On January 9, 2003, a significant legal battle commenced on the international stage as Mexico formally initiated proceedings against the United States of America at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This case, brought forth by Mexico, centered on alleged violations of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. The heart of the dispute concerned the rights of 54 Mexican nationals who were facing the death penalty in various states across the United States.
Simultaneous with its application to the ICJ, Mexico urgently requested provisional measures. These measures aimed to prevent the execution of any Mexican citizens and protect the rights of both Mexico and its nationals throughout the court proceedings. The request underscored the gravity of the situation and the potential for irreversible harm.
The ICJ promptly convened public hearings on January 21, 2003, to hear arguments from both Mexico and the United States regarding these provisional measures. Deliberating swiftly, the Court issued an order on February 5, 2003, stipulating crucial interim actions.
The ICJ mandated that the “United States of America should take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera [three Mexican nationals] [we]re not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings.” Furthermore, the United States was directed to keep the Court informed of all steps taken to implement this order. The ICJ affirmed it would remain involved in these matters until a final judgment was reached. The Court also set deadlines for Mexico to file its Memorial and for the United States to file its Counter-Memorial, deadlines which were later extended.
Public hearings on the substantive issues of the case were held in December 2004. By the time the Court delivered its Judgment on March 31, 2004, Mexico had revised its claims, focusing on 52 Mexican nationals instead of the initial 54.
Before addressing the core issues, the ICJ tackled preliminary objections raised by the United States. The US presented four objections to the Court’s jurisdiction and five objections to the admissibility of Mexico’s claims. Mexico countered that these objections were submitted after the stipulated deadline. However, the Court overruled Mexico’s argument and proceeded to consider the US objections, ultimately dismissing them while reserving some for later consideration during the merits phase.
Turning to the merits of the case, the ICJ first examined the nationality of the 52 Mexican individuals. The Court determined that the United States had not sufficiently proven that some of these individuals also held US nationality. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the United States was obligated to provide consular information as per Article 36, paragraph 1(b), of the Vienna Convention for all 52 Mexican nationals. Interpreting the phrase “without delay” in Article 36 (1)(b), the ICJ clarified that consular notification must occur as soon as authorities realize, or suspect, an arrested person is a foreign national. The Court concluded that, in almost all cases, the United States had failed to meet its obligation to provide this essential consular information.
Recognizing the interconnected nature of subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Article 36(1), the ICJ further found that the United States had also violated its obligations in a significant number of cases. Specifically, in 49 cases, the US failed to enable Mexican consular officers to communicate with, access, and visit their nationals. Additionally, in 34 cases, the US did not facilitate arrangements for legal representation for these Mexican citizens.
Mexico further argued that the violations of Article 36(1) undermined the right of its nationals to effective review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences, as guaranteed by Article 36(2). Referencing its prior decision in the LaGrand case, the Court noted the US had not revised its procedural default rule. Consequently, the ICJ found that the United States had violated Article 36(2) in three cases, while acknowledging that judicial re-examination remained possible in the remaining 49 cases.
Addressing the legal ramifications of the established Vienna Convention violations and Mexico’s request for restitutio in integrum (restoration to the original condition) through annulment of convictions and sentences, the ICJ clarified that international law necessitates adequate reparation. In this context, it meant review and reconsideration of the Mexican nationals’ convictions and sentences by US courts. While the ICJ left the method of review and reconsideration to the discretion of the United States, it emphasized that this process must consider the Vienna Convention rights violations. The Court stipulated that judicial proceedings were the appropriate context for such review, deeming executive clemency insufficient on its own, though it could supplement judicial review.
Contrary to Mexico’s assertions, the ICJ did not find evidence of a consistent pattern of Vienna Convention breaches by the United States. The Court acknowledged US efforts to promote compliance and considered this commitment sufficient assurance against future violations, thus not mandating further guarantees as requested by Mexico.
The ICJ underscored that while this case specifically concerned Mexican nationals, its conclusions were broadly applicable to any foreign nationals in similar situations within the United States. Finally, the Court reiterated that the US had violated Article 36(1) and (2) concerning the three Mexican nationals named in the 2003 provisional measures order. As no review or reconsideration had occurred in those cases, the ICJ concluded it was incumbent upon the United States to provide an appropriate remedy involving review and reconsideration, adhering to the criteria outlined in the Judgment.
