Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht Logo Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht

Sie befinden sich hier: Publikationen Archiv World Court Digest

World Court Digest



III. The International Court of Justice
3. THE PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
3.10. Provisional Measures
3.10.3. Provisional Measures and Jurisdiction

¤ Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America)
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures
Order of 5 February 2003

[pp. ] 38. On a request for the indication of provisional measures, the Court need not finally satisfy itself, before deciding whether or not to indicate such measures, that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it may not indicate them unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded;

39. Whereas Article I of the Optional Protocol, which Mexico invokes as the basis of jurisdiction of the Court in the present case, is worded as follows:

“Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by a written application made by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol”;

40. Whereas, according to the information communicated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as depositary, Mexico and the United States have been parties to the Vienna Convention since 16 June 1965 and 24 November 1969 respectively, and to the Optional Protocol since 15 March 2002 and 24 November 1969 respectively, in each case without reservation;

41. Whereas Mexico has argued that the issues in dispute between itself and the United States concern Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention and fall within the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article I of the Optional Protocol; and whereas it has accordingly concluded that the Court has the jurisdiction necessary to indicate the provisional measures requested; and whereas the United States has said that it “does not propose to make an issue now of whether the Court possesses prima facie jurisdiction, although this is without prejudice to its right to contest the Court’s jurisdiction at the appropriate stage later in the case”;

42. Whereas, in view of the foregoing, the Court accordingly considers that, prima facie, it has jurisdiction under Article I of the aforesaid Optional Protocol to hear the case;

[p. ] 51. Whereas Mexico’s principal request is that the Court should order the United States “to take measures sufficient to ensure that no Mexican national be executed and that no date for the execution of a Mexican national be set”; whereas the jurisdiction of the Court is limited in the present case to the dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention with regard to the individuals which Mexico identified as being victims of a violation of the Convention; whereas, accordingly, the Court cannot rule on the rights of Mexican nationals who are not alleged to have been victims of a violation of that Convention;