No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ICJ Decision Regarding Mexicans on Death Row in United States
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 March 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2004
References
1 Application of Mexico (Jan. 9, 2003), Avena (Mex. v. U.S.), Judgment (Int’l Ct. Justice Mar. 31, 2004). The basic documents, decisions, pleadings, and other materials concerning the International Court of Justice are available at the Court’s Web site, <http://www.icj-cij.org>.
2 Apr. 24,1963, Art. 36(1) (b), (2), 21 UST77,101,596 UNTS 261,292 [hereinafter Vienna Convention]. Article 36(1) (a) provides that consular officers shall be free to communicate with, and have access to, their nationals in the receiving state, and vice versa. Article 36(1) (b) provides that “[i]f he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving state shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner.” Article 36( 1) (c) states that consular officers “have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation.” During the course of the proceedings, Mexico amended its claim so as to cover fifty-two Mexican nationals.
3 Request of Mexico for Provisional Measures (Jan. 9, 2003), Avena (Mex. v. U.S.), Provisional Measures (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 5, 2003).
4 Avena, Provisional Measures, para. 59. For the U.S. and Mexican arguments at this phase of the case, see Sean, D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 97 AJIL 434–37 (2003)Google Scholar. The Court’s provisional measures order is also discussed in a case report by William Aceves at 97 AJIL 923 (2003)Google Scholar.
5 Memorial of Mexico at paras. 169-208 (June 20, 2003), Avena, Judgment.
6 Id., paras. 209-38. Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention provides:
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended.
7 Memorial of Mexico, supra note 5, paras. 239-82.
8 LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001), 40 ILM 1069 (2001).
9 Id., para. 128 (emphasis added). For a discussion of the LaGrand case, of the consular-notification cases in the United States preceding it, and of the effect of LaGrand on a Mexican national on U.S. death row, see Sean, D. Murphy, United States Practice in International Law: 1999-2001, at 27–40 (2002)Google Scholar. The Court’s judgment in LaGrand is also discussed in a case report by William Aceves at 96 AJIL 210 (2002)Google Scholar. For an exam pie of the implementation of the Z-aGrandjudgment in a U.S. federal habeas corpus proceeding, see Sean, D. Murphy, Contemporary Practice of the United States, 97 AJIL 180 (2003)Google Scholar.
10 Memorial of Mexico, supra note 5, para. 283.
11 Id, paras. 353-55, 356-406.
12 The Court’s jurisdiction was based on Article I of the Vienna Convention’s Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory settlement of Disputes, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 325, 596 UNTS 487, to which both the United States and Mexico are party.
13 Counter-memorial of the United States at para. 3.2 (Nov. 3, 2003), Avena, Judgment.
14 Id., paras. 4.1-.15.
15 Id., paras. 6.1-.104, 7.1-.35.
16 Id., paras. 8.1-.58.
17 Verbatim Record, Avena (Mex. v. U.S.), ICJ Doc. CR 2003/26, at 10-12, 15 (Dec. 16, 2003).
18 Avena (Mex. v. U.S.),Judgment (Int’l Ct.Justice Mar. 31, 2004).
19 Id., paras. 26-35. The Court held over to the merits its analysis of the question whether the remedies sought by Mexico exceeded the Court’s jurisdiction.
20 Id., para. 37.
21 Id., paras. 38-40.
22 Id., paras. 41-42. In its discussion on the merits, the Court found that Mexico had introduced evidence showing the nationality of the fifty-two individuals, which was not challenged by the United States. While the United States asserted the some of the individuals were or might be dual nationals (holding Mexican and U.S. nationality), the Court found that the United States failed to prove the U.S. nationality. Id., para. 57.
23 Id., paras. 43-44.
24 Id., paras. 45-47.
25 Id., paras. 106, 153.
26 Id., para. 64. The Court suggested that the
provision of such information could parallel the reading of those rights of which any person taken into custody in connection with a criminal offence must be informed prior to interrogation by virtue of what in the United States is known as the “Miranda rule”; these rights include, inter alia, the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have an attorney appointed at government expense if the person cannot afford one.
Id.
27 Id., para. 153(9).
28 Id., paras. 139-40.
29 Id., para. 143.