“Exceptional” circumstance, the invasion of the Mexican embassy: Ecuador

Quito. With the offer that it will not happen again, the Ecuadorian delegation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) justified the assault on the Mexican embassy in Quito. And at the same time he pointed out that “what happened on April 5 was an exception. Now there is no risk of new interference. Ecuador has guaranteed the inviolability of the diplomatic headquarters and its archives,” explained the head of the delegation, the ambassador to the Netherlands, Andrés Terán.

With Ecuadorian participation, the ICJ closed the hearing to give way to deliberation on Mexico’s request that precautionary measures be granted to facilitate the removal of the articles found in the diplomatic headquarters in Quito and “refrain from “to carry out any type of action that could aggravate the diplomatic conflict between both countries.”

In that sense, the group of lawyers (not a single Ecuadorian one) stated that all facilities have been provided to protect the Mexican Embassy after the assault, and asked The Hague to consider the provisional measures requested by Mexico.

In the proceedings, private lawyers Alfredo Crosato (Peruvian), Michael Wood (English), Sean Murphy (from the US) and Omri Sender (Israeli) presented their exculpatory arguments, against the accusations of Mexico, this 30 April, but attention was drawn to the introduction made by Ambassador Andrés Terán when he began the presentation, calling the audience in The Hague “unnecessary and unjustified,” as he said that his government is providing all the guarantees for the protection of the facilities of the diplomatic headquarters, as well as its assets and archives.

And at the same time, he added that Ecuador is aware of the invasion of the Mexican embassy in Quito, because it was “an exceptional and isolated measure.” Likewise, he recalled that on April 9 he informed Mexico, in writing, of his intention to provide these guarantees. While the Peruvian lawyer Crosato considered that some arguments presented by Mexico last Tuesday are irrelevant. Likewise, he criticized the other party’s haste in initiating proceedings before The Hague.

The jurist explained that the decision to attack the embassy was taken to arrest former vice president Jorge Glas (“to give refuge to a common criminal who has been duly convicted on two occasions,” as Terán said before) so he observed the argument of Mexico on the loss of confidence that Quito complies with its international obligations.

Crosato reiterated that Ecuador, in its communications with the Mexican authorities, before the breaking of diplomatic relations, expressed its concern about the refuge granted to Glas and anticipated that it would not be legal to do so. The defense maintained that Mexico has not observed international conventions regarding diplomatic asylum.

Along the same lines, Michael Wood maintained that the assault on the embassy constitutes an “exceptional incident, which has never happened before and will never happen.” The English jurist stressed before the Court that “there is no serious or urgent situation” to grant provisional measures to Mexico. For this reason, he also called on the ICJ judges to consider the entire case and analyze Mexico’s request for precautionary measures.

Until the closing of this edition there were no statements from the highest authorities in Quito, but their political allies and in the official media highlighted the “magnificent defense” of the lawyers.

On Tuesday, on the first day of hearings, Mexico defended its demand for urgent measures before ICJ judges.

In a contact with the press, Mexico’s main agent before the court, Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, said that what happened on April 5 “had to have consequences.”

This Wednesday, Terán Parral assured the ICJ that his country protects Mexican diplomatic offices and the archives located there, the subject of one of Mexico’s requests for provisional measures to the ICJ.

He added that Ecuador also does not object to Mexican representatives emptying and evacuating both the embassy premises and the diplomats’ residences, the subject of another request for urgent measures.

For this reason, Ecuador considered that the Mexican demand to the ICJ for urgent measures is “unnecessary and unjustified.”

Now, the Court must rule on Mexico’s demands within “a period of a few weeks,” as mentioned by a source from the ICJ press team.

The treatment of the Ecuadorian counterclaim against Mexico does not yet have a defined date.