× 44. The Avena Judgment nowhere lays down or implies that the courts in the United States are required
to give direct effect to paragraph 153 (9). The obligation laid down in that paragraph is indeed an obligation
of result which clearly must be performed unconditionally; non-performance of it constitutes internationally
wrongful conduct. However, the Judgment leaves it to the United States to choose the means of
implementation, not excluding the introduction within a reasonable time of appropriate legislation, if deemed
necessary under domestic constitutional law. Nor moreover does the Avena Judgment prevent direct
enforceability of the obligation in question, if such an effect is permitted by domestic law. In short, the
question is not decided in the Court's original Judgment and thus cannot be submitted to it for interpretation
under Article 60 of the Statute (Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the
Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402).
of the Judgement of the ICJ of 19 January 2009, General List no. 139
30 Cf. Cameroun Tribune No. 5231 of 7th October 1992 p. 8 and 16, Cameroun Tribune No. 5246 of 26th
October 1992 p.4
31 Cf. Barcelona Traction Judgement, CIJ, 5th Feb. 1970
32 Pettiti Louis-Edmond, Decaux Emmanuel and Imbert Pierre-Henri, the European Human Rights
Convention, commentary Article by Article, Paris,Economica,1999, p. 467-468
33 The jurisprudence of the Commission is constant regarding the responsibility of States towards others,
see the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms vs. Chad ; Com. 155/96.
19