In 1984 two German nationals living in the United States, the brothers Karl and Walter LaGrand,

were both convicted of murder in the first degree, attempted robbery, and two counts of
kidnapping, and were sentenced to death by the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona. The
LaGrand brothers challenged their conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court of
Arizona and the US Supreme Court; the latter denied their applications in exercise of its
discretion.

Germany filed an application with the Registry of the ICJ instituting proceedings against the US
and accompanied by a request for provisional measures (Interim [Provisional] Measures of
Protection). The measures included, in particular, a stay of the execution of Walter LaGrand.
Referring to the ‘extreme urgency’ of the situation and to the powers conferred on it under the
Statute and the Rules of Court to order provisional measures even proprio motu in order to
prevent irreparable damage, the ICJ granted the request for provisional measures without
holding hearings in the case, by its order of 3 March 1999

Germany filed proceedings before the US Supreme Court against the US and the Government
of Arizona, seeking the enforcement of the Court’s order. The motion of Germany was
dismissed and Walter LaGrand was executed on the same day.

After having examined the unclear wording of the English and French versions of the text, and
by considering the object and purpose of the statute as well as the principle according to which
‘parties to a case must abstain from any measure capable of exercising a prejudicial effect in
regard to the execution of the decision to be given’ (LaGrand [Judgment] para. 103), the Court
came to the conclusion that the order under Art. 41 ICJ Statute had binding character. The
Court also found that by simply transmitting the order to the Governor of Arizona, the US did
‘certainly less than it could … even considering the short time available’ (LaGrand [Judgment]
para. 112). Also in view of the conduct of other US organs, the Court concluded that the US had
not complied with the order of 3 March 1999. The Court furthermore held that, had Germany
made a request for indemnification, it would have taken into consideration the time-factor, as
well as the uncertainty of the binding character of the Court’s orders under Art. 41 ICJ Statute