Request for Interpretation of the Avena Judgment: was it really necessary?

A couple of hours ago the International Court of Justice handed down its judgment on the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican
Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America). The 20-pages judgment which –I'm sure– will not surprise anybody, states that the ICJ cannot deliver an interpretation simply because the matters in which it seems to be a disagreement were not covered by the 2004 Avena judgment.

I do not think that anybody would disagree with the proven fact that the execution of Jose Ernesto Medellín is a clear violation of the original Avena judgment, the 2008 Order on Provisional Measures given by the Court a couple of weeks before the execution, and article 94 of the UN Charter (which establishes the binding character of ICJ judgments). What I guess would be the point of disagreement is whether Mexico's actions constitute frivolous litigation.

In a Court that clearly does not have supervision powers and which enforcement depends on the Security Council, Mexico's Request for Interpretation seem to be the only way to publicly denounce in a relevant forum the many legal problems which flow from the Medellín vs. Texas decision of the US Supreme Court (I must say, the last issue of the AJIL makes a very interesting analysis of its repercussions in the Agora section). However, it still was a request that lacked any factual or legal base beyond the execution of Mr. Medellín. At paragraph 60 of the decision lies the only relevant point that could be made: "The Court finds it sufficient to reiterate that its Avena Judgment remains binding and that the United States continues to be under an obligation fully to implement it."