## Facts

- In 2004, the International Court of Justice held the United States breached Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to provide consular notification and access to 51 Mexican nationals sentenced to death.
- The 2004 judgment ordered the United States to provide “review and reconsideration” of the convictions and sentences, “by means of its own choosing,” taking account of the Article 36 violations.
- In June 2008, Mexico filed an application under Article 60 of the ICJ Statute seeking interpretation of the 2004 operative paragraph on “review and reconsideration,” asserting a dispute over its meaning and scope.
- Mexico also requested provisional measures to prevent executions of covered nationals pending the interpretation proceedings.
- In July 2008, the Court indicated provisional measures requiring the United States to take all measures necessary to prevent the execution of five named Mexican nationals pending judgment, unless and until they received review and reconsideration consistent with the 2004 judgment.
- Texas executed José Ernesto Medellín Rojas in August 2008 despite the indicated measures.
- In January 2009, the Court issued its judgment on Mexico’s request for interpretation.

## Issues

1. Whether Mexico identified a dispute “as to the meaning or scope” of a matter decided with binding force in the 2004 judgment, permitting interpretation under Article 60 of the ICJ Statute.
2. Whether the Court could, in interpretation proceedings, decide whether the 2004 judgment imposed an “obligation of result” requiring the United States to prevent executions until review and reconsideration occurred.
3. Whether the United States breached the Court’s 2008 order indicating provisional measures by permitting Medellín’s execution.
4. Whether interpretation proceedings could support additional remedies, including guarantees of non-repetition or directions to adopt particular domestic implementation measures.

## Decision

- The Court dismissed the request for interpretation because it did not concern the meaning or scope of what the Court had decided in 2004 within the sense of Article 60.
- The Court held Mexico’s application sought a ruling on the effects of the 2004 judgment within the United States’ domestic legal order, rather than clarification of an ambiguity in the decision itself.
- The Court found the United States violated the binding July 2008 provisional measures order by allowing Medellín’s execution.
- The Court reaffirmed the continuing binding force of the 2004 judgment’s obligation to provide review and reconsideration, but declined to order new remedies or specific domestic steps in the interpretation proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Article 60 interpretation is limited to construing the meaning or scope of what the Court decided with binding force in the operative part of a judgment, read in light of the reasoning essential to that operative part.
- Interpretation proceedings cannot be used to reopen the merits, revise the operative terms, or obtain additional remedies beyond the original judgment.
- A dispute about domestic implementation mechanisms is distinct from a dispute about the judgment’s meaning or scope and is not, without more, a proper basis for Article 60 interpretation.
- Provisional measures indicated by the Court are binding; failure to take required steps to prevent executions contrary to the order constitutes an internationally wrongful act.
- A state may not invoke internal law to justify non-compliance with its international obligations; the obligation to provide the ordered review and reconsideration remains in force.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected Mexico’s attempt to characterize the 2004 remedy as an enforceable “obligation of result” through Article 60 interpretation, holding the application instead targeted domestic effects not decided in the earlier judgment. At the same time, the Court declared that the United States breached binding provisional measures by allowing Medellín’s execution and reaffirmed that the 2004 obligation to provide review and reconsideration continues to bind the United States under international law.


Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 (Avena & Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.)), 2009 I.C.J. 3 (Jan. 19)