30. Whereas the United States submitted … that the request by Mexico seeking by way of indication of provisional measures, to preserve a right to the restoration of the status quo ante was not a request seeking preservation of a right protected by the Vienna Convention, and that therefore the request should be denied;
38. Whereas, 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;
44. Whereas the United States acknowledges that, in certain cases, Mexican nationals have been prosecuted and sentenced without being informed of their rights pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 1 (b) of the Vienna Convention; whereas it argues, however, that in such cases, in accordance with the Court’s Judgement in the LaGrand case, the United States has the obligation “by means of its own choosing, [to] allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in that Convention”…. Whereas the United States contends that such review and reconsideration can occur through the process of executive clemency … that under the terms of the Court’s decision of the LaGrand case, this is a sufficient remedy for its breaches, and that there is accordingly no need to indicate provisional measures intended to preserve the rights to such remedies;
45. Whereas, according to Mexico, the position of the United States, amounts to maintaining that “the Vienna Convention entitles Mexico only to review and reconsideration, and that the review and considerations equals only the ability to request clemency”; whereas “the standardless, secretive and unreviewable process that is called clemency cannot and does not satisfy this Court’s mandate [in the LaGrand case]”
46. Whereas there is thus a dispute between the Parties concerning the rights of Mexico and of its nationals regarding the remedies that must be provided in the event of a failure by the United States to comply with its obligations under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Conventions; whereas the dispute belongs to the merits and cannot be settled at this stage of the proceedings;
53. Whereas the United States argues that no execution date has been scheduled with respect to any of the Mexican nationals concerned…it accordingly concludes that the request for the indication of provisional measures is thus premature
54. … the fact that no such dates have been fixed in any of the cases before the Court is not per se a circumstance that should preclude the Court form indicating provisional measures
59. The Court Unanimously, I. Indicates the following provisional measures: (a) The United States of America shall take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. César Roberto Fierro Reyna, Mr. Roberto Moreno Ramos and Mr. Osvaldo Torres Aguilera are not executed pending final judgment in these proceedings; (b) The Government of the United States of America shall inform the Court of all measures taken in the implementation of this Order.