the States Parties shall
afford one another the widest measure of mutual assistance by processing requests from
authorities that, in conformity with their domestic laws, have the power to investigate or
prosecute the acts of corruption described in this Convention, to obtain evidence and take
other necessary action to facilitate legal proceedings and measures regarding the
investigation or prosecution of acts of corruption".
46. Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Merida Convention similarly provides that "States Parties
shall afford one another the widest measure of mutual legal assistance in investigations,
prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the offences covered by this Convention".
Article 48, paragraph 1, further stipulates that "States Parties shall cooperate closely with one
another, consistent with their respective domestic legal and administrative systems, to enhance
the effectiveness oflaw enforcement action to combat the offences covered by this Convention.
,,
47. Mexico's refusal to cooperate in the departure of Mr. Glas from its Embassy, and its
decision to grant "asylum" to Mr. Glas with a view to removing him from Ecuador's territory,
violated its obligations under the Inter-American Convention and the Merida Convention to
cooperate in Ecuador's law enforcement and judicial proceedings against Mr. Glas for offenses
covered by those conventions.
48. Finally, by its Head of State making false and injurious statements calling into question
the legitimacy of the elections in Ecuador, Mexico has breached the principle of noninterference
in the internal affairs of other States. This is an affront against the democratic
institutions of Ecuador and Ecuador's inalienable right to choose its political system, and is
contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American
States, other related instruments, and customary intemationaJ law.
14
V. The Relief Sought
49. The Republic of Ecuador respectfully requests the Court to:
(a) Adjudge and declare that the United Mexican States by, inter alia, allowing the
prolonged presence of Mr. Glas in the premises of its diplomatic mission in Quito;
refusing to surrender Mr. Glas to the competent Ecuadorean authorities; purporting
to grant Mr. Glas "asylum" with a view to removing him from Ecuadorean territory;
and obstructing Ecuador's judicial system and criminal law enforcement:
(i) Has breached its obligations to respect the laws and regulations of the
receiving State, not to interfere with the internal affairs of the receiving State,
and not to use the premises of the mission in a manner inconsistent with the
functions of the mission, pursuant to Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations of 1961;
(ii) Has breached, among others, its obligations not to grant asylum to persons
who are under indictment or on trial for common offenses or have been
convicted by competent regular courts, and to surrender them to local
authorities, pursuant to Article III of the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum
of 1954 and Article I of the Convention on Political Asylum of 1933;
(iii) Has violated principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, and nonintervention
in the internal affairs of other States under the Charter of the
United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, and
customary international law; and
(iv) Has breached its obligation to cooperate on anti-corruption matters pursuant
to Article XIV of the 1996 Inter-Ameri~an Convention ag~inst Corruption
and Articles 43, 46 and 48 of the 2003 United Nations Convention against
Corruption.
(b) Adjudge and declare, moreover, that by making through its Head of State false and
injurious statements calling into question the legitimacy of the 2023 elections in
15
Ecuador, the United Mexican States has violated the principle of non-intervention in
the internal affairs of other States under the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter
of the Organization of American States, other related instruments, and customary
international law.
(c) Adjudge and declare the legal consequences for the United Mexican States arising
from its internationally wrongful acts.
VI. Judge Ad Hoe
50. In accordance with the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Statute of the Court and Article
35(1) of the Rules of Court, Ecuador gives notice of its intention to exercise its right to choose
a judge ad hoe.
Vll. Reservation of Rights
51. The Republic of Ecuador reserves the right to revise, supplement, or amend this
Application, as well as the legal grounds invoked and the relief requested.
16
VIII. Designation of Agent
52. The Republic of Ecuador has designated the undersigned as its Agent for the purpose of
these proceedings. All communications relating to this case should be sent to the Embassy of
the Republic of Ecuador in The Hague (Koninginnegracht 84. 2514 AJ, Den Haag).
The Hague, 29 April 2024
H.E. Andres Teran Parral
Agent of the Republic of Ecuador
17
18
Certification
The Applicant certifies that the documents attached by way of annexes are trne copies of the
originals thereof and that all the translations of annexes submitted herewith are, to the best of
its knowledge and belief, a true and correct rendering of the text in the original language.
H.E. Andres Teran Parral
Agent of the Republic of Ecuador
19
20
Annex 1
Annex2
Annex3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Annex 6
Annex 7
Annex 8
Annex 9
Annex 10
Annex 11
Annex 12
Annex 13
Annex 14
Annex 15
List of Annexes
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH-CGG-2023-0004-N, 17 December 2023
Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu02431, 18 December 2023
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH-CGG-2023-0005-N, 20 December 2023
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MRE:rvlH-CGG-2023-0006-N, 21 December 2024, annexing a communication
from the Office of the Prosecutor General dated 20 December 2023
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH-CGG-2023-0008-N, 21 December 2023, annexing a communication
of the National Court of Justice dated 20 December 2023
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH/MREMH/2023/0044/N, 31 December 2023, annexing a report by the
Ministry of Interior dated 30 December 2023
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH-DAJIMH-2024-0009-N, 10 January 2024
Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu00182, 28 January 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH-DAJIMH-2024-0042-N, 29 January 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH/MREMH/2024/0035/N, 29 February 2024
Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu00498, 6 March 2024,
annexing Note n. SRE/2$3/2024, 4 March 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH/MREMH/2024/0039/N, 12 March 2024
Embassy of Mexico in Quito, Note Verbale no. ecu00554, 13 March 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Notes Verbales
nos. MREMHIMREMH/2024/0041/N and MREMH/MREMH2/2024/0040/N,
19 March 2024
Embassy of Ecuador in Mexico City, Note Verbale no. 4-2-53/2024, 25 March
2024
21
Annex 16
Annex 17
Annex 18
Annex 19
Annex 20
Annex 21
Annex22
Annex 23
Annex 24
Annex 25
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Notes Verbales
nos. MREMH/MREMH/2024/0045/N and MREMH/MREMH/2024/0044/N, 5
and 4 April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Press Release, 4
April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Note Verbale no.
MREMH-VRE-2024-0009-N, 3 April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Press Release No. 126, 5 April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Press Release, 5
April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility of Ecuador, Press Release, 6
April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Press Release No. 128, 6 April 2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Note Verbale no. SRE/423/2024, 6 April
2024
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Press Release No. 129, 6 April 2024
OAS Permanent Council, Resolution 1253 (2484/24), 10 April 2024
22
Application instituting proceedings