8/13/2019 Mexico vs US

1/4

8/13/2019 Mexico vs US

2/4

out that if the court passed Mexicos request to halt execution for its nationals, it wouldinstall a sweeping prohibition on capital punishment in the United States for any and allMexican nationals, thus interfering in the U.S.s sovereign rights and moreover willtransform the court into a general criminal court of appeal.

Of the 54 cases presented in front on the court, 3 cases were brought to the attention of theCourt. Three Mexican nationals, Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, andOsvaldo Torres Aguilera were at risk of execution in the next few months, even possiblyweeks. The court recognized that their execution would cause irreparable prejudice in thecase and implemented provisional measures by prohibiting the United States to proceedwith 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 amatter for the merits.

MEXICOS CONTENTION In the first of Mexicos submissions, it asked the court to declare that: the United States of America, in arresting, detaining, trying, convicting, and sentencing the52 Mexican nationals on death row described in Mexicos Memorial, violated its internationallegal obligations to Mexico, in its own right and in the exercise of its right to diplomaticprotection of its nationals, by failing to inform, without delay, the 52 Mexican nationalsafter 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 itsright to provide consular protection and the 5 2 nationals right to receive suchprotection as Mexico would provide under Article 36 (1) (a) and (c) of the Convention

Art. 36 of Vienna Convention:With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State:

a. consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have accessto them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication withand access to consular officers of the sending State;

b . if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform theconsular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested orcommitted to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communicationaddressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also beforwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concernedwithout delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph;

c . consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody ordetention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shallalso have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in theirdistrict in pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action onbehalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action.

8/13/2019 Mexico vs US

3/4

ISSUE WON the U.S. violated its legal obligations to Mexico under the Vienna Convention onConsular relations.

HELD The United States had violated what has been set forth in the Vienna Convention onConsular Relations.

The court concludes that in 51 of the cases, excluding those of Cesar Roberto FierroReyna, Roberto Moreno Ramos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, the United States hadbreached their obligation as set forth under Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Vienna Conventionon Consular Relations by not informing the appropriate Mexican consular post withoutdelay. By not doing so, the U.S. had also deprived Mexico of the right to provideassistance to its nationals. In regards to Cesar Roberto Fierro Reyna, Roberto MorenoRamos, and Osvaldo Torres Aguilera, by not allowing a review and reconsideration of theirconvictions and sentences, the United States also violated Article 36, paragraph 2 of theconvention. As reparation in this case, the United States of America must provide

review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationalsand implement specific measures to ensure non-repetition.

8/13/2019 Mexico vs US

4/4