Audience publique tenue le jeudi 26 août 1993, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de sir Robert Jennings, président

1 Non-Corrigé 1

InternationalCourt Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THEHAm La HAYE

Arblic sitting

held on Thursday 26 August 2993, at IO a.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Sir Robertemings presiding

in the case concerning Applicationof the Conventionon
the Prevention andmishment of the Crime of Genocide

(Bosnia and Herzegovinv. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Hontenegro))

Requests for the Indicationof Provisional Heasures

No 2

VERBATIMRECORD

Audience publique

tenue lejeudi26 août 1993,à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de sir Robert Jennings, président

en l'affaire relativeà l'Applicationde la conventionpour
la préventionet la répressiondu crime de génocide

osni nie-Herzégovc.nYougoslavie (Serbie et Honténégro))

Demades en indicationde mesures conservatoires

COMPTEREmPresent:

President SirRobertJennings
Vice-PresidentOda

Judges Schwebel
Bedjaoui
Ni
Evensen
Tarassov
Guillaume
Shahabuddeen
Aguilar Mawdsley
Weeramantry
Ajibola
Herczegh

Judges ad hoc Lauterpacht

Kreca

RegistrarValencia-OspinaPrésents:

Sir RobertJennings, Président
M. Oda, Vice-Président
MM. Schwebel

Bedjaoui
Ni
Evensen
Tarassov
Guillaume
Shahabuddeen
Aguilar Mawdsley
Weerarnantry
Ajibola,juges
Herczegh,juges

Lauterpacht,
Kreca,juges ad hoc

M. Valencia-Ospina, GreffierThe Govemnt of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is represented
by: :

H. E. Mr. MuhamedSacirbey, Ambassador and Permanent Representative
of Bosniaand Herzegovina to theUnitedNations;

Mr. FrancisA. Boyle,Professorof InternationaL law,

as Agent;

Mr. Phonvan denBiesen, Advocate,

Mr. KhawarQureshi, Barrister England,

as Advocates and Counsel;

Mr. MarcWeller,AssistantLecturerin Law,Universityof Cambridge,
Senior ResearcF hellow ofSt. Catharine's College,Cambridge,

as Counsel.

The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) is represented by:

Mr. RodoljubEtinski,Professorat the Schoolof Law,Novi Sad
(Yugoslavia),

Mt. DjordjeLopicic(LL.C.),Chargé d'affaire s.i. of the Embassy
of the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia to the Netherlands,

as Agents;

Mr. ShabtaiRosenne,AdvocatefromJerusalem(Israel),

Mr. MiodragMitic (LL.C.),ChiefLegalAdviserof the Federal
Ministryof Foreign Affairs,

as Counsel and Advocates.Le Gouvernementde la osn nie-~erzégov estereprésentépar :

S. Exc.M. MuhamedSacirbey, ambassadeur et représentantpermanent
de la Bosnie-Herzégovinaeuprès del'organisatiodnes
Nations Unies,

M. FrancisA. Boyle,professeur de droit international,

comme agent;

M. Phonvan den Biesen,avocat,

M. KhawarQureshi,avocat,

comme avocats etconseils;

M. Marc Weller,Assistant Lecturer in Law l'université de
Cambridgeet Senior Research Fellowof St. Catharine's College,
Cambridge,

comme consei.

Le Gouvernementde la ~épubliquefédérativede Yougoslavie (Serbieet
Monténégro) est représentépar :

M. RodoljubEtinski, professeurà la Facultéde droit, Novi Sad
(Yougoslavie),

M. Djordje Lopicic(LL.C.),chargéd'affaires a.i.de l'ambassade de
la Républiquefédérativede Yougoslavie auPxays-Bas,

comme agents;

M. Shabtai Rosennea,vocatau barreaude Jerusalem(Israel),

M. MiodragMitic(LL.C.),conseiller juridiqueen chefdu ministère
fédéral des affaires étrangères,

comme conseilset avocats. The PRESIDENT: Thismorningwe hear the caseof Yugoslavia and

firstMr. Etinski.

Mr. ETINSKI: Mr. President, distinguisheMdembersof the Court,may

it please theCourt. (i

My name is RodoljubEtinski. 1 am professorof international law at

the Universityof Novi Sad. It is a greathonour for meto appear before

this Courtas Agentof the FederalBepublicof Yugoslavia.

May 1 first take this opportuni toycongratulate

Judge GézaHerczeghon his electionto the Court.

Keepingin mind the instructions of the Presidentof the Court

regarding the maintenano ce forensiccivilityand the dignito yf the

Court, 1 will refrain fromreplyingin kind to the insultingremarks made

yesterdayby theAgent of theApplicant State againm st Government. His

insultis an abuseof the procedure of the Courtand 1 must reserveal1

Our rights,includingOur rightto objectto the admissibility of the

Application which is accompaniedby such impermissible statements.

By the twowrittenobservations dated9 and 23 August1993,1 have

commentedon the second request fo the indicationof provisional

measuresand of a latersupplement and amendmentsof it, exceptthoseof

w
23 and 24 August. Both ofthemcontaininformation not relevantto the

presentcase.

Much to my regret,1 was compelledto fax my written submissionsand

1 am worriedif theywere receivedin a readable form. The originalsof
a
the submissions wereforwardedto the Registraron 24 August and1 am

sure that the Registrar wilble able to producesatisfactory copies.

With this in mind, itis not my intentionto repeatthe contentsof these

observations. The statementosn behalfof the Federal Republiocf Yugoslaviawill

be made bythe followinp gersons.

Dr. MiodragMitic,ChiefLegalAdviserof theMinistryof Foreign

Affairsof the Federal Republi of Yugoslavia,will make a general

presentationof the underlying fact relevantto the crisisin the former

Yugoslavia. This is necessarybecauseof thenatureof theprovisional

measures requeste by the otherside. It isalso important fo argeneral

understandingof the case asa whole.

My CO-Agent,Dr. DjordjeLopicic,Chargéd'Affaires in the Kingdom

of TheNetherlands, will followand present our reasonisn respectof the

Yugoslav requesf tor provisionameasures. Distinguished Professor

Shabtai Rosennweill thenpresentOur generallegalarguments.

May it pleaseyou to permitMr. Miticto
Thankyou,Mr. President.

deliverhis statement.

The PRESIDENT:Thankyou very muchMr. Etinski. Dr. Mitic.

Dr. MITIC: Mr. President, distinguished Membo erthe Court,may

it please theCourt.

Allowme to brieflyset out thelegally relevant background

informationon the onsetof what is knownas theYugoslavcrisis,the

secessionof someYugoslav republics frt ome thenFederation- the

SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia - the outbreakof armed clashes

and acivil,ethnicand religiouw sar in Bosnia and Herzegovinwa,th

referenceto the discussionosn both the legitimac of the so-called

Government oftheRepublicof Bosniaand Herzegovina and the

responsibilitoyf the Governmenotf the SocialistFederalRepublicof

Yugoslavia,as well asthatof the Federal Republio cf Yugoslavia.Developments on the territoryof the former Yugoslav Republoic Bosnia

and Herzegovina cannotbe appraised without consideri the basicreasons

and natureof the ongoingwar, whichalso applies to the crimescommitted

thereand condemned most strongly by G theemment of Yugoslaviatime

and again,regardless of whothe perpetratorw sere.

The Constitutionof the SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia,

with Bosnia and Herzegovin as one ofits federalunits,containeda

provisionon self-determinatio of peoples butdid not envisage the

required procedurf eor its application.The forcibleand illegal

secessionof the Republio cf Slovenia,followedby thatof the Republic

of Croatia and their declaratio ofsindependencew,ere proclaimed

invalidby the Constitutional Cou oftYugoslavia andthe leadershipof

the thenYugoslaviasoughtto developcommonrulesto be appliedwith a

view to implementinga people'srightto self-determination. The then

valid1974SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia Constitution

prescribedthatany decisionon changesof Yugoslavia's borders,as well

as thoseof its federal units,i.e.,republics, was to be reachedby

consensusof al1 thememberrepublics. Onltyhe Statebordersof

Yugoslavia wererecognized internationally and bthehighest legislative

Stateauthority. Inter-republican borderswere merely administrativ in W

natureand were neither drawnnor validated by any agenocy eitherthe

federation or the republics.The recognitionof the breakaway Yugoslav

republicsby certaincountriesand evenby the international community

withintheir administrative bounderd iesnot only constitutae

violationof the Constitutioo nf Yugoslaviand its intemationally

recognizedbordersbut alsoof the principleof inviolability of

boundaries byforce. What,in this specific case, happen todthe former Yugoslav

republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina?This republicwas created only after

the Second WorlWdar asa federal unitwithinYugoslaviaand as a

communityof three constituen tations- the Serbs,Muslimsand Croats.

Before the proclamatio on the Kingdomof Serbs, Croatand Slovenesin

1918,the territoryof the Republicof Bosnia.endHerzegovi.n aorrnepart

of the Austro-HungariaEnmpire,populatedby Yugoslav peopleasnd was,in

1918,incorporated in the Stateof the Serbs,Croats and Sloveneswhich

was attached, togethewith Vojvodinato theKingdomof Serbiaand the

Kingdomof Montenegro,thusforminga commonStatecalledthe Kingdomof

Serbs,Croatsand Slovenes.As a result theSerbpeoplein the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina and

in the Republicof Croatiawere granted thestatus ofa constituent

nationhavingcontinuously liveo dnthoseterritories foc renturies.

With the secessionof one of its partsfromYugoslaviathe Serbshavenot
*

only losttheircommon State but were denied the right to

self-determination,that is to decideon theirfuturein the former

Republicof Croatiaand the Republio cf Bosniaand Herzegovina. On

15 October1991by flouting the SocialiF stderalRepublicof

Yugoslavia's Constitution,theAssemblyof the former Republiocf Bosnia

and Herzegovinaadopted a resolutio on the positionof the Socialist

Republicof Bosnia and Herzegovin regardingthe Yugoslavcrisisand a

memorandumon the sovereignto yf Bosnia,with the representativesf the

Croatianand the Muslim peoples votiing favourand the representatives

The SocialistFederal
of the Serbpeople strongly opposingtheseacts.

Republicof Yugoslavia's Presidencyconveyedon 20 December 1991to the

Arbitration Committeeof The HagueConferenceon former Yugoslaviiats

standsand opinionon the rightof the Serb people in Croatiaand in

Bosnia and Herzegovin to self-determination.On 9 January 1992 whenit

becarneclear thattheMuslimand Croatsidesby violatingthe principle

of consensuswere aboutto separatefromYugoslavia and turnBosniaand

Herzegovina into aMuslim-CroatStatethe Serbdeputiesto the parliament

passeda declaration proclaimit nge Republicof the Serbpeoplein

Bosnia andHerzegovina, the Constitutioof whichwas adoptedand

promulgatedon 27 March 1992,nine daysafter the statemen on the

principlesof constitutional arrangements for Bos andaHerzegovinwas

signed bythe rulingMuslimand Croatian political partii esBosniaand

Herzegovina.On 7 April1992,the EuropeanCommunity recognized in

spiteof al1 thesefactsand warningsthe so-called Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovinawhereason thevery sameday theAssemblyof the Serb

people proclaime dhe independen ttateknownas the SerbRepublicof

Bosnia and Herzegovina (subsequentrenarneRdepublicof Srpska byits

Assembly'sdecision).Meanwhile, the authorities of theo-called

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina resortedto terror againstthe Serb

population (thefirst assault by Muslim extremi tooskplace at aSerb

weddingpartyin Sarajevo), as wellas against Yugoslav army troops

stationedin Bosniaand Herzegovina. The leadershipof Socialist Federal

Republicof Yugoslavia sough to preventarmed clashes antdothatend

Mr. AlijaIzetbegovicM,r. Radovan Karadzic ,ndMr. FranjoBovason

behalfof theMuslim,Serband Croat national connnunitiein Bosniaand

Herzegovinasignedon 23 April1992a cease-firedeclaration in Sarajevo.

On 27 April1992the Constitutionof theFederalRepublicof

Yugoslaviawas adoptedand promulgated alonwgith an Assembly declaration

explicitlystatingthat theFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia has no

territorialclaimson any of itsneighbouring States. Alreadythe

followingday on 28 April,the Yugoslav Presidencyook a decisionto

chargethe staffof the Supreme Commandof the armed forcesith

preparing aplan for a transformatioon theJNA into the armyof the

FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia andwithmakingeveryeffortto withdraw

the remaininJgNA units whose evacuatiiontothe FederalRepublicof

Yugoslavia hadbeenprevented by Muslim-Croaauthorities following

variousassaultson thebarracks. The Socialist FederalRepublicof

Yugoslavia'sPresidencytooka decisionon 4May 1992to orderal1

citizensof the FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviawho were membersof the

JNA in Bosnia and Herzegovitna returnto the territoryof Yugoslavia

withinno more than15 days. The following day the representativoes

theBosnia and Herzegovina Presiden JNA,and EuropeanCommunitysigneda cease-fireagreementin Bosniaand Herzegovinawhich wasto halt

attackson JNA barracksand enableits troopsto pullout. On the same

day theYugoslav Presidenc by a specialstatementcalledon the leaders

of the threenationalcommunities of Bosniaand Herzegovinato reachan

agreementon takingoverthe army formation sadeup ofBosniaand

Herzegovinacitizens. On6 April1992the representative of the Serb

and Croat communitii es Bosniaand Herzegovina agreein Graz to a

comprehensivaend lastingcease-fire. On 5 June 1992the lastYugoslav

soldier leftthe territoryof BosniaandHerzegovina and only 11 days

laterthe Yugoslav Presidency addresa sedemorandumon the engagemenotf w

Croatianarmy troops in Bosniaand Herzegovinato the United Nations

Secretary-General Mr. BoutrosBoutros-Ghali.

The above-mentionefdactsclearly testiftyo the following:

1. The Serbpeoplein the former Yugoslav Republ ofcBosniaand

Herzegovina werdeeprivedby theMuslim-Croat coalitionof the rightto

self-determinatio and compelled, against thewill expressedat the

referendum,to live inthenewlyproclaimed Muslim-Cro atatewhereby,

not only the Yugoslav constitutiaond the constitutionf Bosniaand

Herzegovinawere flagrantlyviolatedbut also the fundamentaprinciples

of the internationa lawgoverning self-determination, inviolabo ility V

bordersand non-interferenc in the interna1 affairsf other countries

(followingthe recognitioonf the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovinby

the EuropeanCommunitydespitethe above-mentionefdacts andthe explicit

provision adopte dy theConferenceon Yugoslavia to recogni zew States

onlyupon the completionof the negotiatinpgrocess).

2. By promulgatinghe FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia'sConstitution

on 27 April 1992 whichtipulatesthat theterritory of the former

Yugoslav republicwsith the exceptioof thoseof Serbiaand Montenegrono longer formpart of thatof the Federal Republicf Yugoslavia,the

Governmentof Yugoslaviaproceeded immediatet lyensurethewithdrawal

of the JNAand its transformatioinntothe army of the FederalRepublic

of Yugoslavia.

3. The Governmenof Yugoslaviapointedright fromthe onsetof the

Yugoslavcrisisthata political settlement for the terrio tothe

former Yugoslav Republoic Bosniaand Herzegovinacan be reached onlby

consensusof the three nationalcommunities,that is the threenations

livingon thatterritory, namely,theMuslims,Serbsand Croats. The

YugoslavStateand Governmenh taveno territorial aspiratioansainstthe

former Yugoslav Republoic Bosniaand Herzegovina buhtave not

recognizedwhat is knownas the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina (many

international protagonis tnsthatYugoslavcrisishave clearly stated

thatrecognition of Bosniaand Herzegovinawas wrong and prematureas

reportedto the Court byOur Government). 4. The FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia has recognizedneitherthe

Republicof Srpskanor the so-called Herzeg-Bosni whichwas proclaimed

the day before yesterday a an independent Republic,lthoughthey, just

as the Governmentof the Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, act in fact

as governmentsof thesespecific parts of the former Yugoslav Republoic

Bosniaand Herzegovina. The FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia has not

recognized thesa-calledRepublicof Bosniaand Herzegovina in an

endeavourto remainconsistent in its applicatioonf the conclusionsf

the Conferenceon Yugoslavia whichleftthe recognition issut eo be

settled ata laterstageof thenegotiating process. The Conferenceon
\rr

Yugoslavia has, however recognizedas negotiating partner the

representativeo sf al1 threegovernments.

5. Yugoslaviacannotbe heldresponsible at al1 for the coursethe

eventshave takenon the territoryof the formerYugoslavRepublicof

Bosnia and Herzegovina norfor anycrimesincluding the crimes of

genocide.

6. The Govement of the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia is

rightfully concerned ft ore fateand thestatusof the Serbslivingin

the former Yugoslav Republo ic Bosniaand Herzegovina anhdas,

therefore, joinedin the internationaleffort toward paeaceful

settlement, theend of the civil,ethnicand religiousconflictin the

areaof Bosnia and Herzegovina a,d the reachingof consensusamongthe

threenationalcommunities on theirfutureset-upwhichwould recognize

the interestsof al1 three communitieosn an equalfooting.

7. The FederalRepublicof Yugoslavian,otwithstanding its grave

situationcaused by the sanctioh nss been sendingreliefaid to the

population livinogn the territorycontrolledby the Republicof Srpska

authorities.It has, also, for monthsbeengranting passage throughitsterritory anduse of its warehousesfor internationareliefaid

deliveries so as to help citizens livign areascontrolled by the

so-calledGovernment of Bosniaand Herzegovina.ThroughtheYugoslavRed

Cross the YugoslavGovemmenthas on severaloccasions offered

humanitarianassistanceto inhabitantsof thoseregionsas well,but

already after the firf stw deliveries anwith the exceptionof

assistanceprovidedby non-governmentaolrganizations and individual

Sarajevo citizens, thhiass been rejectedby theMuslimauthorities.

The laws in forcein the Federal Republicf Yugoslaviarohibit

paramilitary organizatio and thusthe Federal Republic oYfugoslavia

has no paramilitaryof any kind eitherwithin or ouof its territory.

We see noreasonto be accusedof crimeof genocide againstany one

people. Least of al1 for theheinouscrime"againstthe peopleand the

Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina", as allegedin theApplicant'scharges.

Were the Governmentof Yugoslaviaagainst thMuslimsof Bosnia and

Herzegovina,it would surelynot havepermittedover 37,000 Muslim

refugeesfrom Bosnia and Herzegovinto remainin its territory. Nor

wouldhave tens of thousandsof Muslimrefugeesin transit througthhe

Yugoslav territor youndrefugeand safelyreachedtheir destination sn

variousEuropeancountries.

The boundariesbetweenthe FederalRepublicof Yugoslaviaand the

territoryof the formerYugoslav Republiocf Bosnia and Herzegovina are

controlled byair-borneelectronicson a dailybasisand thereis

thereforeno need forme to reassureyou in Yugoslavia'sstrict

observanceof its internationaclommitments.

1 likewisedo not wishto commenton the accusations made bthe

Applicant regardin the so-called"partitionor "annexation"of Bosnia

and Herzegovinanor on thelatestproposals by the Co-Chairmenf theConferenceon formerYugoslavia, also endorsedby Yugoslavia as wellf,or

a finaland peaceful settlemet nt thecrisisof Bosniaand Herzegovina

and for preventing any furthe loss ofhumanlivesas thisdoesnot

pertain directly toOur dispute overthe implementatioonf the Convention

on the Preventionand Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocide. It is strange

and regrettable tha the Applicant hadtakenpart in the mentioned

negotiations and agreedto the aboveproposals, proceede on the very

firstday on the assumption of thosetalksto conveyan urgentrequestto

the InternationalCourtof Justice for takinginterimmeasuresrather

thanspeedup the process of final peaceful settlement f al1

threenationalcommunities in Bosniaand Herzegovina. The insulting

words used by the Applicantin addressing the representatio vemy

country before the InternatioC nalrtof Justice,and especiallyhis

offensiveattitudeto the Co-Chairmen of the Conferenceon Former

Yugoslavia, in itselfan outrageous act, cannhotlp settletheYugoslav

crisisnor alleviate the traged of al1 thenationslivingin Bosniaand

Herzegovina.

The YugoslavGovernmentmaintainsthe position that theApplicant

has no validauthorization to speakon behalfof Bosniaand Herzegovina.

PresidentIzetbegovicls termof officehas long expired, as notedin the -IV

letteraddressed by thP erimeMinisterof the so-called Governmentof the

Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina, Mr. Mile Akmacic,to the

United NationsSecretary-Genera and to thehigh-ranking UnitedStates

officials, the copie of which havealreadybeen presentedto this

Court. The Presidency of the so-calledRepublicof Bosniaand

Herzegovinahas meanwhile beenabandoned byal1 its Croatmembers,it

doesno longerenjoythe undividedsupportof al1 itsMuslimmembersas

evidencedby someof their public statements. Therefore, 1 ask in whose

name are "thepeopleand theStateof Bosniaand Herzegovina" beingdefended? Thosewho acceptedand thenrejectedthe Cutilieroplan,those

who have accepted also th eatestplan for resolving the Bosn and

Herzegovina crisisand have simultaneouslyressedchargesagainstthe

Federal Republiocf Yugoslaviaon the groundsthat it envisagesthe split

up of Bosniaand Herzegovinaand its annexationwouldnow like to present

theirown plan,more thanobviouslyrejectedby both theCroatsand the

Serbsin Bosniaand Herzegovina, and not even acceptablto al1 the

Muslims, asan overalland a just solutionfor all.

While the issues1 have raiseddo not fa11withinthe purviewof

this Court1 considerthemsalientforunderstanding Our caseand this is

why 1 have addressedthem in my presentations.Thankyou, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuch,Dr. Mitic.

Mr. MITIC: Mr. President,may 1 ask you kindlyto invite

Mr. Lopicicto presenthis statement.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Dr. Lopicic. Mr. LOPICIC: Thankyou, Mr. President,distinguishedJudges.

Allowme to adducejust some ofthe cruellest crimes against the

Serbianpeoplein the former Yugoslav Republ ofcBosniaand Herzegovina

committedby theMuslimforces.

In the two lastWorldWars alone, thenumberof civilianvictims

amongthe Serbsin Bosniaand Herzegovina was.unmatched.b any European

peoplein the sameperiod, in proportioto their size.

1

Duringtheyearsof the Second WorldWar the Srebrenicadistrict

was ethnicallycleansedof the Serbsand belonged whollyto the followers

of Islam.

The results ofthe genocide against tSherbian peoplein the

Srebrenicadistrict becameevidentafter World War IIand the renewalof

Yugoslavia. Once dominantin nwnbers,thenumbersof Serbianpeople

foundthemselves in a minority afteWrorldWar II, hardlyreaching

one-thirdof the totalnumberof inhabitants.

It isimportantto note that in Yugoslavia,afterthewars and the

irrefutablecrimesagainst the Serbianpeoplenot denied by anyoni en

peace either,no recordsof the victimsor of the criminalswere

established.Most of the perpetratorsof thesegenocidal actw sent

free. In the Srebrenica districo t,ly about15 so-calledcollaborators

of the occupyingforces wereregistered,of which only some were given

symbolicsentencesand servedsome timein prison. We wouldnot be

mentioningthis if new butchersand killers werenot beingrecruited

afreshfromthe same families(thefamily Kamenica, fro Jaglici,the

family SalikovifcromBiljaca,or the familZ yukic,also fromBiljaca).

The aim ofthe terrorthe Serbsare now exposedto is the sameas

duringthe previous wars. It is to expelnow and for al1 the Serbsfromtheseregions. That is why everyattackon Serbian villages leaves in

its wake only desolationb,urnedbuildings, lootedand destroyed

property,destroyed monuments,cemeteries and churches.

Al1 the attacksso far were, asa rule,thoroughly prepared,

systematicallm younted and carried obut large numbers o fell-armed

men. The targets were initiallysmallerSerbiankamletsin nationally

mixed villages,then isolatedSerbian villages surroundedMb uslimones,

and finally the remainingSerbianSettlements.

It seemsthateven the dayswhen attackstakeplace arenot leftto

chance. It is hard to believethatOrthodox festivals and fami platron

saint days(St.George'sDay,St. Vitus'Day, St. Peter'sDay,

Christmas ...),when villagersare celebratino gr dayswhen theyare

busiestworkingon their farms arc ehosenforno reasonwhatsoever.

Thesetacticshave beenconfirmed by al1 subsequentevents.

The firstvictims of attack osn Serb territories and Serbipenople

were the hamlets of Gniona ti he commune of Srebrenicand Bljecevain

the commune of Bratunacon 6May 1992,on St. George'sDay, followedby

attackson other Serbian village and on 7 January1993 (Christmas),the

last large Serbian villagi esthevicinityof Skelaneand Bratunacwere

run over and destroyed.Evenbefore the autumnof 1992, the commune of

Srebrenica had beeanlmost completely ethnical cleansed of Serbs.

The Serbsstarted fleeinS grebrenica itselafs earlyas Apriland

already bymid-Maythe townwas ethnically clean. Only someten older

persons arethere today (if theyare stillalive). A particularly

massive exodus starte after8 May and thekillingof Goran Zekic, Serb

deputyto the thenAssemblyof Bosnia-Herzegovina. His car waswaylaid

by theMuslimsand riddled by fire in the immediate vicinitoyf

Srebrenica. Aftetrhat, theremainingSerbsin the city hadto fleefor

theirlives.Hardly anyone managed t take away even the bare minimum opersona1

belongings. The Serb populationof Srebrenicaand its surroundingsis

now in exile and this commun has been cleansedof the Serbiannation.

The collective perpetrator of thesecrimes are Muslimmilitaryor

paramilitary units.

Al1 the attempts of the Serbs, whformedtheirown, usually small

in numberand poorly-armed village guards, todefendthesevillages were

unsuccessful.

The destruction of villages

It is almost impossible i nuch a brief surveyto mentional1 the

attacks, burningdom and looting of Serbvillages. Almost

one hundred settlement with Serb populationsare in question. We

nevertheless believtehat adescriptionof the desolation of just some of

thosevillages and hamletc san be compelling evidencoef theirepopee.

What happenedto them isin some ways typical ot fhefate of the other

settlements. If differencesdo exist, they mainly concern thenames of

the attackers, the perpetrators t ofe crimes, butnot the finaloutcome

of theirattacks. And this final outcome is always killed people,

plunderedproperty,burned and destroyed villages.

II

THEBRADIHA CRIME

Bradina, the largest Serbian village, w7 ith inhabitants,does not

existany longer; iwas renamedDonjiRepovcion 13 July. A

three-thousand-stron Serbian Muslim forcaettackedthe village fromal1

sides,on 25 May.
A smallnumberof poorly-armed Serbs couldnot hold

the defence linelong and on 26 May,HOS (theCroatianarmed forces),

enteredBradina fromthe directionof Repovciand beganto burn

everything andkill everyone. A greatnumber of Serbs were captured andtakento Konjic: men abovethe age of 18 were takento Celebici campand

women,childrenand the elderlt yo theKonjicSports Hall,the Bradina

ElementarySchooland the prisonof theMinistryof the Interiorin

Konjic. Duringthenightof 27 May,Muslimfundamentalistr saped five

young womenin the SportsHall. After afew days,the womenand children

held in the Sports Hall werreleased andsomeof them remainedin Konjic

with their relativess,ome weremovedto DonjeSelo andCerice,whilea

smallernumberretumed to Bradina.

Duringtheirfirstattackon Bradina,HOS membersand the"green

berets"killeda largenumberof Serbs; 23 of themwere buriedin a

conunongravein frontof Bradina OrthodoCxhurch. An unseenmassacreof

defencelessSerbianpeoplewas carriedout.

What they didnot do duringthat firstattackHOS membersand the

"greenberets"finishedoff on 13 July, whentheyset torchto al1

Serbianhousesin Bradinaand detained a smallnumberof Serbvillagers

thathad remained in the villagein the ElementarSchoolbuilding.

Duringthenight,they raped a largenumberof youngwomen. On thenext

day, Serbs wereexpelledto DonjeSeloand Cerice.Today,in Bradina, which used to be a villagewith over200 Serbhouses,

thereis nothing and no one left: al1 thehouseshave been burnt down,

even the hen coops. The Orthodox Churcwhas burntdown last.

Many Serbsdid not want to surrender to thustashiand the "green

berets"and fled to the wood and to the Serb territoriein Kalinovik

and Ilidza. Of six groups,threemade it, threewere captured: one in

the village ofLjuta (25 persons),anotherin the villageof Sabici

(12 persons)and the thirdon Mt. Igman(9 persons). Al1 were detained

in the notoriousCelebicicamp in tunnelNo. 9 where they werebrutally

torturedand killed.

It has been establishedso far that52 Serbswere executedand

killed at Bradina; the fateof 16Serbsis not known: theyhave not

reached Serb territon ryr aretheyon the listof the Internationa Red

Crossas prisonersin any of the Moslem-runcamps.

III

The Crimein Vase MiskinStreetin Sarajevo

Fourteento sixteenpeople were killed an 114 injuredin an

explosionof charges asthey queued forbread. (Thnumbersof those

killed differin the statementreleasedby the authorities and media

reports.)

INDICATION CONCERNIN PERPETRATOR(S):Securityforces, military or

pararnilitarorganizations controlledby Moslemauthorities.As one of

the executors figure thename of RusmirHakicand the action was

CO-ordinatedby Ejub Ganic.

This seriouscrimereceived world-wide publici throughleading

TV networks,news agenciesand thepress. Accordingto the officia1

storyof the Moslem authoritib esoadcast world-wid and acceptedas

authentic,the innocent civilianswerehit by fourlong-range artillery

0747c/CR93/34/T5/mcs or mortar shellfired from theSerbpositions around Sarajevo This

massacreof civilianseffectively and extensively publicizeon

television understandabolytraged theworldpublic. In addition,it

coincidedwith the expectedSecurityCouncilmeeting which was hel dn

30 May 1992 and which imposedmandatorysanctionson the FederalRepublic

of Yugoslavia. The Governmentof the Federal Republicof Yugoslaviaand

the authoritiesof the SerbianRepublic demanded thatUNPROFORcarryout

a thorough investigatio and submita first-handexpertreport. However,

this requestwas notmet.

The analysis made byexpertsof the Yugoslav armyraisedthe

following issueasnd singledout assumptionssuch as:

1. The massive woundand killingof civiliansqueuing for bread in

Vase Miskinastreet, aspresentedto the public,couldnot have been

causeby 4 missilesfiredfromlong-range artillery systemsr,egardless

of theircalibre, design characteristics anpurpose.

2. The picturesbroadcastby Bosniaand Herzegovina televisio do

not containsubstantial evidenceon the effectsof the missiles,i.e.

craters, tracesof dispersioneffectson the streetand the walls of

nearby buildings, th eemainsof the back partsof the missiles,etc.

3. The massive woundand death ofciviliansas reportedto the

public couldhave beenproducedby speciallydesigned explosive charges

(withtargetedeffects)laid in certain numbera slong thestreetand set

off by remote contro simultaneously.

4. The Bosnianand Herzegovin aV reportshowed seriouslwyounded

people who didnot behaveas peopleinjureda shortwhile ago (the

commentatorsaid that aTV crewhad come to the scenein no time). It is

realisticto assumethat some ofthe victims were broughtto the site

fromlocal hospitals in orderto producea maximum effectson television

viewers. The samequestions and strong evidence thtatiswas an organized

act ofcrimecommitted with the participation ornowledgeof the Moslem

authoritieswere citedin the British dailyThe Independentof

22 August1992whichwere subsequently carried bya largenumberof

reputable Europeandaily newspapers.

It is alsonecessaryto consult areporton thisseriouscriminal

incidentwhichmusthave beendrawnup by UNPROFORin orderto provide

possible answertso the questionsraised byYugoslavarmyexperts.

In the diplomaticcontactsof Yugoslav representative strong

suspicionswere alsosupported that th organizerand perpetratorof this
1
crimewas the Moslemside.

The situationof Serbsin Tuzla (accordingto Mazowiecki'sreport)

Seriousallegationsregarding the preset nteatmentof Serbsin the

Tuzlaareaweremade, in particular duringthenegotiations with Serb

forces regarding accef ssrhumanitarianaid to Srebrenica.Negotiators

for the Serb force alleged that theisituationwas desperateand that

almostal1 the 18,000 Serbssaidto be in theTuzlaareawishedto leave.

Meetingsand interviews wereconductedwith Serb groupfsromTuzla W

townas well as outlyingareasby fieldstaffof the Special Rapporteur

in earlyApril1993. Basedon theseand on the experienco ef

international actorwith extensivecontactswith the Serb minority

there,it is clearthat a number oS ferbs wishto leaveTuzlatown.

It has notbeen possibleto confirmallegationsof large-scale

discriminatorydismissalsfromwork ofSerbs. The first major cause for concern to Serbs living in Tuzla and its

surroundings is their forced mobilization to fight in govemment forces.

In Tuzla, those who refuse to be drafted into government forces are

irnprisoned for 3 to 10 years after a speedy trial. It is repeatedlyalleged thatthoseamongthe lattergroup,in particular

thosein Banovici,who refusethe draft are mobilize by forceand sent

to the frontline to dig trenches.

It shouldbe noted in this contextthatwhere the freedom of the

movementof the Serbsin outlyingvillages is restricted,the authorities

allegethat this is for theirown protection, implying thatthereis some

threat from theiM ruslimneighbours.

The second problemof particularconcernto Serbsis psychological

pressurein the formof abuse from neighbours and colleaguesand the

allegedly constan use of the termchetnik. It is disturbingto note

thata newspapercalled Zmaj od Bosne(TheDragonof Bosnia),which has

published articles cleari lycitinghatred againstSerbs, is openlyon

sale in Tuzla. While it has not beenpossibleto ascertainits

circulation figures it is readily available and evidently tolerb ated

the authorities. Severalissueswere obtainedby theSpecial

Rapporteur's field staff.One exampleof this incitemenm tay illustrate

the point. On 1 April 1993 an articlewas publishedwith stated,

"Instinctiveleyvery Muslim wouldwish to savehis Serb neighbourinstead

of the reverse, however, every Muslim mustame a Serb and takean oath

to killhim." #

The thirdproblemfacedby theSerbsin the Tuzlaarea is their fear

for the future. The possibilityof the social tension betweethe local

population and the influxof displacedpeoplehas particularsignificance

for the Serbsthere. In the lightof their treatmenl tastsummerthese

fearsmay seemreasonable. The prospectof a further large inflo ux

displaced people from Srebrenica, pew oplehaveundoubtedly suffered

greatly at thheandsof Serb forces, is also fuellingtheirconcem over

possible future developments.One groupof Serbs who wereinterviewedemphasized that the were hostages; they felt that non-Serbsdid not

want Serbsto livewith them,while the authorities would not allowthem

to leave. This group,especially thosewho are separated from their

families,was not dauntedby the prospect of givingup their possessions

and assertedthat theywere preparedto go "on foot andin pyjamas".

FACTS0I CRIMESCOMMITTED II THEVILLAGE OF CELEBICI
HUR KONJICII JUIîE1992

About 200 peopleof Serb nationality fro monjicand Bradinawere

broughtto the villageof Brdjaniand held captivein manholesof an oil

reservoir6-7 metres deep,1.5 metreswide and 2 metres long.

That same eveningnew prisonersof Serb nationality werteransferred

to Celebici,to a hanger 30 metreslong and about15 metres wide in which

therewere alreadyabout 200 people,men fromBradina,Bjelovcina,Donje

Selo,Brdjaniand Celebici. The people hadbeen beaten,theirbones

brokenand were sittingon the concrete floor staring straiga htead.

The camp commanderwas Pavo (fatherJanko)Mucic, and his deputy

Azim (fatherIbro)Delic from thevillageof Orahovice,between 33 and

35 years old. Accordingto the released prisoners,Delicdecidedon al1

the torturingand killing,and he himself occasionallt yortured people.

When the inmatesaskedhim why theyhad been imprisonedand broughtto

the camphe replied that it wasbecausetheywere Serbs.

Statements wereextortedfrom prisoners by tortur ien frontof the

camerasof an ArabianTV crew,with Delichimself kicking the prisoners

in the loinswith his boots. Azim Delicorderedthe prisonersto beat each other,e.g.,a son to

beat his fatherwithhis shoeor a stickand viceversa. In particular

he tortured prisoners by forbidd tingmto sleep,orderingthe guardsto

see to it that no-one felalsleep.

Scepo Gotovac,an oldman from thevillageof Bjelovcine,was first

beatenand thenkilledby riflebutts. Whenhe was alreadydead theycut

out a badgeon his bodywith the symbolsof the SerbianDemocratic Party

and finally left the bo unburieduntilthe stench began to spread.

Accordingto the testimonyof Simo (father Todor)ovanovic whwas

also in the camp, Bosko SamoukovficomBradinawas killedin frontof

his sons NedjoandMilan,who helplessly lookedon.

Whilesomeonein the camp was beingbeatenal1 the inmatesin the

camp,curledup on the floor, would close the ears so as not to listen

to the soundsof people beingtortured.

The most notorioutorturerin the Celebicicamp is Zijo (Nurka)

LandjofromKonjic,nicknamed"Zenga",a youth ofabout20, Muslimby

nationality.He took partin al1 thekillingsin the camp, carrying out

Delic'sorders. Zijowould pourpetroland powderon the prisoners and

set themon firecausingsevereburnsandwounds which healedslowly.

Zijopulled the tongu of Mirko (Nedjo)Djordjicwith red-hottweezers

and pushedthemintohis earsin frontof al1 the inmates. He prescribed

ampoulesof petrolto severalprisoners ans det fireto them. He poured

petrolin the palm of Momir (StrajoKuljanin'shand and made himhold it

until it burnedcompletely. He mutilatedthe facesof prisonersand then

broughtmirrorsmakingthemlookat themselves. He made themWear gas

masksand wouldshutoff the air supply, thusextortingconfessions.He

made themengagein oralsex with one another. Al1 the survivorsagreethatthe aimof the torture in the camp was

to physicallydestroyas many people as possible, or maktehemmentaland

physical cripples fo life.

Al1 this torture happened ithe campin Celebici, which was not

visited by any internationahlumanitarian organizatio nor was any

humanitarian relie deliveredto it.

The Helsinki Watch(in its 1993Report)also concluded that the

Muslim side in Bosnia and Herzegovinis largelyresponsible.On

page 263 it said: "Muslim and Croatian forces also are using

intimidation, harassment and violence againsterbs in some partsf

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia to force the flight of Serbs from

areas under their control."

Thankyou,Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT:Thankyou verymuchMr. Lopicic.

ProfessorRosenne,wouldyou liketo begin or would you preferthat

we takeOur breaknow and haveyour presentation in one piece.

Mr. ROSENNE: Mr. President1 am entirelyat your handsbut 1 would

preferif we could take a breaknow.

The PRESIDENT:Verywell,thankyou we shalldo that.

The Court adjournedfrom 11.05 to 11.30 a.m. The PRESIDENT:ProfessorRosenne.

ProfessorROSENNE: Thankyou, Mr. President. May it pleasethe

Court.

May 1 start witha wordof congratulation and best wishesto the

newly elected Memberof the Court,JudgeHerczegh.

May 1 also expressOur wishes for a speedyrecoveryto JudgeAgo.

As is customary,Mr. President,1 will ask the Registrarto be so

kind as to includein the transcriptthe detailed citationa snd notes

which 1 will notrehearsein the courseof thisstatement. 1 shall be

for the most part on the new materialintroducedby the
concentrating

Applicants. Where,as is oftenthe case, there has been repetitionof

the argumentsand contentions adduced last April,1 shall referback to

statements which 1 made then.

At the outsetlet me say, withrespect,that the statementswhichwe

heard yesterday werefor themost part nothingmore than attemptsto

reopen mattersalready decided by the Courtin the Orderof 8 April

last. 1 shallbe amplifying this in the courseof this statement,but 1

would like to add this. There is nothingin the Statuteor in the Rules

of Courtwhich permitsthe reopening of earlierdecisions. Article 75,

paragraph3, of the Rulesof Court refers to a freshrequestbased on new

facts. A documentof 1992, such as was circulatedon 24 August,two days

ago, ought to have beenintroduced lasAtpril. It cannotbe regardedas

a new fact. In my submissionit comeswithinthe scope ofthe doctrine

set forthby the Court in its Judgment of 1985in the revisionand

interpretation phasoef the case concerningContinental Shelf

(Tunisia/LibyanArab Jamahiriya). Mr. President,1 am goingto supplement the writtencommunications

sent to the Courtby the distinguished Agenotf the FederalRepublicof

Yugoslaviaon 9 and 23 August andthe oralstatements delivere today.

1 will accordinglybe dealingin themain with threeaspects: (1)

the new ground for jurisdictionintroducedon 6 August togethewrith its

amplification introduco ed22 August; (2) the new request bythe

ApplicantParty foran indication of provisionalmeasures; and (3) the

requestby the Respondent Party ft ohre indicatioof provisional

measures. Much of parts(2) and (3)was discussed bythe Partieslast

Apriland has alreadybeendealtwithby the Courtin its Orderof

8 April,and again1 repeat,in orderto save the timeof the Court,1

would respectfully requet statwhatwe said thenbe regardedas

incorporated by referenc e,use a phraseof the other Party, where

relevantin thisstatement.

The FederalGovernment of Yugoslaviaon 9 and 23 Augusthas

submittedits observations on thenew requestand some of its

arnendments. It has alsoon 9 August submitteidts own request fothe

indication of provisionalmeasures. In the circumstanceosf this case,

it was feltthat it wouldbe preferable to embodythis in a separate

document andnot incorporate it, as wasdone lastApril, inthe

observationsenvisagedin Article74 of the Rulesof Court.

Mr. President,1 have to say now something abouthisunending

Streamof documents whichwe keep on receivingfrom the Applicant Party,

much of which, as1 have said,has been"incorporateb dy reference" into

the statementswe heardyesterday. The same thinghappened last March

and it is happeningagainnow. The second requestof 27 July,just abouta month ago,has been followedby aseriesof communications of 29 and

30 July, andin Auguston 4, 6 (threecommunications)7 ,, 10, 13,22

(threecommunications)2 ,3 and 24 August,quitea lot. 1know that the

Applicationinstituting theseproceedings of 20 March in paragraph 135

(p. 124) reserved theright"to revise, supplemeno tr amend the

Application"; and asimilarreservation appearo sn page 3 of the second

request whichwe are now considering. 1 really must, with respect,

request the Court to give some direct ofvehere the lineis to be

drawn,how many more revisions can be accepted. 1 do notknow how a

party is expectedto be able to prepareits pleadingswhen there is this
v

unending flood of sometimesheavy documentationflowingin al1 the time.

On enteringthe Peace Palace thismorning,we were handed another

memorandumof law whichwas filedin the Courtyesterday. 1 would

respectfully ask thC eourtto hold thisto be inadmissiblein these

proceedingsand direct thA epplicantto includeit in its Memorialif it

wants it tobe considered.

Having said that,Mr. President,1 want to disposebrieflyof two

new documents aboutjurisdiction.

With regardto the Applicant'sletterof 10 August, none of the

instruments mentioned therecontainsa provisionconferring Jurisdiction W

on this Court. With regardto the further additional supplementary amendo ment

13 August,which,by theway,merely embellishes the earlier

communication of 7 May, itself abelatedreplyto the questionput by

JudgeGuillaumein thehearingsof lastApril, the Courthas dealtwith

the letterof 8 June 1992to the Presidentof the ArbitrationCommission

of the International Conference P forcein Yugoslaviain paragraphs 27

to 32 of the Orderof 8 April. That Orderhas left open the rightof the

Partiesto raisejurisdictionaq luestionsin the properway at the proper

time,in due course. In this incidental phase,1 have nothingto add to

what 1 said on page 28 and followingf the transcriptof the Court's

meetingon 2 April(CR 93/13),and 1 would respectfulluyrge the Courtto

maintainthe position as setout in the Orderof 8 April.

With regardto the extremelylong Memoranduomf Law,rather

difficultto readbecauseit is so badly reproduced, submitt ond

22 August regarding ArticleVI11 and IX of the Genocide Convention1,

failto see what thishas to do with any requestfor the indicationof

provisional measures and certainlynot withthis secondrequest. The

questionof Article VI11was arguedadequately last Apriland led the

Courtto include paragraph47 on page 22 of the Orderof 8 April. 1 do

not knowwhy this issuehas beenreopened. The remainderof that

memorandumhas absolutelyno relevancetoday. We have notchallenged the

Court's findingthatit has prima faciejurisdiction sufficientto

supportan indication of provisional measureswhilereserving Our rights

to raisefulljurisdictionaq luestionslaterwhen the timecornes.The

Applicantshave performeda useful service fo which1 thankthemby

indicatingthe pointsrequiringspecial attention and facilitatinOur

researchinto the complicate documentationof the draftingof theGenocideConvention. It goeswithout saying thatperhapsit is betterto

Say it, that 1do notacceptthe conclusions which aredrawnin that

memorandum, but then in the 36 hours which haelapsedsincewe received

thatdocumentwe couldnot possiblyhave hadthe time to undertakeany

furtherresearchinto the legislative historyof the Convention.

One other remark irsequired at thisstage,however. 1 understand

that earlyin August the Applicant'sPermanentMissionto the

United Nations in New Yorkdepositeda purporteddeclarationof

succession to theViennaConvention of 1978on Succession of Statesin

Respectof Treaties. That Conventionis not yetin force, and1 have

nothingto addto what 1 saidon this aspect lasAtpril. This issue,

alongwith others, canbe pleadedin the properway in due course,and

will be repliedto in the properway in due course. Provisionalmeasures

proceedings, incidentt al themainline proceedings, an ret the proper

timeor the proper placf eor argumentand judicialdecisionon these

delicate mattersof Statesuccession.

In thisgeneral contexti ,t is difficultto escape the impression

thatwhat theApplicantis really doing in this phaseis to launchwhat

lookslikean appealor a request for reconsideratio of theOrderof

8 Aprilor evenan interimjudgment,as 1 said,the Applicant seemsto be

tryingto reopenmatters alreadd yecided. No new hard factsof relevance

have beenbrought, on whichan indicationof provisionalmeasures

depends. Massesof documents, memorandaand argumentationhave beenlaid

beforeus. Al1 thisproperly belongt so a memorialon themeritsin

which the issuesof jurisdiction,includingthe interpretatioannd the

statusof the variousadvisory opiniono sf the Badinter Commission,

shouldbe properly pleaded,giving the responden atproper opportunittyo

answerthemas contemplated in the Rulesof Court. Mr. President,1 now turnto thenew requestitselfof 27 July and

by way of preface1 would saythis. The Applicantls actionsin thisand

in otherrespects recall the actio ofsNicaraguaas applicantin the

well-known Military and Paramilitary Activitiin and against

Nicaragua case. There,too, shortly aftet rhe Orderof 10May 1984

indicating provisional measurofsprotection,Nicaraguasubmitted a

secondrequest. 1 recall - 1 was workingon thatcasebut 1 have nothad

access tomy papers at thispresenttime -that thePresidentof the

Court,the lateJudgeElias,in thename of the Courtgave short shrift

to thatrequestwhichwas not even formally considered by the Court,

eitherbecauseit reopened matters already decided byCt ohurtor was

manifestly beyond thecompetenceof the Court. A referenceto this

appearsin paragraph 287 of the Judgmentof the Courtof 1986on the

Meritsin that case (I.C.J.Reports 1986,p. 144). 1 respectfully

suggest thatthe Court mightfindguidancein thatprecedentfor the

presentcase.

1 now want to lookat the amendmenof 6 August, which1 understand

was incorporated by refereni ceyesterdaylsstatement,so 1 have to deal

with it at a littlebit of length.

That amendmentpurportsto finda basisof jurisdiction in the

Treatyof Saint-Germain-en-Lao ye 10 September 1919betweenthe

PrincipalAlliedand Associated Powersand the Serb-Croat-Sloven etate

(asYugoslavia was thencalled). That Treaty was madp eursuantto and in

implementatioonf Article51 of theTreaty of Peace withAustriaof the

samedate.

Chapter1 of thatTreaty deals with variousmatters concerning

different individual in Yugoslaviaaffectedby the PeaceSettlementwith

Austria,Hungaryand Bulgaria.It is oftenclassified amongst the

MinoritiesTreatiescharacteristio cf theVersaillesPeaceSettlement.Articles 2 to8 relateto thewholeterritoryof Yugoslaviaas

established bythe 1919 Peace Treatiea s,d in so far asthoseArticles

dealtwith the nationality op fersons residentn transferred territories

1 thinkare transitional provisions.This is particularly thceaseas

regards Articles3, 4 and 5 of the Treaty.Article9 applied only to

territory transferre to Serbiasince1 August1913,and 1 suppose,if we

are to follow the Applicant's thinkic ng,ldnow be regarded absinding

only onBosniaand Herzegovina.Article 10 containedspecialprovisions

for the Muslimsand Article11 was the clause dealinwgith the

thoseprovisions and the settlementof differencesof
supervisionof

opinionrelatingto them. 1 shallbe returningto that.

The remaining Articles arcontainedin Chapter IIand dealtwith

somemiscellaneous issue asrising out ofhe dissolutionof the

Austro-HungariaEnmpire.Article16,which is citedin the supplementary memorando um 6 Augustat

page 3, is includedin ChapterII. Article11, the compromissorc ylause,

doesnot extendup to ChapterII. It is limitedto Chapter1 of the

Treatyand there is no dispute settlement clause applica tole

Chapter II. Accordingly, even ifthe Court, contrartyo Our view,should

findthat thenew titleof jurisdiction advancedby theApplicantcanbe

accepted,it could,of course,onlybe acceptedin accordance with its

own terms and, by itoswn terms,thatclausedoesnot extendto

differences of opinionon questionsof law orof fact relatingto

Article16.

Having said that,it is certainlynot clearto us what this

amendmentis about, whatit is intendedto achieve, what is its function

in the present case ,hy, indeed, this Treathas been broughtinto the

caseat all. The amendmentis presented as "an additionto the

jurisdictional base shathave alreadybeen setforth"but we have not

been giventhe slightest indicatio to showhow this affectsthe caseor

the petitaof theApplication institutingthe proceedingsof 20 March

last, al1 of whichrelatesto the applicationof the Genocide Convention

and to that instrumenatlone. Those petitaare set out in paragraph2,

on page4 of the Orderof 8 Apriland it is by them, andby themalone,

thatthe admissibilityof thenewly introducedtitleof jurisdictionis

to be assessed. The Treatydoesnot providea basisof jurisdiction in

respectof requested measure whicharenot withinthe competenco ef the

CourtunderArticle 9 of the GenocideConvention.

Sinceits inception, this cas has alwaysbeen entitledcase

concerningApplication of the Conventioon the Prevention and

Punishment of the Crime of GenocideNo objection to that titlehasbeen made bythe otherside. Indeed,the coveringletterof the

Applicant's Partg yeneral Agentof 27 July,and the text of the second

Applicationitself,as well as of the delugeof documentsreceivedsince,

al1 use that titlefor the case.

If the case concerns the applicatio on the GenocideConvention and

the jurisdiction is basedon Article36, paragraph1, of the Statute,it

is appropriate that thecompromissory claus of thatConvention -

Article 9of the 1948Genocide Conventio nservesas the titleof

jurisdiction for the case. Quitefrankly,1 failto see how a

compromissory claus in a Treatyof 1919 - assumingfor themoment, for

the sake of argument, thatthisTreatyis stillin force andthat its

compromissory claus can be appliedwithoutdoingviolenceto its terms,

something which 1 strongly doubt- couldbe the titleof jurisdiction for

a case concerning the appplicati ofna Convention conclude in 1948.

From the start,therefore, we are facedwith a heap of obstacles.

There areothers.

Can it seriouslybe contendedthatthisTreatyis stillin force

withoutchange? That Treatyformedan integralpart of the Peace

Settlement of 1919. It was made pursuantto and in orderto complete

Article51 of the Treatyof Saint-Germain-en-Law yeth Austria. It

reflected the politics altuationof thattime. One of the "Principal

Alliedand Associated Powers"of thatTreatydid not ratifyit, in fact

it was notevensubmittedto the constituent organo sf thatcountryfor

ratification.Two of the "Principal Alliedand AssociatedPowers"named

in thatTreatybecame alliedto Germanyduringthe Second World War. The

British Empirehas becomethe British Commonwealt of Nations. The

Serb-Croat-Sloven State,as it is named in thatTreaty, hasitselfundergone many fundamental chan since1919, whichcannotbe without

relevance, as the Studyof the Secretariaton the LegalValidityof the

Undertakings concerning Minoritie(E/CN.4/367)points outat page 64.

One otherremark. On page 14 of the supplementary memorandoum

6 August,it is allegedthat theMinorities Treatiesof theLeague of

Nationshave beenreliedupon sinceWorldWar IIand reference is made to

a case concerningAustriain the EuropeanCommission on HumanRights. No

other support is givenfor the statementthat "Statepracticesince

WorldWar IIindicatesthat theminority treaties di not lapse". Here a

parenthetical is required. We are not concernewith the Minorities

Treatiesin general,nor with the specific obligation of Austria,a

thirdStatein theseproceedings.We are not concerned with the

provisions for the protecti ofnminoritiesin the Treaty of

Saint-Germain.We are only concernew dith the compromissory clausof

thatTreatyand its admissibilityas a titleof jurisdiction for the case

as instituted bytheApplicant Parto yn 20Marchlast.

Now 1 have examined thatecisionof the EuropeanCommission in the

casewhich is named Isop against Austria. It is correctthat the

Austrian PeaceTreatyof 1919 is mentioneden passant in the submission

of the individual applicai nt thatcase. As 1 understand it,in that

document,which is recitedin the decisionof the EuropeanCommission,

the historyof the equalityof languagesin the area concerned fro1m867

is traced (Yearbookof the European Conventionon Human Right1962,

p. 108 at p. 112).Thereis no mention whatsoeveorf the Treatyof 1919

with the Serb-Croat-SloveS neatein thatdecisionof the European

Commission.

1 thereforefailto see the relevanceof this particular reference

in the supplementar yemorandum. 1 will not sayanything moreabout that now,when at mostwe are

concerned with the thresholdjurisdictionof the Courtto indicate

provisional measuresof protectionin a caseconcerning Application of

the Conventionon the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of

Genocide, and, as the Orderof 8 April lastso convincinglyshows,

exclusively with that.

Nevertheless,for the limitedpurposesat hand,1 have to draw the

Court'sattentionto the precise wording of the compromissorcylause,

Article 11, of the Treaty. A simplereadingof the textof the clause

itself is quiteenoughto showthat Article 11 doesnot confer any

jurisdiction ratione materiaeon the Court, actinunderArticle36,

paragraph 1, of the Statute,in relationto the case whichwas instituted

by the Applicationof 20 Marchlast. Here 1 would respectivel ryequest

the Registrar to includethe fulltextof thatprovisionin the

transcript of today'sproceedingsbecauseit is only rendered in part on.

page 4 of the supplementary memorand ofm6 August,so that 1 can

economizeon the Court'stime.

"The Serb-Croat-SloveS neate agreethatthe stipulations
in the foregoingArticles, sofar as theyaffect persons
belongingto racial, religiouosr linguisticminorities,
constitute obligatioo ns internationalconcernand shallbe
placedunderthe guarantee of theLeagueof Nations. They
shall notbe modified without the conse oftthe Councilof the
Leagueof Nations. The Unitedstatesl,the British Empire,
France,Italy andJapanhereby agree not to withholdtheir
assentfromany modification in theseArticleswhich is in due
form assentedto by a rnajorityf the Councilof the Leagueof
Nations.

lTheUnited States did not ratify thisTreaty, whichwas never
submittedto the Senate(Ch.L. Wiktor(ed.), 5 Unperfected
Treaties of the UnitedStates ofAmerica 1776-1976403 (1980)). The Serb-Croat-SlovenState agreesthatany Memberof the
Councilof the League ofNations shallhave the rightto bring
to the attentioonf the Councilany infraction,or any danger
of infraction,of any oftheseobligations, and that the
Council may thereupon takeuchaction andgive suchdirections
as it may deem propearnd effectivein the circumstances.

The Serb-Croat-SlovenState further agreesthatany
differenceof opinionas to questionsof law orfact arising
out of theseArticles betweetnhe Serb-Croat-SloveS neateand
any one of the PrincipaAlliedandAssociatedpowerslor any
other Power,a memberof the Councilof the Leagueof Nations,
shall beheld to be a disputeof an international character

underArticle14 of the Covenant of the Leagueof Nations. The
Serb-Croat-Sloven Statehereby consenttshat any suchdispute
shall,if the otherparty theretd oemands,be referredto the
PermanentCourtof InternationaJ lustice[nowthe present Court
by virtueof Article37 of the Statuteof 19451. The decision
of the Permanent Courshall befinaland shall havethe same
form andeffectas an awardunderArticle13 of the Covenant."
(Emphasisadded.)

lThePrincipal Alliedand ~ssbciated Powers arelistedin the
Treatyas the UnitedStates of America[which,as indicated, did not

ratifythe Treaty],the British Empire, France, Italand Japan.
The BritishEmpire then included,as signatoriesin itsname,the
representativeosf theKingdomof GreatBritainand Ireland,Canada,
Australia,theUnionof SouthAfrica,New Zealandand India. Even if, for the sake ofargument,a casecan be madeout forsaying

that the United Nation now takesthe placeof the Leagueof Nationsin

the protection of minorities- although,Mr. President,care isneeded

beforedrawing analogie sith the roleof theUnited Nations in the

Mandates system and theSouth West Africa litigationowingto the

presenceof Article77 in the Charter(Article 77 indicatesthat the

trusteeship system shallapply to territories at the ti1 m9e,5, were

held undermandateas may beplacedundera trusteeship system m byans

of a trusteeshipagreement. Provision which was pivota1in the

proceedings regardin Namibia). As 1 said,although care is needed

before drawing analogieswith themandatesystem,this and the 1946

resolutions of the United Nations General Assema blyof the concluding

Assemblyof the Leagueof Nationswhich have been citedby the other

Party, donot operateto amendin any way the substantive provision of

Article 11 of the Treatyof Saint-Germain.

Furthermore,no difference of opinionas to questionsof lawor of

factbetweenany one of the countries designated as PrincipalAlliedand

AssociatedPowers orany other Power a membe of the non-existent Council

of the Leagueof Nationsand Yugoslavia, arisingout of the Treaty, orof

a demandby thatother Power thatthe difference of opinionshouldbe W

referredto thisCourt,has beenbroughtto Ournotice. Someof those

Powers areactivein the Security Council and in the EuropeanCommunity

underwhose combined auspicet she International Conferenoce the former

Yugoslavia(ICFY)is lookingfor a solutionof the conflict,
and units of

their armed forcesare serving in theUnited NationsProtection Force-

UNPROFORto give it its correctname. The Applicant certainldyoesnot comewithinthe categoryof States

mentionedin the compromissoryclause. The Treaty doesnot conferany

jurisdictionratione personaeon the Courtin relationto the

proceedings instituto ed 20 Marchlast. Not bythewildest stretch of

imagination can theApplicantin thiscasebe regarded, by someprocess

of Statesuccession, as having become paartyto the Treatyof

Saint-Germain,againassuming,for the sakeof argument that theTreaty

is stillin forceand thatthe depositarG yovernment, the Govemment of

France, is ableand willingto acceptand circulateto the States

concernedsome formof notification by the ApplicP anttythatit

accedesto the Treaty. Incidentally, 1 will also point outhatthe

Treaty is drawnup inthree languages, th Frenchto prevail. Although

registeredunderArticle18 of the Covenant of the Leagueof Nations,the

Treatyis not beingreproduced in theLeague of Nation sreaty Series.

We may wish to compareal1 three language versionin the processof

interpretingthatTreaty, ifthe question should arise a,nd we would

thereforebe gratefulif theApplicant woulb de so kindas to furnishus

with a legibletext in Italian. We have not beenableyet to locate it

in that language.

But let us assumethatthe Treatywas inforce for the Socialist

Federal Republiocf Yugoslaviaand thereforecomeswithinthe scope of

the instrumentsof the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia cited btyhe Court

in paragraph22 of the Orderof 8 April. Thatwouldnot helpthe

Applicant. The ruleof law,carefullyenunciated in the nintheditionof

Oppenheim's International La(SirRobertJenningsand

Sir Arthur WattsV,ol. 1, Book 1at 240 (1992)),is thatwherea

separationor secession leavesthe predecessorStatecontinuing in

existence, anythin ghatwas inforcein respectof the predecessor Statecontinuesin force in respect of its remaining territory.here is no

way in which the Applicant Statean relyon it or makeany claimsbased

on it.

Quitesimply, the compromissoryclauseof the 1919 Treatyis

irrelevant to this case, and i purportedintroductionas a titleof

jurisdiction is eithermisleading, oran attemptto broadenthe

jurisdictionof the Courtand the scopeof the casebeyondwhat the Court

has already itselfestablished provisional inytheOrderof 8 April.

This ground for jurisdictiois accordinglynot acceptable.

The attempt to introducthisas a basisof jurisdiction is flawed
r
for another reason. This is a caseconcerning thaepplicationof the

Convention on the Preventioand Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocide.

That is the basison which the Applicatioinstitutingthe proceedings

has been framed. That is the basison which the caseas been argued in

the past. That is the basis,the exclusivbeasis1 might add,on which

the Court groundedits Orderof 8 Aprillast.

The introduction ofthe 1919 Treaty bringsn entirelynew element

into thecase. It is not a simple introductioof a complementary

foundation forthe Court'sjurisdictionsuch as was acceptedby the Court

in the Military and Paramilitary Activitiin and against Nicaragua, -

Jurisdiction and Admissibilitcase, whereas 1 understandit, the Court

was satisfiedthatthe amendment did not transformthe disputeinto

another dispute(Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against

Nicaragua, Jurisdictionand Admissibility,I.C.J. Report1984,p. 392

at p. 426,paras. 77 to80).
I
We do not have herea simpleamendmentwhich theCourtmightbe able

to acceptas a matterof principle,as is suggestedin paragraph27 of

the Orderof 8 Aprilwhen it was dealingwith itsthreshold jurisdiction

underArticle41 of the Charter. The amendment fairlaynd squarely fitsintothe typeof amendment

which the case-lawof the Courtdoesnot accept, for the simplereason

that it transforms thecase intoanother case altogethew r,ichdoesnot

fit in with the caseas it was originally formulated by the Applic andt

as it has subsequentlybeen addressedby the Respondent andthenby the

Court.

Throughthis amendmenw te are no longerfacedwith a straightforward

case concernint ghe applicatioof the Genocide Convention. We now have

anothercasealtogether, onr eelatingto the applicatioonf the Treaty of

Saint-Germain.It is notclear whether thii ss beingtackedon to the

original case,or is in substitutionfor it. May 1 thereforequotefrom

the recentJudgmentof the Courtin the case concerning Certain

Phosphate Lands in Nauru, PreliminaryObjections:

"69.Article40, paragraph1 of the Statuteof the Court
providesthat the'subject of the dipuste'must be indicatedin
the Application; and Artic38, paragraph2, of the Rulesof
Court requires'theprecise nature of the claim'to be
specifiedin the Application. Theseprovisions are so
essential fromthe pointof view oflegal security and the good
administratioonf justicethat they were already,in substance,
part of the textof theStatuteof the Permanent Couro tf

InternationaJlustice,adoptedin 1920 (Art.40, first
paragraph),and of the textof the firstRulesof thatCourt,
adoptedin 1922 (Art.35, secondparagraph), respectively.On
severaloccasionsthe Permanent Court hat do indicate the
precise significanc of thesetexts."

This Courtthenreferredto the Orderof the PermanentCourtof

4 February1933 in the Prince vonPless Administration,Preliminary

Objections,caseand to the well-known Société Commercialede Belgique

case,and concluded that acertain claim advancedby the applicanptarty

in that case inits Memorialwas "inadmissibleinasmuchas it

constitutes,both informand in substance, a new claim,and thesubject

of the dispute originall submittedto the Courtwouldbe transformed ifit entertainedthat claim" Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru,

Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 240 at pp. 266-267,

paras. 69-71).

1 would like to stress the referencethere to "legalsecurityand

the good administrationof justice". 1 submitthatthis is exactly what is happeninghere. He have been

presentedwith a new groundfor thejurisdiction of the Court, without

any indicationof how that allegedground forjurisdictionis linkedto

the Applicationinstitutingthe proceedingsh,ow it affectsthe case

whichthe Courthas been invitedto entertain.

In my submission, thismendmentto theApplication of 20 Marchlast

and to the requests forthe indicationof provisionameasures is

frivolous andvexatious. It is palpablyunarguable and shoul be

rejected bythe Courtout of hand. It isthe typeof pleadingwhich 1

believein many interna1systemsof litigation would entitt lee adverse

partyto an awardof costs, regardleso sf the outcomof the case asa

whole.

1 do not wantto say anythingmore about thatTreatynow, nordo 1

want to enterinto anydiscussion about theSecretariat'sstudy, ifit is

relevantat all, whichin Ourview it is not, thatwouldbe in connection

with the Merits.

Mr. President,Membersof the Court,1 now returnto thenew request

for the indicationof provisionalmeasuresof protection submitteodn

27 July last. Thishas been the subjectof observations submitteodn

9 and 23 August by thedistinguishedgent for the FederalRepublicof

Yugoslavia,and 1 will limitmyselfto a few additionalremarks.

As we see it and as have said,thewholeexerciseis nothing more

thana renewed attempt to obtainfromthe Court indication shichthe

Courtrefusedto make last April. It is somethinglikean appealor an

applicationfor a re-hearingor someotherrecourse. The Applicantis

takingtwo bitesat the cherry. Thereis virtually no difference ofsubstance betweenthemeasuresrequested now and thoserequested last

March in so far as relatesto the applicationof the Genocide

Convention. Thereare someadditional measures requestb ed, thesego

far beyond the applicati ofnthe Genocide Convention,hich is what this

case is about, and do not cornwithinthe jurisdictionof the Courtunder

the GenocideConvention or underany other title of jurisdictionin force 6

betweenthe Parties.

Leaving asidethe verbiage and persona1insinuations unworth of the

Bar foundin thatdocument, a key to thisnew approachcouldbe found in

the extraordinaryset of requestscontainedin Section E, Provisional

Measuresrequested, on page 52 of the typescripotf thenew request. 1

wouldlike to draw yourattention particularl to No. 4:

"TheGovernment of Bosniaand Herzegovinamust havethe
means [andthen in quotation marks1, am not quitesurewhy]
'toprevent'the commissioo nf acts ofgenocide against its own
People asrequiredby Article 1of the GenocideConvention."

This is in effect repeateidn No.8. This is exactly thesame as the

requestsmade lastAprilthat the Cours thould interpreotr re-interpret

paragraph 6 of Security Council resoluti 713 of 1991,that is,you will

recall,the basicanis embargo,and there-interpretatio whichis

requestedis to exemptBosniaand Herzegovina fromthe scopeand thrust

of paragraph 6 of that resolution.Thiswas made perfectly clear

yesterday. 1 do not proposeto repeatnow what 1 said in April about

this, and 1 would respectfully refer the Cot urmy remarks atpage 19

and followingof the session of2 April (CR 93/13,pp. 19 ff.).

It is significant ,r. President,that sincethe Orderof 8April

the Security Councila,ctingunderChapterVI1 of the Charter,has not .

giventhe slightest sign that it is preparedto accedeto that demandofthe Applicant.1 do not thinkthatdifferences of opinionamongthe

Membersof the Security Council are the on reasonfor that.

Now, another questionrises,who arethe addressees of the proposed

measures? 1 was puzzledabout that buatfterhearingthe explanations

yesterday,it seemsthatNos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are presumablyto be

addressedto al1 the ContractinPgartiesof theGemcide Convention.But

thoseContracting Partiesare not partiesto thislitigation, and the

Court cannot address any indicati ofnsrovisionalmeasuresto them.

The explanationwe heardyesterday, and theemphasisthenplacedon the

word "clarify",indicatesthatwhat is wantedis an advisory opinion

addressedto the world atlarge. Provisional measures proceedii nga

contentious casuenderlimitedjurisdiction between defined parties are

not a properor adequate vehiclfeor obtainingan advisory opiniona,nd1

respectfully submi that the Court canngotantthe requested measures.

No. 10,Mr. President, relate to the activitiesof theUnited Nations

Protection ForceU,NPROFOR. Buthisis a matterfor the

Security Council, actinunderChapterVI1 of the Charter, and for the

States which havecont.ributeunitsof theirarmedforcesto UNPROFOR.

1s it being seriously contende Mr. President,thatthe Courtcan,

throughan indication of provisional measuresgive ordersto be

implementedby UNPROFOR? 1s it beingseriously contende that the Court

can,throughthemechanismof anindication of provisional measureof

protection,give indicationsabouthow the Forceis to act,how the

contingentswhichmake it up and whichare made availabl by individual

States areto comportthemselves, what decisions the Security Cou andil

the individualStatessupplying contingent to the Forceare to take?

But themost significant aspeo ct thenew Applicationis that long

sectioncommencing on page 53 of the typescripunderthe heading:"F. The Court shouldalso IndicateProvisionalMeasuresProprioMotu",

somethingwhich we regardin the circumstancesof this case as

ultra vires thecompetence of theCourt.

Here theCourt is first asked "to fashionwhatever typeof relief"

the distinguished Memberosf the Courtmight deem to be "necessaryand

sufficient"to protectthe people and the Stateof Bosniaand Herzegovina

from extermination and annihilati bynmeans of genocide.

There is only one interpretatioof this, that the Court is being

invitedto take political decisions,to substitute itself fotrhe

politicaljudgmentof other competent organst,he Security Councioln the
w
international planaend the individualStateson the nationallevel.This is far beyondthe competence of the Court,which has inthe past

repeatedly refused w,hen facedwith an issueof politicalchoice,to

substituteits judgmentfor that of the interested States. Such a choice

couldonly be madeon considerationo sf political expediency not on

legal considerations.

That curious requestis followedby a catalogueof acts whichare

categorized as being l'genocidalcts"for thispurpose. These include

l'partition ,ismemberment, annexatia ond incorporationby the

respondentl'. 1 do not find anyof thoseacts - which are noteasily

givento abstract legal definitio on qualification- listedin the

GenocideConvention.They are al1 political processes whichmight or

mightnot beacceptableto the international communit or to individual

States. This is indeed confirmeb dy the penultimatpearagraphon page 55

of the typescript.Here the Courtis invitedto contactthe responsible

authorities of Yugoslaviaand the Presidentof the Republicof Serbia - 1

think,but 1 am open to correction, that thismeans the Republic of

Srpska, nota partyto this case ....

ProfessorBOYLE: Mr. Milosevic.

ProfessorROSENNE: 1 acceptthat correction or clarification.

- ..., and informthem that they and theg irvernments

"mustimmediately ceaseand desistfrom planning, preparing,
proposing, conspirin and negotiating (anndegotiating,
Mr. President)to partition, dismember annexor incorporate
any portionof the sovereignterritoryof the Republic of
Bosniaand Herzegovinal (emphasisadded).

It is quiteclear whatliesbehindthis. Nothingmore than that the

Court, throughan indication of provisional measureosf protection having

as its objectto protectthe respective righto sf the Partiesin the case

instituted on 20 March last,should embroilitselfin the peace processof the International Confereno ce the formerYugoslaviain Geneva, in

which incidentally the Applicant Statis also participating; that the

Courtshouldattemptto dictateto the reponsible Goverment of

Yugoslavia, and perhapssome other participantisn thatConference,how

theyshould participate how they shouldnegotiate,in the strenuous

attempts which arebeingmade to reacha negotiated settlemeo nt this

tragiccivilwar inBosnia-Herzegovina which al1 of us would liketo see

brought to a negotiate end as quicklyas possible. 1s thatconsistent

with the functionof the Courtas it hasbeen set out in Article38,

paragraph1, of the Statuteof the Court? 1s it seriously to be expected
w

thatthe principal judicial organof theUnitedNationswouldtry and

prevent - 1 would even gofurtherand use theword "thwart" - the

successful negotiation o the end of anarmed conflicta,n objectiveto

which other principal organosf theUnitedNations, aboveal1 the

SecurityCounciland theSecretary-General as well as such autonomous

bodiesas the United Nation sighComrnissione for Refugees,are exerting

so much energy?

Difficile est satiramnonscribere! 1 findit difficult not to be

satirical:

1 ventureto suggest, withal1 respect,thatan indication of

provisional measures alot nge linessuggested bythe Applicant would not

facilitate the achieveme nta negotiated settlemeo nt the civilwar

and conflict.It would exacerbatt ehe conflict anpdostpone theend of

the sufferingsof the peopleto the Greekcalends.

It is in this context tha1 would invite the Court to takdue note

of another passagein thenew request. #
In the thirdparagraphon page 54

of the typescriptt,he general Agentfor theApplicant appealt so the

Courtto keep the situationunder"activeand constant revief wor as long

as this case shallappearon the General List". The general Agentadds: "And in regardto this latter point1,must todaymost
respectfully reques inadvancethatthe Courtthoroughly and
carefully examine and enqui ireoany request or attemptto
removethiscase from the GeneraL list for anyreason..."

Does thismean that theCourtis beinginvitedto indicate, as a

provisional measuroef protection,thatno attempt is to be made to

settle the caseout of court orto discontinueit in any way?

Discontinuancoef a pendingcase can onlybe done through theduly

appointed authorit of the Statein question, andit ranksas an act of

State, similarto thatwhichis explainedin paragraph13 of the Orderof

8 April. 1s it an acceptable concep thatdiscontinuanceis to be

prohibitedthroughan indication of provisionalmeasures,on the ground

thatthe discontinuance migh adversely affectthe rightof the State

concernedto proceedto a trialof thatcase? Mr. President, do 1 need

to answer thatquestion?

1 am sure that if there shoulde any agreementto discontinuethe

case or any attemptto removethiscase from theGeneral List the Court

will actin accordancewith the appropriate provisionosf the Statuteand

the Rulesof Court. Theseare sufficient to protect therightsof al1

parties insuchan eventuality.For it mustnot be forgotten that the

Respondenttoo has rights inan instanceof discontinuance as is

recognizedin Article89, paragraph 2,of the Rulesof Court.

To summarizethispart of my argument, theries no need forany of

the provisional measuressuggestedin thenew request. Wheretheyare

not alreadycoveredby the termsof the Orderof 8 April, part of which

was addressedto the ApplicantParty(by theway, an aspect whichwas

overlookedyesterday), theyare not withinthe jurisdictionof the Court

or it wouldnot be appropriate fotrhe Courtas a judicialorganand as For
the principal judicial organ tofeUnited Nationsto indicatethem.

theywould harmthe delicate negotiation nsw in progressaimedat
bringingthe armed conflictto an end.

Mr. President,1 now turn to the lastpart of my argument,relating I

to the requestby the Respondent foarn indicatioof provisional

measuresto be observed bytheApplicantso as to protectthe rightsof

the Respondenwthile thislitigationis in progress. The matteris

clearlyset outin theApplication of 9 Augustlastand the supporting

evidence is annexed,so 1 do not needto repeatthatnow. However,

following yesterday's statement, further clarificationrequired.

In my statementof2 Aprillast, 1 made it clearthatal1 the rights

of the Governmentof the Federal Republicf Yugoslaviunderthe Statute

and the Rulesof Court,"including buntot limitedto its rightto

presentcounter-claimsa,re reserved"(CR 93/13at p. 36). Duringthose

hearingsthe otherside complained that thReespondenhad notpresented

the Courtwith any facts. Thiswouldhave beendone in the

Counter-Memoriahlad the casereached thatprocedural stage, matter,by

theway, itselfopen to conjecture.However, followin thenew request -

for provisional measureos, which noticewasreceivedonlyon 27 July

and not, asalleged,on 8 April last,the Respondenthas filedwith the

Courtan initial - 1 repeatan initial- presentationof facts. This

presentationis basedon the resultsof competentinvestigationn,ot on

newspaperreports. The Applicant State obviouslyoesnot likethat. These facts certainlyshow that there is, in the words of

paragraph45 of the Order of 8April (at p. 22), " a grave risk ofacts

of genocide being committed"and that Bosnia-Herzegovina too is under a

clear obligation to do al1 in its power to preventthe commissionof such

acts in the future.The Courtgave effectto that findingin operative paragraphoB n page 24

of thatOrder,againconveniently overlooked yesterda y.e Court agreed

that there was a graveriskof actsof genocide being committedagainst

As we haveheard this
the Serb populationof Bosnia andHerzegovina.

morning,thatgrave risk stile lxists.

Now Article41 of the Statuterefersto the respective rightosf

either party,or, in its Frenchtext,le droit de chacun.There is an

elementof mutualityor reciprocity in the powerof the Courtto indicate

provisionalmeasuresof protection.The Statuteitselfdoesnot proceed

fromany presumption that only rightsclaimedby the applicanptarty can
w'

be inneed of protection through provisiom nalsures. This approachis

continuedin the Rulesof Court: Article73, paragraph1, very clearly

commits"a party"to make arequest for thi endicationof provisional

measures "at any time". 1 recallthatthe possibility of a discrepancy

betweenthe Englishand the Frenchtextsof Article41 of the Statutewas

noted byJudge ad hoc Thierryin his dissentingopinion inthe

provisionalmeasuresphaseof the Arbitral Award of31 July1988 case

(I.C.J. Reports1990,p. 64at p. 79, footnote1). Now that

discrepancydoesnot affectthe point 1 am making,thatthe Court'spower

to indicate provisional measur issnota one-wayStreet,that it is

equallyopen to the respondentto make a requestto protect itsrights,

whatevertheyare,and thatincludesthe rightswhich the respondent is

entitledto seek to protect through presenting counter-claimin

accordancewithArticle 80of theRulesof Court. However,that

discrepancybetweenthe Englishand French texts mightbe foundto be

relevantto some of the argumentsaboutArticle41 whichwe heard

yesterday.

The practiceof the Courthas two requirements beforthe Courtwill

indicate provisional measur ofsprotection.One is the matterof

urgency, and the secondis the anticipatiothat if the provisional
0755c/CR93/34/T13/cwmeasures arenot indicated,irreparableharm willbe causedto therights

whicha party is seekingto protect.The factswhich havenow been

presented tothe Courtclearlydemonstrate, if indeed anydemonstration

wereneededgiventhewide coverageof the situationin al1 themedia (on

whichthe other side is relyingso intensively),that thesamedegreeof

urgency,and the sameunhappyprospectof irreparable Barm,existin the

caseof the Serb ethnicgroup in Bosnia andHerzegovinaas is being

allegedwith regardto other groups in that population.

The factswhichthe Respondent Statheas submittedto the Court

certainly indicat ehatthe respondenthas a prima facie righ to bring

counter-claimisn accordancewithArticle 80 of the Rulesof Court,and

thatthisrightis as much in need of protection as any possible rights

of the ApplicantParty.

1 alsohave to emphasize whaits containedin paragraph 3of the

Applicationof 9 August. In paragraph51 of its Orderof 8 April1993

the Courtstated:

"thedecisiongivenin the presentproceedings in no way
prejudgesthe questionof the jurisdictionof the Courtto deal
with the meritsof the case,or any questions relatingo the
adrnissibilitof the Application,r relatingto themerits
themselves,and leaves unaffectetdhe rightof theGovemments
of Bosnia-Herzegovina aYndgoslaviato submit arguementisn
respectof thosequestions ...".

The present requesbty Yugoslaviafor theindicationof provisional

measuresof protectionto protect theSerb ethnicgroupfrom the

commissionof actsof genocidebeing perpetrate by the authoritiesof

the ApplicantParty is entirelywithoutprejudiceto al1 the rights of

the Respondentunderthe Statuteand the Rulesof Court,as to its future

conductof the case. This includes its right soraiseobjections to the

jurisdictionof the Court andto the admissibilitof the Applicationt,o

presentcounter-claimsa ,nd totake whatever positioit finds

appropriate atthe time should agreemenbe reachedon the discontinuanceof theseproceedings, or should theApplicantinform theCourtin writing

that it is not goingon with theseproceedings, underArticle 88 or

Article 89 of theRulesof Court. And 1 would respectfully as the Court

to recall this standardrulealwaysappliedin the exceptional and

incidental proceeding on requestsfor the indication o provisional

measuresof protection.

Mr. President and Member of the Court,in the perorationto its

Judgmenton the meritsin the Nicaraguacasethe Courtrecalledthe

Contadora Processthenin progress in tryingto settle the political

problemsof thatarea. May 1 quote:

"theCourtcouldnot but takecognizance of this effort, which
merits full respectand consideratio as a unique contribution
to the solution of th eifficultsituationin the region. The
Court is awarethat considerabl progresshas been achievedin
the main objectiveof the process..." (Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua
United States of America), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986,
pp. 14 and p. 145,para.291).

How apt,how appropriate to the situationnow reachedin the

International Confereno ce the FormerYugoslavia. 1 am sure thatthe

Court would not wish to disturbthe progressthathas been achievedthere.

1 thankyou, Mr. President,and distinguishe Membersof the Court,

foryour patienceand 1 would onceagainlike to expressmy appreciation
w
to the distinguishea dnd learned Registrafor the courtesieshe has

shownme. ProfessorEtinski,as Co-Agent, has askedme to tellyou that

he will presenthis conclusionsduringthisafternoon's session. Thank

you,Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuch,ProfessorRosenne. Andow, as

1 think the Parties are already aware, #
twoJudgeswish to ask questions

of both Partiesand 1 will askthemto proceedwith their questionn sow.

Firstis JudgeBolaAjibola. JudgeAJIBOLA: The Court,on the firstrequest for an indicationof

provisional measure presentedto itby theApplicantin this case,

issuedon 8 April1993 the followingorder:

"TheCourt

Indicates,pendingits finaldecisionin the
proceedings institutedon 20 March 1993by the Republic
of Bosniaand Herzegovina against tF hederalRepublicof
Yugoslavia(SerbiaandMontenegro), the following
provisional measures:

A. (1)Unanimously,
The Governmentof the Federal Republicf Yugoslavia

(SerbiaandMontenegro) shoul immediately,in
pursuanceof itsundertaking in the Conventionon the
Preventionand Punishmentof the Crimeof Genocideof
9 December 1948, takeal1measureswithinits power
to preventcommission of the crimeof genocide;

(2) By 13 votesto 1,
The Governmentof the Federal Republicf Yugoslavia
(Serbiaand Montenegro) shoui ldparticular ensure
thatany military,paramilitary or irregulararmed
units whichmay bedirectedor supported by ita ,s
well asany organizationsand personswhichmay be
subjectto its control, directio nr influence,do
not commitany actsof genocide,of conspiracy to
commit genocideo,f directand publicincitement to
commit genocideo,r of complicityin genocide,

whether directed againt steMuslim populatioonf
Bosnia and Herzegovinor against any othernational,
ethnical, raciaolr religious group;

B. Unanimously,
The Governmentof the FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegra o)d the Governmenof the
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina shoul dot take
any actionand shouldensurethatno actionis taken
whichmay aggravate or extendthe existingdispute
over the preventioonr punishmentof the crimeof

genocide,or renderit more difficultof solution."

What steps have beenakenby each Party to ensurecompliancewith

this Order?[Traduction]

A l'occasionde la première demandeen indicationde mesures

conservatoires présentp éer la Partierequéranteen laprésenteaffaire,

la Cour a rendu, le8 avril 1993,l'ordonnance suivante:

"La Cour

Indiqueà titreprovisoire, en attendantson arrêt
définitif dansl'instanceintroduitele 20 mars 1993par
la Républiquede Bosnie-Herzégovine cont reRépublique
fédérativede Yougoslavie(Serbieet Monténégro),les
mesures conservatoirs esivantes:

A. 1)A l'unanimité,

Le Gouvernement de la République fédérad tive
Yougoslavie (Serbieet Monténégro)doit immédiatement,
conformémentà l'engagementqu'ila assuméaux termes de
la conventionpour la préventioet la répressiondu
crimede génocidedu 9 décembre 1948,prendretoutes les
mesures enson pouvoirafinde prévenirla commission du
crimede génocide;

2)Par treizevoix contreune,

Le Gouvernement de la République fédératidve
Yougoslavie (Serbie etMonténégro)doit en particulier
veiller à ce qu'aucunedes unités militaires,
paramilitaireosu unités armées irrégulièr esi
pourraientreleverde son autoritéou bénéficierde son

appui,ni aucune organisation ou person qui pourraient
se trouversousson pouvoir,son autorité,ou son
influencene commettent lecrimede génocide,ne
s'entendenten vuede commettrece crime, n'incitent
directement et publiquementà le commettreou ne s'en
rendent complices, qu'tunl crimesoit dirigé contre la
population musulman de Bosnie-Herzégovine ou contre
toutautre groupe national ethnique,racialou religieux;

B. A l'unanimité,

Le Gouvernementde la République fédératid ve
Yougoslavie (Serbieet Monténégro)et le Gouvernementde
la République de Bosnie-Herzégovindoiventne prendre

aucune mesure et veillerà ce qu'iln'en soit prise
aucune,qui soitde nature à aggraverou étendre le
différendexistantsur la préventioe nt la répressiondu
crimede génocide, ou à en rendre la solution plus
difficile." Quelles disposition chacunedes Partiesa-t-elleprises pour

assurerle respectde cetteordonnance?

The PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuch,Judge Bola Ajibola. And now

the second questioncomesfromJudgeLauterpacht.

JudgeLAUTERPACHT:Thankyou,Mr. President.

1. This questionrelatesto theletterdated1 April 1993from

Mr. Vladislav Jovanovic, Federalinsiterfor Foreign Affairosf

Yugoslaviato the Registrarof the Court. The question requires some

introduction.

2. The relevant portionf the ForeignMinister'sletteris in

paragraph4, the termsof which are setout almostin full inparagraph 9

of the Court'sOrderof 8 April1993. The passageas therequoted may be

completedby the followinwgordsof introductiow nhichprecededit:

"TheYugoslav Government welcom the readinessof the
Courtto discusstheneed of orderingprovisional measure so
bringto an end inter-ethnicand inter-religious armed
conflicts withinthe territoryof the 'Republiof Bosniaand
Herzegovina', anidn this contextt"

and the restof the passageis as quotedby the Court:

"recommendsthat theCourt,pursuantto Article41 of its
Sttuteand Article73 of itsRulesof Procedure, orderthe
applicationof provisionalmeasures,in particular:

- to instruct the authorities controb llAd. Izetbegovicto
complystricly withthe latestagreementon a cease-fire in
the 'Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina'which wentinto
forceon 28 March 1993;

- to directthe authoritiesunderthe controlof A. Izetbegovic
to respect thGenevaConventions for th Protectionof
Victimsof War of1949and the 1977 Additional Protocols
thereof,sincethe genocideof Serbslivingin the 'Republic
of Bosniaand Herzegovina' is being carro ied bythe
commission of veryseriouswar crimes which are in violation
of the obligation notto infringeupon the essentialhuman
rights; - to instruct the authorities loy tolA. Izetbegovic to close
immediately anddisbandal1 prisonsand detention camps in
the 'Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina' in whichthe Serbs
are being detainedbecauseof theirethnicoriginand
subjectedto acts of torture,thuspresenting a real danger
for theirlife and health;

- to directthe authorities controlled by A. Izetbegovicto
allow, without delayt ,he Serb residentsto leave safely
Tuzla, Zenica,Sarajevoand other places in the 'Republicof
Bosniaand Herzegovina', where theyhave been subjectto
harassment andphysicaland mentalabuse,and havingin mind
that they may sufferthe same fateas the Serbs in eastern
Bosnia,which wasthe site of the killing and massacre sf a

few thousandSerb civilians;

- to instructthe authorities loyat lo A. Izetbegovicto cease
immediately any further destructioonf Orthodoxchurchesand
placesof worshipand of otherSerb culturalheritage,and to
release and stop further mistreatmo enal1 Orthodoxpriests
being in prison;

- to directthe authoritieu snder the controlof A. Izetbegovic
to put an end toal1 acts of discriminationbasedon
nationalityor religionand the practice of 'ethnic
cleansing', including thediscrimination relatin to the
deliveryof humanitarian aid, againt ste Serb populationin
the 'Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovina'."

3. The questionsthat 1 would liketo put to both Parties are the

following:

(a) Do al1 the requestsin the letterfa11withinthe scope ofthe

preventionof "genocide" as is definedin ArticleII of the Genocide

Convention?

(b) If the answerto Question1 is No, which requestsare regardedas

not fallingwithinthatdefinition?

(c) If the answer Nois given inrelationto any of the requests, on

what basis is the Courtsaid to havejurisdiction in respectof them

and, in particular,is the conceptof forum prorogatum relevant

here?
i 1. La questionconcerne la lettredu 1 eravril 1993 adressée au

Greffierde la Courpar M. VladislavJovanovic, ministre fédéral des

affaires étrangère de la Yougoslavie.Elle nécessite quelques mots

d'introduction.

2. La partie pertinentdee la lettredu.ministre des affaires

étrangères est le paragraphe4, dont le contenu est rapporp téesque

intégralementau paragraphe 9 de l'ordonnancede la Courdu

8 avril1993. Le passage cité dans l'ordonnancepeut êtrecomplétépar

les motsd'introductios nuivants,qui le précédaient :

"Le Gouvernement yougoslav se félicitede ce que la Cour
soit prêteà examiners'il estnécessaire d'indiquer des
mesuresconservatoirea sfinde mettre un termeaux conflits
armésinterethniquee st inter-religieua xyant lieuà
l'intérieurdu territoire de la 'Républiquede
Bosnie-Herzégovine et, dans ce contexte,...",

la suitedu passageétant telle que citéepar la Cour :

"recommandeà la Courd'indiquer, conformément à l'article41
de son Statutet à l'article 73 de son Règlement,des mesures
conservatoirese,t en particulier :

- de donnerdes instructions aux autoritéssous le contrôlede
M.A. Izetbegovic pour qu'ellesse conforment strictement au
dernieraccordsur le cessez-le-fed uans la'République de
Bosnie-Herzégovine qui est entréen vigueur le 28 mars 1993;

d'ordonneraux autorités sous le contrôlede
M. A. Izetbegovic qu'elles respecten les conventiond se
Genèvede 1949pour la protectio des victimesde la guerre
et les protocoles additionned ls1977 à ces conventions,
étantdonné que le génocidedes Serbes vivand tans la
'Républiquede Bosnie-Herzégovine' e ent traind'être
perpétré par des crimesde guerre très graveq sui enfreignent
l'obligationde ne pas violerles droitsessentiels de la
personne humaine;

-de donnerdes instructions aux autorités loyaleà s
M. A. Izetbegovic afiq nu'ellesfermentet démantèlent
immédiatementtoutesles prisonset tous les camps de
détentionse trouvantdans la 'Républiqud ee
Bosnie-Herzégovine et où les Serbes sont détenu en raison
de leur origine ethniqueet fontl'objetd'actesde torture,
ce qui met en sérieuxdangerleur vieet leur santé; - d'ordonneraux autorités soul se contrôlede
M. A. Izetbegovicde permettresans tarderaux habitants
serbesde quitteren toutesécurité Tuzla, Zenica, Sarajevo
et les autres localitédse la 'Républiquede
Bosnie-Herzégovine où ils ont faitl'objetde harcèlements
et de mauvais traitements physiques et menta enx,enant
comptede ce qu'ilsrisquentde subir le même sort que les
Serbesen Bosnie orientaleq ,ui a été le théâtrdee meurtres
et de massacresde quelques millierd se civils serbes;

- de donnerdes instructions aux autorités loyale s
M. A. Izetbegovicpour qu'ellesmettentimmédiatement finà
la destructiondes égliseset lieuxde culte orthodoxee st
d'autresélémentsdu patrimoine culturel serbe,et pour
qu'elleslibèrent etcessentde maltraiter tous les prêtres
orthodoxes détenus;

- d'ordonneraux autorités sous le contrôle de

M. A. Izetbegovicde mettreun terme à tousles actesde
discrimination basé sur la nationalitéou la religion ainsi
qu'auxpratiquesde 'purificatioe nthnique',y compris la
discrimination exercéeen cequi concernel'acheminemend te
l'aidehumanitaire, à l'encontre de la population serbe dans
la 'Républiquede Bosnie-Herzégovine"'.

3. Les questions queje désireposeraux deux Parties sont les

suivantes :

A) Toutes les demande contenues dans lalettre entrent-elle dans

le cadrede la prévention du "génocide", teqlue défini à l'articleII de

la convention sur le génocide?

B) Si la réponseà la premièrequestionestnégative, quelles

demandessont-elles considéréc esmme n'entrant padsans cette

définition ?

C) Si une réponse négativeest apportéepour l'unequelconque des

demandes,sur quelle base la Couraurait-elle compétence pour en

connaître et, en particulier, leconceptde forum prorogatumest-il

pertinenten l'occurrence ?

Thankyou, Mr. President. The PRESIDENT: Thankyou very much,JudgeLauterpacht.

Those are the twoquestionsaskedof both Parties. They should be

available immediatelyin writingto both Parties. For the replies,the

Court consideredthe matterthis morningand decidedthat the replies

couldbe givenorally this afternooi nf eitherParty wishesto do sobut

if eitherPartyprefers tomake a writtenanswer, then couldwe have it

please by 11 o'clocktomorrowmorning? That is perhapsa littletight if

the answers involveother materials and the Court addedthat any

supplementary materialthat aPartywishesto add to the answerto the

questionmay be givento us by about themiddleof next week.

Perhaps 1 shouldadd thatany supplementary material, pleas should

be absolutely strictlc yoncernedwith the answerto thesequestionsthat

have beenput to theParties.

Now 1 thinkthat concludesthe business for thim sorning. This

afternoonwe will meet againat 3 o'clock tohear the replyof Bosniaand

then at 5 o'clock tohear the replyof Yugoslaviaunlessindeed they wish

to reply earlier than that time.

Thankyou very much.

The Court rose at12.45 p.m.