On day 1, the ICJ (International Court of Justice) had 18 people. Several people had different jobs, such as judges, advocates of Mexico, advocates of the United States, deputy president, and the president. Each side's advocates were defending their claim. The Mexican side argued that the US “didn’t notify the Mexican government” on arresting and sentencing 54 Mexican Nationals. While the US advocates stated, “The US counselor has the right to sentence these criminals for public safety, public justice, and more,” The Mexicans strongly claimed that “the US violated Vienna convention article 36.” While the US side defended this claim by saying it was a false accusation. Furthermore, the US side claimed that “Mexican nationals committed several crimes that broke the Penal Code of the United States of America.” 

 

After a long debate between each side, they went over a stipulation in which they could object to any statement they wanted to disagree with. In summary, the Mexican advocates have objected to 5 statements, while the US disagreed on only 2 Mexican statements. ICJ had special procedures simulating an actual legal case in a court. Judges and advocates were not afraid to ask questions. They didn't get nervous and spoke to persuade the judges. They had good eye contact, and most importantly, the advocates were clear and understandable. One of the judges, Elias Lin, was very strict about judging the advocates. He stated that he wanted each claim to defend and offend without making disadvantages for themselves. Debate on the first day was heated up as there were many crossfires and objections. 

 

On day 2, the room for the International Court of Justice felt different. It was really fast-paced because today was the day to resolve the debate. As always, the US side kept knocking questions to the witness, to which the witness calmly responded. The Deputy President made sure that the witnesses were not relying on online sources but only on the evidence document. Each side made sure that the witnesses provided true and accurate information. The judges were also asking strict questions, wanting the right information so that they could judge. The witnesses stated that they got their information based on facts, past experiences, and incidents to make it more accurate and trustworthy. Overall, the debate in the ICJ has been very interesting over the past two days.