Avena case

Last updated

Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)
International Court of Justice Seal.svg
Court International Court of Justice
Decided31 March 2004 (2004-03-31)
Citation(s)Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, 12
General List No. 128
Court membership
Judges sitting Shi Jiuyong (President)
Raymond Ranjeva (Vice-President)
Gilbert Guillaume
Abdul Koroma
Vladlen Vereschetin
Rosalyn Higgins
Gonzalo Parra Aranguren
Pieter Kooijmans
Francisco Rezek
Awn Al-Khasawneh
Thomas Buergenthal
Nabil Elaraby
Hisashi Owada
Peter Tomka
Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor (ad hoc)
Case opinions
Declaration: Shi Jiuyong
Declaration: Raymond Ranjeva
Separate Opinion: Vladlen Vereschetin
Separate Opinion: Gonzalo Parra Aranguren
Separate Opinion: Peter Tomka
Separate Opinion: Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor

The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), more commonly the Avena case (French: Affaire Avena), was a case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its judgment of 31 March 2004, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in not allowing legal representation from the Mexican consulate to meet with Mexican citizens arrested and imprisoned for crimes in the United States.

Contents

An order indicating provisional measures in the case of Mr. José Ernesto Medellín Rojas was entered on 16 July 2008, and on 19 January 2009 the ICJ found that the United States breached its obligations under the 16 July order, but also that the Statute of the International Court of Justice "does not allow it to consider possible violations of the Judgment which it is called upon to interpret." [1] [2]

In the subsequent domestic American litigation in Medellín v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court (the court of last resort concerning federal rights and international obligations) held that the Congress had not implemented laws to enable redress of violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or to enable enforcement of decisions of the International Court of Justice, and hence the President of the United States could not do so.

Summary

On 9 January 2003, Mexico filed a lawsuit against its neighbour, the United States of America, accusing the US of violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by arresting, detaining, trying, convicting, and sentencing 54 Mexican nationals to death row without allowing Mexico its international legal obligations in accordance with Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention. In light of the violation committed by the United States, Mexico demanded that the US restore the status quo ante and take the necessary steps to ensure that the rights afforded under Article 36 are provided. Mexico also submitted a request to the court indicating provisional measures of protection in order to protect the rights of its citizens after the final judgment in the case, including that the government of the United States must ensure that no Mexican national be executed or have an execution date set.

The United States admitted that in certain cases, Mexican nationals have been prosecuted and sentenced without being informed of their rights, but in other cases, in accordance with the ICJ's judgment in the LaGrand case, the US had an obligation "by means of its own choosing, (to) allow the review and consideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in that Convention." In those cases, review and reconsideration had already occurred throughout the last two years. The US also pointed out that if the court granted Mexico's request to halt execution for its nationals, it would install a sweeping prohibition on capital punishment in the United States for any and all Mexican nationals, thus interfering in the US's sovereign rights and would "transform the court into a general criminal court of appeal".

Of the 54 cases presented to the court, three were most focused upon. Three Mexican nationals, César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera were at risk of execution in the next few months or possibly weeks. The court recognized that their execution would cause irreparable prejudice and implemented provisional measures by prohibiting the United States to proceed with their execution pending the final judgment in the case.

At the beginning of the proceedings, the United States raised several objections over the jurisdiction of the court as well as admissibility, each dismissed by the court as being a matter for the merits. In the first of Mexico's submissions, it asked the court to declare that:

the United States of America, in arresting, detaining, trying, convicting, and sentencing the 52 Mexican nationals on death row described in Mexico's Memorial, violated its international legal obligations to Mexico, in its own right and in the exercise of its right to diplomatic protection of its nationals, by failing to inform, without delay, the 52 Mexican nationals after their arrest of their right to consular notification and access under Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by depriving Mexico of its right to provide consular protection and the 52 nationals' right to receive such protection as Mexico would provide under Article 36 (1)(a) and (c) of the Convention.

There were two major issues under Article 36 that were being disputed by the two parties: the question of the nationalities of the individuals being executed as well as the meaning of the phrase "without delay".

The court wanted Mexico to produce proof that each of the individuals presented in the case held Mexican nationality at the time of their arrest, such as birth certificates or declarations of nationality, which would not be challenged by the United States. The US in turn had to produce proof that showed the persons of Mexican nationality were also United States citizens. In closer examination of the cases, the court revealed that in 45 of them, there was no evidence that the arrested individual claimed US nationality or were reasonably thought to be US nationals. Of the seven remaining cases, Mexico failed to prove a violation in only one. In another case, the court found that the individual was informed of their rights under Article 36 but had declined to have his consular post notified.

After months of debate, the court concluded that in 51 of the cases, excluding those of César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, the United States had breached their obligation as set forth under Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by not informing the appropriate Mexican consular post without delay. By not doing so, the US had also deprived Mexico of the right to provide assistance to its nationals. In regards to César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, by not allowing a review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences, the United States also violated Article 36, paragraph 2 of the convention. As reparation in this case, the United States of America was ordered to provide review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals and implement specific measures to ensure non-repetition.

See also

Related Research Articles

The LaGrand case was a legal action heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In the case, the ICJ ruled that its own temporary court orders were legally binding and that the rights contained in the convention could not be denied by the application of domestic legal procedures.

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation to the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vienna Convention on Consular Relations</span> 1963 international treaty

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an international treaty that defines a framework for consular relations between sovereign states. It codifies many consular practices that originated from state custom and various bilateral agreements between states.

The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bosnian genocide case</span> 2007 International Court of Justice decision

Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice.

<i>United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran</i>

United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran [1980] ICJ 1 is a public international law case brought to the International Court of Justice by the United States of America against Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis, where United States diplomatic offices and personnel were seized by militant revolutionaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jesús Ledesma Aguilar</span>

Jesús Ledesma Aguilar was a Mexican national who became the 365th person executed by the U.S. state of Texas. His execution sparked an international incident between the United States and Mexico, which led to a lawsuit filed by Mexico against the United States in the International Court of Justice, in which the court found that Texas prison officials had denied Aguilar his right to see a Mexican consular official as specified in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court decision decided on April 14, 1998, which placed the United States directly in conflict with the International Court of Justice and has since been used as precedent.

José Ernesto Medellín Rojas, born in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, was a Mexican national who was executed by lethal injection for the murders of Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña in Houston, Texas.

<i>Nottebohm case</i>

Nottebohm case [1955] ICJ 1 is the proper name for the 1955 case adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Liechtenstein sought a ruling to force Guatemala to recognize Friedrich Nottebohm as a Liechtenstein national. The case has been cited in many definitions of nationality.

<i>Oil Platforms</i> case

The Oil Platforms case is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice in 2003 in which Iran challenged the U.S. Navy's destruction of three oil platforms in the Persian Gulf in 1987-1988. The Court affirmed that it could exercise jurisdiction over the case based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran but decided with strong majorities against both Iran's claim and the United States' counterclaim.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Humberto Leal García Jr. was a Mexican national who was sentenced to death in the US state of Texas for the May 21, 1994, rape, torture, and murder of Adria Sauceda in San Antonio. Despite calls from US President Barack Obama, the US State Department, and Mexico to Texas for a last-minute reprieve, Leal was executed as scheduled on July 7, 2011.

<i>Leal Garcia v. Texas</i> 2011 United States Supreme Court case

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

The Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran was signed in Tehran on August 15, 1955, received the consent of the U.S. Senate on July 11, 1956 and entered into force on 16 June 1957. The treaty is registered by the United States to the United Nations on 20 December 1957. The official texts are in English and Persian. It is sealed by plenipotentiaries Selden Chapin (U.S.) and Mostafa Samiy (Iran). The Treaty has served as the jurisdictional basis for various international legal disputes between the United States and Iran, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cases Oil Platforms and Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. In October 2018, the United States provided notice that it would be withdrawing from the Treaty following Iran's use of the Treaty as a basis to challenge the U.S. imposition of sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the Alleged Violations case.

<i>Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity</i> (Iran v. United States)

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights is the formal name of a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Iran filed a lawsuit with the Hague-based ICJ against the United States, on 16 July 2018, mainly based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity signed between the two sides on 15 August 1955 and entered into force in 1957, well before the Islamic revolution of Iran. Iranian officials alleged that U.S. re-imposition of the nuclear sanctions was a violation of the treaty. Iran also filed a request for provisional measures. In response, the United States asserted that the lawsuit as "baseless" and vowed to oppose it. Almost a month later, the ICJ heard the provisional measures request. On 3 October 2018, the International Court of Justice issued a provisional measures order requiring the United States "to lift sanctions linked to humanitarian goods and civil aviation imposed against Iran."

The International Court of Justice Bill 2020 passed by lower House of Pakistan National Assembly on 11 June 2021, Meanwhile, the House also passed a bill to provide for the right of review and reconsideration to bring into effect the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. The bill was moved by Minister for Law and Justice Dr Muhammad Farogh Nasim in the House. The statement of objects and reasons of the bill says that the government of India initiated proceedings against Pakistan in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 "in the matter of detention and trial of an Indian national, Commander Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav", who had been sentenced to death by the Military Court in Pakistan in April 2017. The ICJ gave its judgment on 17 July 2019 wherein it observed that "Pakistan is under an obligation to provide by means of its own choosing effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight is given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, taking account of paragraphs 139, 145 and 146 of this judgment." In order to give full effect to the said judgment, it is necessary that a mechanism for review and reconsideration of Pakistan's own choice be provided. This can be done by law only. Pakistan last year in May passed ordinance which was passed in October same year.

References

  1. Judgment on the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment, International Court of Justice, 31 March 2004
  2. Mears, Bill (19 January 2009). "U.N. court rules U.S. execution violated treaty". CNN .