Ecuador has presented its defense at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, arguing that its controversial raid on the Mexican Embassy in Quito last month was justified. Lawyers representing Ecuador told the UN’s highest court that the action was taken to apprehend “a common criminal,” former Ecuadorian Vice President Jorge Glas, who had sought refuge within the diplomatic compound. This defense comes in response to Mexico’s accusations that Ecuador blatantly violated international law by forcibly entering its embassy to arrest Glas.
The dramatic events of April 5th, which saw Ecuadorian security forces storm the Mexican Embassy hours after Mexico granted asylum to Glas, have significantly escalated diplomatic tensions between the two Latin American nations. These tensions had been simmering since Glas, a figure convicted of corruption and considered a fugitive by Ecuador, initially sought shelter in the embassy in December. The embassy raid was widely condemned across Latin America and internationally as a clear breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a cornerstone of international law governing diplomatic immunity and the inviolability of embassies.
Andres Teran Parral, the lead lawyer for Ecuador, addressed the ICJ judges, stating, “Mexico, for months misused its diplomatic premises in Quito to shelter a common criminal.” He emphasized that Glas had been convicted twice on corruption charges and other offenses, framing Ecuador’s actions as necessary to uphold its justice system against criminal impunity.
In its formal complaint filed on April 11th, Mexico has requested the ICJ to mandate reparations from Ecuador and even suspend Ecuador’s membership from the United Nations. Furthermore, Mexico is seeking immediate provisional measures from the court, demanding guarantees for the “full protection and security of diplomatic premises” and assurances against any future intrusions. Alejandro Celorio Alcantara, legal advisor to Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, asserted before the court, “There are lines in international law which should not be crossed. Regrettably, the Republic of Ecuador has crossed them.”
However, Ecuador countered Mexico’s demands by arguing to the ICJ that preliminary measures are no longer necessary because Quito has already pledged to uphold its obligations under international law. Teran Parral stated that the hearing was “unnecessary and unjustified because Ecuador has already provided assurances of its own volition, both to Mexico and to this court, that it will respect and protect the premises of Mexico” and all other diplomatic properties.
Another member of Ecuador’s legal team, Sean Murphy, further argued that Mexico had not made any genuine attempts to negotiate a resolution to the escalating dispute prior to bringing the case to the ICJ. According to Murphy, such negotiation attempts are typically a prerequisite before the court imposes interim orders. “By any measure… there was no genuine attempt at negotiations,” Murphy contended.
While the ICJ judges are expected to take several weeks to deliberate and reach a decision regarding Mexico’s request for preliminary measures, the legal battle extends beyond this immediate issue. On the eve of the ICJ hearings, Ecuador itself filed a separate case against Mexico, accusing it of abusing its embassy premises to “shield Mr. Glas from enforcement by Ecuador of its criminal law.” Ecuador argues that Mexico’s actions constituted a “blatant misuse of the premises of a diplomatic mission” and is seeking a ruling from the ICJ that Mexico violated international conventions. As of now, no date has been scheduled for hearings in the case initiated by Ecuador, indicating a protracted legal and diplomatic standoff between the two nations regarding the Ecuador Mexico Embassy incident.
