In 2003, a significant legal dispute unfolded between Mexico and the United States at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Initiated by Mexico on January 9, 2003, the case, Mexico vs. United States, centered on alleged breaches of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. The heart of the matter concerned 54 Mexican nationals sentenced to death in various U.S. states, raising critical questions about international law and consular rights.
Mexico’s application to the ICJ was accompanied by a request for provisional measures. Seeking to protect its citizens, Mexico urged the Court to order the United States to prevent the execution of any Mexican national and to abstain from actions that could undermine Mexico’s rights or its nationals’ interests during the Court’s deliberation. The Court convened public hearings on January 21, 2003, to address these provisional measures. On February 5, 2003, the ICJ issued an order stipulating that the United States must take all necessary steps to ensure that three specific Mexican nationals—Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera—would not be executed while the proceedings were ongoing. The United States was also directed to inform the Court of the measures taken to implement this order, and the Court declared it would remain involved in these matters until a final judgment was reached. Simultaneously, the Court set deadlines for Mexico and the United States to submit their written arguments, later extended to June 20, 2003, for Mexico’s Memorial and November 3, 2003, for the United States’ Counter-Memorial. Both parties adhered to these deadlines.
Following further public hearings in December 2004, the ICJ delivered its judgment on March 31, 2004. During the proceedings, Mexico amended its claims, and the Court’s final ruling addressed the cases of 52 Mexican nationals. The United States raised several objections to the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Mexico’s claims. Mexico countered that these objections were submitted after the deadline stipulated by the Court’s rules and were therefore inadmissible. However, the Court rejected Mexico’s argument and proceeded to dismiss the United States’ objections, reserving some for further consideration during the merits phase of the case.
Turning to the substance of the Mexico vs. United States case, the Court first examined the nationality of the 52 Mexican individuals. The Court determined that the United States had not adequately demonstrated that some of these individuals also held U.S. nationality. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the United States was obligated to provide consular information to all 52 Mexican nationals under Article 36, paragraph 1(b), of the Vienna Convention. Interpreting the phrase “without delay” in Article 36 (1)(b), the Court clarified that this obligation arises as soon as authorities realize, or have reason to believe, that an arrested person is a foreign national. The Court concluded that, in all but one case, the United States had failed to fulfill its duty to provide the required consular information. Acknowledging the interconnectedness of subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Article 36(1), the Court further found that the United States had also violated its obligations in 49 cases to enable Mexican consular officers to communicate with, access, and visit their nationals, and in 34 cases to facilitate their legal representation.
Regarding Mexico’s arguments concerning Article 36(2) and the right to effective review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences compromised by violations of Article 36(1), the Court found that the United States, by not revising its procedural default rule since the LaGrand case, had violated Article 36(2) in three cases. However, the possibility of judicial re-examination remained open in the other 49 cases.
Addressing the legal ramifications of the established violations of Article 36 and Mexico’s request for restitutio in integrum through annulment of convictions and sentences, the Court clarified that international law mandates adequate reparation. In this context, it meant review and reconsideration of the Mexican nationals’ convictions and sentences by U.S. courts. While the Court left the choice of review and reconsideration methods to the United States, it emphasized that this process must account for the Vienna Convention rights violations. The Court specified that judicial proceedings were the appropriate context for review and reconsideration, deeming executive clemency insufficient on its own, although it could complement judicial review. Contrary to Mexico’s assertions, the Court found no evidence of a consistent pattern of Article 36 breaches by the United States. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the United States’ efforts to promote Vienna Convention compliance and considered this commitment sufficient assurance against future violations, as requested by Mexico.
The ICJ emphasized that while the Mexico vs. United States case specifically concerned Mexican nationals, its conclusions were applicable to any foreign nationals in similar situations within the United States. Finally, the Court reiterated that the United States had violated Article 36(1) and (2) in the cases of the three Mexican nationals mentioned in the provisional measures order of February 5, 2003, and that no review and reconsideration had occurred in these instances. Therefore, the Court concluded that the United States was responsible for providing an appropriate remedy, ensuring review and reconsideration consistent with the Judgment’s criteria. This landmark case, Mexico vs. United States, underscored the importance of consular rights within international law and set a precedent for the treatment of foreign nationals in the U.S. legal system.
