Audience publique tenue le jeudi 17 octobre 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragu

Document Number
150-20131017-ORA-01-00-BI
Document Type
Incidental Proceedings
Number (Press Release, Order, etc)
2013/27
Date of the Document
Bilingual Document File
Bilingual Content

Corrigé
Corrected

CR 2013/27

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THE HAGUE LA HAYE

YEAR 2013

Public sitting

held on Thursday 17 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Tomka presiding,

in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

________________

VERBATIM RECORD
________________

ANNÉE 2013

Audience publique

tenue le jeudi 17 octobre 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président,

dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) et Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c.Costa Rica)

____________________

COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -

Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor

Judges Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue

Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard

Registrar Couvreur

 - 3 -

Présents : M. Tomka, président
M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président

MM. Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Mmes Xue

Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari, juges
MM. Guillaume
Dugard, juges ad hoc

M. Couvreur, greffier

 - 4 -

The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Organization of American
States, Washington D.C.,

as Agent;

H.E. Mr. Jorge Urbina, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

as Co-Agent;

Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,

as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;

Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,

Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; associate member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Samuel Wordsworth Q.C., member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court
Chambers,

Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
member of the Costa Rican Bar,

Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in Queensland, Australia, and in England and Wales,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Republic of
Colombia,

Mr. Gustavo Campos, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of

the Netherlands,

Ms Ana Marcela Calderón, Minister Counsellor at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

as Advisers.

The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

as Agent and Counsel;

Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, former Member and former Chairman of the
International Law Commission, - 5 -

Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica auprès de
l’Organisation des Etats américains, Washington D.C.,

comme agent ;

S. Exc. M. Jorge Urbina, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,

comme coagent ;

M. Sergio Ugalde, conseiller spécial auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,

comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;

M. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., pr ofesseur de droit international à l’Université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international, avocat,

M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit international à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court
Chambers,

M. Arnoldo Brenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre du barreau du Costa Rica,

Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Queensland (Australie) et Angleterre et pays de Galles),

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. Ricardo Otarola, ministre-conseiller, consul général du Costa Rica en République de Colombie,

M. Gustavo Campos, ministre-conseiller, consul général du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Ana Marcela Calderón, ministre- conseiller de l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,

comme conseillers.

Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,

comme agent et conseil ;

M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento (Etats- Unis d’Amérique), ancien member et ancien
président de la Commission du droit international, - 6 -

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre -La Défense, former member and
former Chairman o f the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit

international,

Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., member of the Bars of
the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. César Vega Masís, Director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,

Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,

Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,

Mr. Lawrence H. Martin, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., member of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

as Counsel;

Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDI N), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Ms Clara E. Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and
New York,

as Assistant Counsel. - 7 -

M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit

international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux

de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats ;

M. César Vega Masís, directeur des affaires juridiques, de la souveraineté et du territoire au
ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,

M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,

M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,
M. Lawrence H. Martin, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des

barreaux de la Cour suprême des Etats -Unis d’Amérique, du district de Columbia et du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,

comme conseils ;

M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,

Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,

M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Mme Clara E. Brillembourg, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des
barreaux du district de Columbia et de New York,

comme conseils adjoints. - 8 -

Mr. PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is now open and the Court meets to hear the

second round of oral observations of Nicaragua on the Request for the indication of provisional

measures filed by Costa Rica.

Judge Owada, for reasons explained to me, is not able to sit today. I now invite Mr. Reichler

to open the presentation by Nicaragua. You have the floor, Sir.

Mr. REICHLER:

T HE FACTS ARE STILL THE FACTS

1. Mr. President, Members of the Cour t, Costa Rica is a great country. Both Nicaragua and

Costa Rica are great countries.

2. But they squabble frequently . Maybe to the Court, it looks like they have a hard time

agreeing on anything. They have sued each other four times in this Court, wi th each one initiating

two cases. I think that is a record; probably one that will never be broken by any other pair of

neighbours.

3. Nature, in its inscrutable wisdom, has seen fit to lay them down alongside each other .

Whether they like it or not, they are in permanent wedlock . Maybe they need a marriage

counsellor. What they do not need, and of this I am certain, is a bunch of divorce lawyers driving

even deeper wedges between them by whispering in their ears, or shouting in public, how

unfaithful the other one is.

4. Mr. President, we defended Nicaragua vigorously on Tuesday, and we responded strongly

to Costa Rica’s arguments. But no one from the Nicaraguan side accused Costa Rica of bad faith,

of lying to the Court, or withholding evidence. Just because we are fighting over a swamp does not

mean we have to behave like we live in one. We, counsel, need to join together, in looking for

ways to bring these two great countries together, instead of adding fuel to the fire.

5. Professor Crawford’s tone, y esterday, was more measured and his volume was lowered

but his message was exactly the same: Nicaragua cannot be trusted and its assurances cannot be

accepted. This remains their main argument — really, the only argument they have left — for

provisional measures. - 9 -

In the second round, Costa Rica offered new evidence, not previously presented, in the form

of a satellite photo of the disputed area taken on 5 October. It is not the custom in this Court for

new evidence to be presented at this stage of the oral hearings. However, Nicaragua did not object.

Contrary to what Professor Crawford insinuated, Nicaragua does not want to keep material

evidence from the Court . We want the Court to have any and all evidence that it might find

helpful.

6. And we consider that the Court might find the satellite photo of 5 October helpful. Let us

look at what it shows [tab 19]:

7. First, it shows no evidence of current activity in this area . Even Costa Rica’s own counsel

recognize that there are no dredgers or other equipment 1. There are no personnel performing any

works. This is consistent with the documentary evidence that we reviewed on Tuesday . Pursuant

to President Ortega’s order of 21 September, all work on the caños and the beach stopped, and all

personnel and equipment were removed . Nicaragua stands by that evidence. T he new satellite

photo does not contradict it, or even throw it into doubt . The photo, in comparison with earlier

ones, shows that work was performed after 18 September . It does not show that it was performed

after Mr. Pastora received President Ortega’s order to stop, a few days later.

8. Second, there is a trench on the beach that comes close to, but does not reach the

Caribbean Sea. This is a graphic depiction of what we alre ady know. In his report of 10 October,

Dr. Thorne, Costa Rica’s expert, wrote:

“A narrow trench with a wide entrance has been dug into the beach between the
natural lagoon that is currently the northern terminus of the eastern caño and the

Caribbean Sea, starting near the shore of the lagoon and extending back through the 2
beach towards the Caribbean Sea. The trench does not yet reach the Caribbean Sea.”

Dr. Thorne also wrote that the trench “could be extended to achieve this with very little

difficulty” . His description of the situation is as if he had seen the 5 October satellite photo,

because what he says in his report is just what the photoshows.

1
CR 2013/26, para. 17 (Crawford).
2Thorne Report, para. 4.1 (g).
3
Ibid., para. 4.7. - 10 -

9. I do not know if this picture is worth a thousand words, but Dr. Thorne already said the

same thing in the 66 I just read. Nicaragua has never challenged the evidence that the trench was

dug, that it almost reaches the sea, and that it could be extended there without significant effort. To

the contrary, it has straightforwardly acknowledged all of this.

10. What we argued was that the undisputed evidence showed three things . One, that all

work on the trench stopped after the order of President Ortega. Two, that the work stopped before

the trench was completed, and before it connected the caño to the sea . And three, that , even

according to Professor Thorne’s report and that of the University of Costa Rica  which

Nicaragua considers to exaggerate the risks  there was no risk of irreparable harm to the

San Juan River or its environs, unless and until the caño and the sea were connected. Nicaragua

stands on that evidence as well. And, again, Costa Rica’s counsel introduced nothing, yesterday, to

contradict it.

11. In fact, the new satellite photo confirms what Nicaragua said in all respects. Above all, it

shows that the work on the trench stopped abruptly, shortly before it reached the sea. Obviously,

this was in response to the order that the work be stopped. It also demonstrates Nicaragua’s good

faith. As Professor Crawford said yesterday, it would not have taken much time or effort to finish

the job4. If Nicaragua were as sinister as my friend suggests, it could readily have presented Costa

Rica, and the Court with a fait accompli. But that did not happen.

12. Professor Crawford asked Monday for Mr. Pastora’s instructions at the time he embarked

on his work in the disputed area — prior to his receipt of President Ortega’s order of 21 September.

On Tuesday, we put them in Nicaragua’s judges’ folder, at tab 6, and blew them up on the sc reen.

Yesterday he wanted the 2011 instructions applicable to Mr. Pastora 5. T hey are dated

9 March 2011, one day after the Court’s Order:

“Pursuant to instructions from the Nicaraguan Army Chief of Staff regarding
the implementation of the resolution i ssued by the International Court of Justice on

8 March 2011 . . . [that is, one day prior]

1. It is prohibited to carry out operations, patrols, or any type of presence in the
territory defined by the International Court of Justice as Disputed Territory, located

4CR 2013/26, para. 9 (Crawford).

5CR 2013/26, paras. 12-13 (Crawford). - 11 -

north of the disputed channel, bordered on the west by the right bank of the San Juan
de Nicaragua River . . . and on the east by Harbour Head Lagoon . . . ”

13. Nicaragua previously provided this military order to the Court and to Costa Rica on

6 August — it can be found at tab 20 of today’s judges’ folder. Mr. Pastora must have complied

with it, at least between March 2011 and August 2013, because Costa Rica never complained about

his activities during that two -and-a-half year period, which he spent dredging along the San Juan

River and in channels on the Nicaraguan side.

14. Professor Crawford asked why Nicaragua ordered the trench to be dug: what was its

intent? That is a bit like asking “why did you beat your spouse?”. When you ask why something

was done, you assume that it was. But Nicaragua did not order, or instruct, or plan for the trench to

be dug. What was Nicaragua’s intent in regard to the trench? It had none. It never ordered or

authorized the activity. Nor did it even want this particular work to be done.

15. In fact, the trench along with the caño are harmful to Nicaragua, or, at least, they would

have been, if the r iver were connected to the Sea by these works. Nicaragua does not need, or

want, that connection to be made. Mr. President, you cannot drive from Managua, or any other city

or town in Nicaragua, to the village of San Juan de Nicaragua on the Caribbean coast . There is a

small airport, but the main means of transportation is by boat . The river is already ver y low, and

impassable during the dry season except by canoe. Remember, 90 per cent. of the river flows into

the Colorado River, in Costa Rica, upstream from here . That is why Nicaragua is so concerned

about Costa Rica’s construction of highway 1856, and the large quantity of sediments it contributes

to the river, which build up and make navigation even more difficult downstream . If what remains

of the San Juan River were diverted into and through the eastern caño, there would eventually be

nothing but mud downstream of the caño. It would be completely impassable there, all year round.

San Juan del Norte would be cut off from the rest of Nicaragua.

16. That is why, Mr. President, Nicaragua would be very happy to have the trench filled up,

and the beach returned to the way it was before Mr. Pastora started working there.

Ambassador Argüellowill discuss how the refilling of the trench might take place.

CR 2013/26, para. 33 (Crawford). - 12 -

17. Professor Crawford says it is “not credible” that Mr. Pastora took it upon himself to clear

the two caños, but that is just argument . The evidence shows otherwise. I reviewed it in detail

Tuesday. I will not repeat it. I will only remind the Court very quickly of three elements, which

have not been contradicted by any evidence offered by Costa Rica.

18. First, the instructions given to Mr. Pastora in July 2013 by the National Port Company

were to perform suction dredging to prevent or relieve the effects of flooding, caused by heavy

rains, on the riverine population and the airport, which are on the Nicaragua side. He was not

instructed to cross onto the right bank of the river, into the disputed area, which was still for bidden

by the army’s order of 9 March 2011. That order is the second element . Third, as soon as

President Ortega found out that Mr. Pastora was operating in the disputed area, he ordered him to

stop immediately. Costa Rica has not presented evi dence to call any of these well -documented

facts into question.

19. Professor Crawford put forward nine propositions, and then drew tw o conclusions. I

have already addressed some of them. So I will respond without repeating myself.

20. Proposition One: that Nicaragua constructed the caños 8. This is where

Professor Crawford argues that Nicargaua “sent” Mr. Pastora into the disputed a rea to clear or

construct the caños, that “people were sent by Nicaragua,” and that it is “not credible” that

Mr. Pastora acted without, or contrary to, the G overnment’s instruction . This is argument , not

evidence, and it is based on Professor Crawford’s penchant for attributing only evil motives to

Nicaragua. It is not based on facts . The evidence shows, as I have said, that Nicaragua did not

send Mr. Pastora to the disputed area, and that, quite to the contrary, he went there against the

Government’s wishes and was stopped as soon as the highest authorities in Managua found out

what he was doing . There is no contrary evidence and no reason to disbelieve Nicaragua or the

documents. It is Professor Crawford’s argument that is “not credible”.

7
CR 2013/26, para. 33 (Crawford).
8Ibid., paras. 9-11 (Crawford).
9
Ibid., paras. 9, 11 (Crawford). - 13 -

10
21. Proposition Two: that those constructing the caños had ostensible authority to do so .

If this is a legal point, Nicaragua does not disagree, but that is not the issue in the present phase of

the case. I f it is intended as a point of fact, w e refer the Court again to the army order of

9 March 2011 prohibiting all entry and activity in the disputed area, and the instructions

Mr. Pastora received from the National Port Company in July 2013. He was not commissioned by

higher authority to construct caños in the disputed area, ostensibly or otherwise.

22. Proposition Three: that Nicaragua has breached the 2011 Order by constructing the

11
caños . Mr. President, Mr. Pastora did what he did, and Nicaragua does not deny responsibility

for his actions. The army order of 9 March 2011, issued in direct response to the Court’s Order and

which remains in effect to this day, shows Nicaragua’s intention to comply with the Court Order.

So does President Ortega’s instruction of 21 September, to which Mr. Pastora adhered. The

evidence shows that Nicaragua did not “send” Mr. Pastora to the disputed area, or “maintain” him

there, as prohibited by the first operative paragraph of the Court’s March 2011 Order . To the

contrary, the President of the Republic removed him as soon as he could.

23. Proposition Four: that the risk of irreparable prejudice is even more serious than first
12
thought . This is hyperbole. More serious than who f irst thought? Not, apparently, Costa Rica’s

expert, Dr. Thorne. As I pointed out, he was well aware on 10 October, when he wrote his report,

that the trench on the beach nearly reached the sea and “could be extended to the sea with very

little difficulty, thus opening the eastern caño to the Caribbean 1.

24. The most that could be said about Costa Rica’s new evidence is that, based on additional

digging after the 18 September photos were taken, the t rench could be extended to the s ea with

even less difficulty than Dr. Thorne anticipated. But the fact remains, as verified by the new photo,

that the trench does not reach the sea, does not open the caño to the sea, and does not provide a

short cut or any other kind of channel for water flowing along the Rio San Juan. Thus, there is still

no risk of irreparable harm. Professor McCaffrey will say more about this.

10
CR 2013/26, paras. 12-13 (Crawford).
11CR 2013/26, paras. 14-16 (Crawford).

12CR 2013/26, paras. 17-23 (Crawford).
13
Thorne Report, paras. 5.1 (d) & (e). - 14 -

14
25. Proposition Five: that Costa Rica’s expert evidence is unchallenged . Since this

evidence relates to irreparable harm, I will leave it to Professor McCaffrey to respond.

15
26. Proposition Six: that the uncontested expert evidence is not unsupported assertion .

Again, this relates to irreparable harm and will be covered by Professor McCaffrey.

27. Professor Crawford’s Proposition Seven: that Nicaragua has failed to inform the Court
16
of material facts . Mr. President, this is another of Professor Crawford’s unjustified attacks on

Nicaragua’s good faith. It is an extremely serious charge and it is most unfair.

28. What evidence is Nicaragua alleged to have withheld? According to Professor Crawford,

“Nicaragua let an out of date picture of the caño rest before you without comment.” 17 Presumably

his reference is to the aeri al photos Costa Rica took on 18 September . Those, the latest photos in

the record until yesterday, clearly show the two caños that are the subject of Costa Rica’s request,

the presence of a dredger, and the existence of the trench along the beach. They show everything

that Mr. Pastora and his crew were doing in the area. The relevant facts are uncontested:

Mr. Pastora and his crew dug a trench along the beach; the wo rk on it was stop ped after he

received President Ortega’s order; at the time the work was stopped, the trench did not reach the

sea, although a connection could easily have been made with little work . These are the material

facts pertaining to the trench . Nicaragua acknowledged all of them in the documents and

arguments it presented to the Court. It has held nothing back. There is nothing to hold back.

29. Nicaragua had no incentive, or even means, to conceal anything . How is it possible to

hide a trench on an open expanse of beach? On 24 September, after receiving and reviewing Costa

Rica’s Request and its annexes, Nicaragua saw that Costa Rica had been regularly taking aerial

photographs and collecting satellite photos showing Mr. P astora’s works b etween 5 and

18 September. It naturally assumed that Costa Rica would continue doing so, especially now that it

had decided to go to the Court. So, even Nicaragua were as diabolical as Professor Crawford

14
CR 2013/26, paras. 17-23 (Crawford).
15CR 2013/26, paras. 26-32 (Crawford).

16CR 2013/26, para. 33 (Crawford).
17
Ibid. - 15 -

suggests, why would it foolishly try to conceal evidence of what was in plain view, especially the

plain view of Costa Rica, which had been actively surveilling the area?

30. If there is anything misleading, Mr. President, it is the labelling Costa Rica put on the

photo from yesterday. [graphic] At the top, it says “Newly Excavated Trench.” The implication is

that Nicaragua was continuing to dig the trench right up to 5 October. Professor Crawford even

made that accusation. But t hat is not true, and the photo does not justify this label , or support

Professor Crawford’s charge. The photo provides no basis for believing that any digging was done

after President Ortega’s order was received. Nicaragua could just as easily suggest  but I want to

make clear it does not  that Costa Rica is withholding evi dence, including satellite and other

photos from late September, which it undoubtedly possesses, that would show that the digging had

already stopped. It would be surprising if they had not taken any photos during that period. But

we prefer simply to deal with the evidence, rather than to trade accusations.

31. The 5 October satellite photo  which Nicaragua never had, never obtained, never saw,

and therefore never withheld  makes graphically clear how close the trench comes to the sea.

But it does no t change anything material. What has Nicaragua withheld? That more work was

done on the caño and the trench after 18 September? Nicaragua itself said so . That the caño is

wider and the trench longer than they were on 18 September? That follows inevitably from the fact

that work continued until the President’s Order stopped it . There is nothing in this photo, or any

other, that Nicaragua would have any reason to hide. [graphic down] . Where then does this new

photo, this smoking gun, get them? If it w as offered to show irreparable injury, it does not. It

shows the opposite. True, the distance between the trench and the sea is not great, but there is still

no connection, without which, their expert says, there can be no irreversible harm. If they off ered

it to show Nicaragua is dishonest or hiding evidence, it fails there too.

32. Professor Crawford accuses Nicaragua of hidin g its intentions, which, he said, are laid

bare by the 5 October photo. Res ipsa loquitir. “Come clean,” he demanded of Nicaragua, as if it

18
were not . Well, it may be that Mr. Pastora intended to connect the river to the sea. We do not

1CR 2013/26, para. 33 (Crawford). - 16 -

know why else he would dig the trench. If those were intentions, they are just as obvious from the

18 September photos  which also depict the trench  as from the one submitted yesterday.

33. But these were never Nicaragua’s intentions. Those intentions are reflected in the

Army’s order of 9 March 2011, the National Port Company’s inst ructions to Mr. Pastora in

July 2013 and, most emphatically, in President Ortega’s order to him on 21 September, that he stop

his activities and leave the disputed area. What was Mr. Pastora thinking when he undertook these

works? At the time, Nicaragua did not know. It may be responsible for his actions, but not for his

thoughts.

34. Proposition Eight: that the caño exists 1. It does, although, as Professor McCaffrey will

explain, it will not exist for long . The silting from the river will find its way into the caño and

eventually fill it with mud, to the point where it dries up. In its present state, unconnected to the

sea, it cannot cause the Rio San Juan to change course , or otherwise cause irreversible harm. This

is confirmed by Professor Thorne’s report.

35. Proposition Nine: that Nicaragua’s northern military encampment is on the disputed

territory20. If it is, this is because Costa Rica, this week for the very first time, has disputed it . On

Tuesday, we showed you three Costa Rican maps, all taken from their Memorial in this case, which

show the beach in this area, as distinguished from the wetlands, as belonging to Nicaragua 21. This

tiny camp has been in the same place for almost two years, and Costa Rica has been well aware of

its existence all along . They have a lookout tower and antennae on t heir side of Harbor H ead

Lagoon, and they conduct frequent surveillance of the area, including periodic overflights of

Nicaragua’s territory, which Nicaragua has protested on numerous occasions and documented for

the Court. They have never before complained about the camp . There has been no suggestion by

Costa Rica that the few soldiers stationed there have ever caused any harm to the wetlands.

They are there to watch the coast, to keep an eye out for drug traffickers and smugglers who infest

the area, transporting their illicit cargo by small boat.

19
CR 2013/26, para. 34 (Crawford).
2CR 2013/26, paras. 35-39 (Crawford).
21
Nicaragua judges’ folders (day 1), tab 11. - 17 -

36. It is notable that Costa Rica’s Request for New Provisional Measures does not complain

about the presence of this military camp, which is in plain sight. [Tab 22] At tab 22, you can find

a satellite photo depicted in paragraph 4 of Costa Rica’s 23 September Request. Costa Rica points

to the spot on the beach, and says , quote: “Location of Nicaragua tents, pile of felled trees and

lookout tower.” 22This is offered as evidence that a crew of workmen w as clearing caños in the

wetland, not that Nicaragua is unlawfully  in violation of the Court’s Order or otherwise 

maintaining a small military camp on the beach . There is no mention of the military camp

anywhere in Costa Rica’s Request.

37. Apparently, it did not occur to Costa Rica to complain about it until this week, in

Mr. Ugalde’s presentation on Monday . If Costa Rica is now, for the first time, claiming

sovereignty over the beach, then this is a new claim. The beach was not part of their original claim

and, as such, should be considered as co vered by the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011. Nicaragua

submits that there is no factual or legal basis for the Court to disturb the status quo .

Professor Pellet will discuss the legal aspects.

38. I turn next, and last, to Professor Crawford’s two conclusions. His first conclusion , as

we might have expected, is that Nicaragua cannot be trusted and its assurances should not be

accepted by the Court 2. This is the same message Professor Crawford delivered on Monday, to

which I responded Tuesday . I do not need to cover that ground again. But Pr ofessor Crawford

made some new charges of dishonesty by Nicaragua yesterday, to which I will respond.

39. First new charge: t hat Nicaragua carried out substantial w ork through 5 October and

24
tried to hide it . The evidence does not show this. It shows that digging of the trench on the beach

continued after 18 September. Nicaragua has never said otherwise. It has acknowledged that work

on the caño and the trench continued through the time Mr. Pastora received President Ortega’s

order that he stop. The 5 October satellite photo does not show that the work continued past that

time. Or that Nicaragua acted in bad faith.

22
Provisional Measures Request, Attachment PM-9.
2CR 2013/26, paras. 42-50 (Crawford).
24
CR 2013/26, para. 44 (Crawford). - 18 -

40. Second new charge: that the Nicaraguan army knew about Mr. Pastora’s activities and

25
approved of them . The South Military Detachment Headquarters is in San Carlos, at the opposite

end of the San Juan River, more than 180 km from the disputed area where Mr. Pastora was

operating. Nicaragua acknowledges that Mr. Pastora was observed by the few soldiers at the beach

encampment, and probably by others conducting regular patrols along the San Juan River, and that

they did not interfere with him . They mig ht have assumed, like Professor Crawford, that

Mr. Pastora was authorized to be there. But, as we have shown, he was not . There is no evidence

that senior military personnel , or any other government officials, authorized or approved

Mr. Pastora’s activities in the disputed area.

41. Third new charge: This is actually a revised old charge. That Nicaragua’s acceptance of

the facts is reluctant and untimely 26. Neither is true . Professor Crawford now agrees that it was

appropriate, after Costa Rica filed its Request for new provisional measures on 23 September, for

Nicaragua to address its response to the Court, rather than to Costa Rica directly 27. But he does not

28
accept that Nicaragua needed until 10 October to do so. He counted 26 days from 16 September .

But he overstates the time, because there are only 17days between 23 September, when Costa Rica

filed its Request, and 10 October, when Nicaragua sent its Response to the Court. My friend
29
questioned why it would take so long to “assemble the legal team” . Ambassador Argüello will

answer him, and show that Nicaragua moved as quickly as possible to answer Costa Rica’s charges

and submit its answer to the Court, with all relevant documents attache d. After yesterday,

Costa Rica may wish to reconsider raising the subject of the untimely submission of documents.

42. In addition to these charges, Professor Crawford amplified on two from Monday, on his

central theme that Nicaragua violated its assurances to the Court before and will do it again 30. He

pointed again to the photo of Nicaraguan soldiers in the disputed area taken on 19 January 2011,

25CR 2013/26, para. 43 (Crawford).
26
CR 2013/26, para. 43 (Crawford).
27CR 2013/26, para. 5 (Crawford).

28Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30CR 2013/26, para. 45 (Crawford). - 19 -

31
one day after Nicaragua told the Court that all Nicaraguan military personnel had been removed .

But he did not dispute what I said Tuesday, that they had been withdrawn within a few days of the

photo, and no troops had returned to the area . Yes, Nicaragua’s statement on 18 January was a bit

premature. But this is not evidence that Nicaragua violated its assurances to the Court, let alone

that it is a serial violator. The larger truth is that Nicaragua did remove all its troops promptly, as it

assured the Court it would, and that it has honoured its word to keep them out of the disputed area

ever since.

43. Professor Crawford apologized to the Court for failing to provide any evidence Monday

in support of his ch arge that Nicaragua sent 10,000 Sandinista youth to perform work on the first

32 33
caño . He sought to atone for this omission by submitting a copy of a digital news article . But

his statement still has no support. The press article, which hardly qualifies as admissible evidence,

says nothing about anyone working on the caño in the disputed area . And Ambassador Argüello

already explained that the number of people refers to the young environmentalists who have

performed volunteer work along the entire length of the San Juan River, not in the disputed area .

The very same information, in an almost identical and equally unreliable news article, was attached

to Costa Rica’s request for modific ation of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011. T he Court

determined that the evidence presented then did not show any irreparable harm, and declined to

modify its Order. In other words, there is nothing new here. Professor Crawford has still produced

no evidence to support his charge. He has produced no evidence that Nicaragua cannot be trusted,

or that its assurances cannot be accepted. This basis for Costa Rica’s provisional measures request

is non-existent.

44. Finally, I come to Professor Crawford’s second, and last conclusion, that if Nicaragua

has breached th e Court’s Order of March 2011, then there is a risk of harm and Costa Rica is

entitled to return to the status quo 34. He called this a legal matter, and cited me as authority that he

is frequently right on the law. Mr. President, I do not take back the compliment I paid to my friend,

31
CR 2013/26, para. 46 (Crawford).
32CR 2013/26, para. 47 (Crawford).

33CR 2013/26, para. 47 (Crawford).
34
CR 2013/26, para. 51 (Crawford). - 20 -

but Professor Pellet is usually right on the law and he disagrees. Moreover, the factual predicates

for Professor Crawford’s legal conclusion do not exist . Costa Rica has not demonstrated the need

for any of its requested measures. There is certainly none for the first two. It is undisputed that the

prohibited activities in the disputed area have been terminated, and that all associated personnel

and equipment have been removed. Professor Kohen helpfully clarified that the first two measures

seek no more than this. They are therefore unnecessary and superfluous. That leaves only the third

measure, for remediation  of what? As long as there is no connection to the sea, there is no risk

of irreparable harm, according to their own expert witness. And, as we have seen, there is no such

connection. There are thus no grounds for any of the provisional measures Costa Rica has

requested.

45. However, if the remediation Costa Rica desires is the filling of the trench on the beach or

even the building of a sand berm, to assure that the caño will never reach the sea, then the two

Parties are in agreement on what needs to be done, even if they disagree on whether Costa Rica has

justified its Request for new p rovisional measures. Nicaragua is ready, willing and able to

eliminate the trench . Ambassador Argüello will elaborate . Maybe it is possible to save this

marriage after all. Maybe this time they will take “yes” for an answer. If not, we have confidence

that the Court will find a way to help both Parties reach an accommodation.

46. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it has been an honour for me to appear before you

in these hearings. I thank you again for your patience and kind attention. And I ask you to please

call Professor McCaffrey to the podium.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Reichler. Certainly I will give the floor to

Professor McCaffrey, but before doing that, Judge Greenwood would like to seek a clarification —

an answer to a matter which you have raised in this morning’s presentation. And you may provide

the answer immediately, or if you may wish to consult the Agent. I will give you the floor, later on

perhaps, after the presentation by Professor Pellet — or the Agent himself can clarify the matt er.

Judge Greenwood, you have the floor.

Judge GREENWOOD: Thank you, President. I just want to seek clarification about two

aspects of the order that appears at tab 20 of the judges’ folder. The first is that the order is - 21 -

obviously from the Army of Nicaragua, but it appears to be addressed to a military unit. Would

counsel for Nicaragua please clarify the way in which this document is applicable to Mr. Pastora,

and to the National Port Authority? The second clarification concerns a matter that is probably just

a reflection of the way the translation of the document has been printed out. I want to know

whether the date of 9 March 2011, at the end of the bold-lettered passage, relates to the date of the

order, or the date of the Presidential Decree 79/2009. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Reichler. So, as I said earlier, you can provide

clarification now or later on during this morning’s hearing.

Mr. REICHLER: Well, I think it is always best for counsel to consult with the Agent bef ore

providing an answer. I appreciate the questions. We will answer them later.

The PRESIDENT: Certainly. Thank you. I now call on Professor McCaffrey, please.

Mr. McCAFFREY:

N O THREAT OF IRREPARABLE HARM

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, good

morning. My task today is to respond to Costa Rica’s argument that the so -called “eastern caño”

poses a risk of irreparable harm. I will be brief, because despite the fact that Costa Rica introduced

new evidence yesterday, the situation has not changed materially since my last intervention.

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, yesterday Professor Crawford showed an image

dated 5 October purporting to show a widening and lengthening of the “ditch” at the seawa rd end

of the so- called “eastern caño”. As I have mentioned, this was new evidence, submitted in the

second round of the hearings, which is unusual, to say the least.

2. Costa Rica says the “eastern caño” entails a threat of irreparable harm and that t he

5 October image proves this. Professor Crawford yesterday addressed “the question of risk of

irreparable harm”. In doing so, he rather remarkably offered testimony, not even on his own

behalf, but on behalf of Cost a Rica’s expert, Professor Thorne, wh o was not present. As

Professor Crawford tells it, Dr. Thorne stated the view that - 22 -

“the increasing wet season runoff from the catchment is likely now  that is, over the
coming weeks  to raise the elevation of the water surface in the river compared to
that in the sea, creating the gradient necessary to drive the flow through the caño with
35
sufficient force to scour its bed and enlarge the ditch through the beach” .

3. Thus, we were given not one, but two new pieces of o stensible evidence by

Professor Crawford at yesterday’s hearing, which Nicaragua saw and heard for the first time during

that hearing. The first, the satellite image, is something we would have liked very much to have

our expert examine. Professor Crawford asked, “Where is [Dr. Kondolf]?” It would have been

rather difficult to summon him during the hearing yesterday to examine this i mage. Unfortunately,

Professor Kondolf was not here to do so. When Costa Rica presented Dr. Thorne’s report to the

Court last Thursday evening, less than t wo working days before the hearing wa s scheduled to

begin, Professor Kondolf was traveling in Asia. Given the short notice Nicaragua was provided for

the need for his expert input during the hearing, Dr. Kondolf was unable to participate, which

brings me to the second new piece of evidence.

4. This second new piece of would-be evidence, which is not even hearsay but rather a mere

assertion of counsel, should have come directly from Dr. Thorne, preferably on the witness stand

here in the Great Hall of Just ice but, at very least, in the form of a written report. Then Nicaragua

would have had an opportunity to test his opinions and to clarify what the conditions would have to

be for what he stated to occur. But while Costa Rica had earlier said he would be “available”, there

was no sign of him yesterday. It is Nicaragua that should ask, “Where was Dr. Thorne?”

5. However, since Professor Crawford has as much as invited Nicaragua to reciprocate and

introduce expert evidence  in this case, of Dr. Kondolf  in the second round of pleadings, we
36
have done so. You will find Dr. Kondolf’s brief report at tab 23 of your judges’ folders .

6. Mr. President, Members of the Court, let me focus on the issue of the risk of irreparable

harm. First, allow me to quote briefly from Dr. Kondolf’s report, at page 2. He states as follows:

“The removal of vegetation associated with clearing of the caños is small in
comparison to natural variability and change that occurs in the delta. The concerns

raised about ‘irreversible harm’ from the caños capturi37 the flow of the Río San Juan
and thereby shortening the river are exaggerated.”

35
CR 2013/26, p. 15, para. 22 (Crawford).
36Potential ecosystem impacts of changes at the mouth of the Río San Juan, G. Mathias Kondolf, Ph.D.,
16 Oct. 2013.
37
Ibid., p. 2. - 23 -

7. Mr. President, I turn next to Costa Rica’s new evidence from yesterday, and I would make

two points here. [Slide: tab 24] First, Professor Crawford said that the 5October image which

is now on your screens and at tab 24 of your judges’ folders  this image showed that “a new

entrance to the caño has been created” 38. In fact, whatever is there does not appear to be new; i t

can already be seen on the 14 September imag e. If there is a new entrance  or any entrance, for

that matter  it is miniscule; certainly not like what would be necessary to divert the entire flow

of the river from its existing channel. One does not have to be a n expert to see that. The

downstream “entrance”, as it were, to the extent there is one, is at such an angle to the flow that, as

a matter of common sense, it would not be suited to attract the flow of the river into the caño. In

any event, the eastern caño is virtually perpendicular  virtually  to the river, which would not

in itself encourage flow to enter it.

8. And second, it does not take an expert to realize that no matter what is done to the ditch at

the seaward end of this caño , in order for wa ter to flow out of the caño into the sea, it must first

flow into the caño from the river. As I will discuss presently , under current conditions, including

the small island that is visible, blocking the caño ’s entrance, and the very narrow opening, as is

clearly visible from Costa Rica’s own 5 October image, it seems highly unlikely that sufficient

water would flow from the river  if any would flow at all  into the caño to trigger the process

of scouring that would be necessary for the river to enlarge t he caño and carve its route to the sea.

Costa Rica admitted as much when we were told that if the barrier island at the caño’s intake were

removed, there would be a chance that water from the river might enter it. But , Mr. President, that

is not going to happen, since work there has stopped. That little if any water is presently flowing

from the river into the eastern caño is obvious from the sharp contrast in the colour of the water as

between the river and the caño. And certainly no self -diversion of the San Juan has occurred

through the original caño, where conditions are arguably more favourable to such a change, as I

will discuss shortly.

9. Finally, I would recall our observation on Tuesday, that Costa Rica based its entire

technical argument ab out the river changing course and flowing into the eastern caño on the

3CR 2013/26, p. 14, para. 21 (Crawford). - 24 -

condition that the channel work would have to be completed a nd connected to the sea. Costa Rica

has produced no evidence that changes that premise. The channel remains unconnected to the sea.

Professor Thorne’s report makes this foundational assumption emphatically clear. At

paragraph 4.7 of his report, he states:

“For substantive flows to pass through either of the 2013 caños they need to be

open to the Caribbean Sea at their dow nstream ends. In the case of the eastern caño,
[he continues] the trench already dug part way across the beach could be extended to
achieve this with little difficulty.” (Emphasis added.)

It is only “[o]nce the trench is completed” that the danger he identifies even becomes possible.

10. Mr. President, nothing Costa Rica said yesterday can or does change that premise. Yet,

the unmistakable fact is that the channel remains unconnected to the ocean. Indeed, not only is the

downstream end of the caño not “open to the Caribbean Sea”, as you can plainly see from the

image Costa Rica belatedly introduced yesterday, but the upstream end of the ditch across the

beach also appears to have sand piled across the point where it meets the caño. The assumption on

which Costa Rica’s technical case is built is not satisfied. The risk is therefore not real. And since

the work has stopped, there is no chance of its becoming real. [Slide: tab 24 off]

11. Mr. President, there is also a more general point. To recapi tulate, Costa Rica says the

eastern caño may capture the flow of the San Juan River, which will result in irreparable harm to

its rights. In considering that assertion, it would be well to recall that Costa Rica made the same

argument about the original caño, of which it complained in the Certain Activities case. In the

original provisional measures hearings in that case, Costa Rica also made the argument and showed

photos purporting to demonstrate the calamities that would ensue if work on that caño were not

halted and the terrain restored  namely, that the caño would, by virtue of its location, attract the

flow of the San Juan River, which would break through the barrier beach that separates the Harb or

39
Head Lagoon from the sea, all resulting in a change of the river’s course .

12. But then work was stopped on this caño. What happened? Did the river change course?

No. [Tab 25 on screen.] In fact, Costa Rica in its Memorial on the merits  from which the image

on the screen (and at tab 25 of your fol ders) was taken  later recognized that the original caño

3CR 2011/1, para. 41, p. 67, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/150/16282.pdf. - 25 -

had again become “heavily-silted” with substantially reduced water flows , precisely as happens to

the caños in this entire area without the maintenance necessary to keep them clear and passable.

[Tab 25 off ; tab 26 on screen.] And what you now see on the screen (and at tab 26) is a

comparison by Dr. Kondolf of the original caño in November 2010 and September 2013 (on the

right), showing the rapid regrowth of vegetation during that relatively shor t period. This of course

applies to the eastern caño as well, this phenomenon. [Tab 26 off.]

13. Mr. President, Members of the Court, there is no reason to believe the situation with

respect to the so-called “eastern caño” is any different from that of the original caño. Work on it

has stopped. The climatological and hydrographic conditions are virtually the same as those

relating to the original caño. The opening from the river into the eastern caño appears smaller than

that from the river into the o riginal caño and, as mentioned earlier, the downstream and upstream

ends of the ditch across the beach are blocked. Thus, as I have said, there is no reason to believe

that anything like the catastrophic consequences, about which Costa Rica ’s counsel have raised

such great alarm, will in fact ensue.

14. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, that concludes my brief presentation.

Thank you for your kind attention. Mr. President, I would ask that you now call my friend and

colleague, Professor Alain Pellet, to the podium. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor McCaffrey. Maintenant je passe la

parole à Monsieur le professeur Alain Pellet. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.

M. PELLET : Merci, Monsieur le président.

LA FONCTION DES MESURES CONSERVATOIRES

1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, l’objet de mon intervention de

ce matin est d’examiner la demande du Costa Rica à la lumière du rôle que jouent  ou que

devraient jouer  les mesures conservatoires dans l’affaire qui nous occupe. Même si je suis

«professeur dans l’âme», je m’interdis de donner des cours à la Cour qui, cela va sans dire, n’en a

pas besoin... Il ne s’agit donc pas de disserter dans l’abstrait sur cette  ou ces  fonction(s) des

4MCR, figure 1.34, caption, p. I-51. - 26 -

mesures conservatoires, mais de montrer qu’en l’espèce l’Etat demandeur essaie d’obtenir

beaucoup plus que ce que la Cour pourrait lui accorder à ce stade de l’affaire.

2. Délaissant le plan à la française, je le ferai en quatre points, selon le schéma de plaidoiries

affectionné par James Crawford :

1) une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires ne saurait être pour l ’Etat qui les

demande l’occasion de s’adjuger un avantage quelconque sur le fond de l’affaire ;

2) elle ne saurait en particulier préjuger les limites d ’un territoire contesté ou son appartenance à

l’une ou l’autre des Parties;

3) un Etat ne pourrait pas davantage, par le biais d’une telle demande, ou de sa modification, ou de

la formulation de nouvelles demandes, modifier le champ de sa requête initiale ;

4) la Cour ne pourrait pas non plus, évidemment, préjuger, dans une ordonnance en indication de

mesures conservatoires, la responsabilité de la Partie défenderesse.

C’est pourtant à tout cela qu’aboutiraient les mesures conservatoires que le Costa Rica vous prie

d’indiquer.

1. Une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires ne saurait être l’occasion

pour l’Etat qui les demande de s’adjuger un avantage quelconque
sur le fond de l’affaire

3. D’abord, Monsieur le président, si vous le voulez bien, la question de principe : une

demande en indication de mesures conservatoires ne saurait être l’occasion pour l’Etat qui la

formule de s’adjuger un avantage quelconque sur le fond de l’affaire.

4. La jurisprudence de la Cour est bien établie en ce sens :

«aucune action pendente lite émanant d’un Etat partie à un différend avec un autre

Etat devant la Cour «ne saurait exercer une influence quelconque sur l’état de droit
qu’il incombe à la Cour de définir» ... et ... cette action ne saurait améliorer sa position
juridique vis-à-vis de cet autre Etat» 4.

41Passage par le Grand -Belt (Finlande c. Danemark), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 29juillet 1991,
C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p. 19, par. 32, citant Statut juridique du territoire du sud-est du Groënland, ordonnances des 2 et
3 août 1932, C.P.J.I. série A/B n, p. 287. - 27 -

Et, plus généralement, toute décision rendue sur une demande en indication de mesures

conservatoires «ne doit préjuger aucune question relative au fond de l’affaire portée devant la

[Cour et] doit laisser intacts les droits des parties à cet égard» . 42

5. Il est peut-être un peu simplificateur de dire que les contentieux qui sont soumis à la Cour

sont de deux sortes ; mais, vu de Sirius, on peut considérer que vous êtes saisis , d’une part, de

litiges territoriaux ou frontaliers  qu’ils soient terrestres ou maritimes  et, d’autre part, de

différends relatifs à la responsabilité des Parties  et votre jurisprudence LaGrand, qui, à tort ou à

raison, a reconnu le caractère obligatoire  en tout cas po ssiblement obligatoire  des

ordonnances en indication de mesures conservatoires a fait que les deux sont souvent entremêlés 

et c’est le cas de notre affaire puisque ce que l’on peut appeler les «sur-contre-mesures» demandées

par le Costa Rica constituent un méli-mélo de demandes territoriales et en responsabilité liées (en

apparence au moins) non pas à la requête initiale, mais au non -respect des mesures conservatoires

indiquées par la Cour le 8 mars 2011.

2. Une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires ne saurait préjuger les limites
d’un territoire contesté ou son appartenance à l’une ou l’autre des Parties

6. J’en arrive à mon deuxième point, Monsieur le président. Dans sa demande en indication

de mesures conservatoires comme dans ses plaidoi ries de lundi dernier, le Costa Rica désignait le

territoire contesté comme «le territoire costa- ricien»  «the Costa Rican territory»  on trouve

l’expression quatre fois dans la demande 43 et pas moins de quinze fois dans les plaidoiries . Ses 44

représentants se sont abstenus de reprendre cette terminologie dans leurs présentations d’hier  ils

ont raison : comme je l’ai fait remarquer mardi, c’est mettre la charrue avant les bŒufs et postuler

42 Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali) , mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
10 janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 11, par. 30, voir aussi par. 29. Voir également : Usine de Chorzów, ordonnance
du 21 novembre 1927, C.P.J.I. série A n12, p. 10 ; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci

(Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 10 mai 1984, C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 182,
par. 31 ; Passage par le Grand- Belt (Finlande c. Danemark), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991,
C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p. 19, par. 32 ou Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de
génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro) ), mesures conservatoire s, ordonnances des
8 avril et 13 septembre 1993, C.I.J. Recueil 1993, respectivement p. 22, par. 44 et p. 347, par. 48 ou Frontière terrestre et
maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c. Nigéria), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 mars 1996,
C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 23, par. 43.
43
Requête du Costa Rica, 23 septembre 2013, par. 2, 6, 14 et 23.
44 CR 2013/24, p. 14, par. 1 et 2, p. 15, par. 4 et 6, p. 16, par. 9 (agent), p. 17, par. 2, p. 18, par. 3, p. 20, par. 10,
p. 22, par. 18, p. 24, par. 23 (Ugalde), p. 37, par. 4 (Crawford), p. 51, par. 13, p. 54, par. 22, p. 55, par. 24 et p. 61, par. 39
(Kohen). - 28 -

45
ce qu’il leur appartient de prouver . Aussi longtemps que la Cour n’a pas tranché au fond, ce que

nos amis costa-riciens appellent «Isla Portillos» est un territoire contesté. Chacune des Parties le

considère comme sien ; l’une et l’autre sont tenues de n’y agir que dans la mesure compatible avec

l’ordonnance de 2011.

7. Il en résulte au moins trois conséquences :

 d’une part, il ne saurait être question « d’empêcher de nouvelles atteintes à l ’intégrité

territoriale du Costa Rica » («to prevent further breaches of Costa Rica’s territorial

integrity» 4) ; il s ’agit seulement de déterminer à laquelle des deux Parties appartient le

territoire contesté . A u surplus, je relève que la Cour a toujours été réticente pour mêler

contentieux territorial et contentieux de la responsabilité 47, or c’est à cela que le Costa Rica

l’invite et ceci dès le stade des mesures conservatoires ;

 d’autre part, si les travaux menés sous la direction de M. Pastora sont illicites, ce n ’est pas

parce qu’ils l’ont été «en territoire costa-ricien» mais parce que  et dans la mesure où  ils

l’ont été dans le «territoire contesté» en contravention avec les dispositions de l ’ordonnance

de 2011 ;

 enfin, la troisième demande du Costa Rica, quel que soit le sort que vous lui réserveriez,

Mesdames et Messieurs les j uges, doit être interprétée comme strictement l imitée au territoire

contesté ; les alentours («surrounding areas») des caños sont  et sont exclusivement  ceux

qui se trouvent sur le territoire litigieux ; si une «remise en état» était jugée nécessaire, elle doit

se limiter à ce territoire , à l ’exclusion de tout e action dans le territoire appartenant au

Nicaragua.

8. Et je rappelle à cet égard , Monsieur le président , que le fleuve San Juan fait partie du

territoire nicaraguayen. C’est ce pays et lui seul qui possède « le dominium et l’imperium exclusifs

sur les eaux du fleuve San Juan depuis son origine dans le lac jusqu’ à son embouchure dans

45
CR 2013/25, p. 12, par. 46 (Pellet).
46Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, 23septembre 2013, p. 14, par. 27.
47
Voir Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c. Nigéria ; Guinée
équatoriale (intervenant)), arrêt, C.IRecueil 2002, p. 451-452, par. 313-315 ; ou Différend territorial et maritime
(Nicaragua c. Colombie), arrêt du 19 novembre 2012, par. 250. - 29 -

l’océan Atlantique» , avec comme seule limite l’obligation de respecter le droit du Costa Rica «de

libre navigation sur le fleuve San Juan à des fins de commerce» , obligation que vous avez

interprétée par votre arrêt du 13 juillet 2009 dans l’affaire du «San Juan» 49. Le Nicaragua n’entend

pas se départir des droits, par ailleurs exclusifs, découlant de sa souveraineté sur le fleuve.

9. Le Costa Rica s’en indigne et tente de vous faire partager cette indignation en prétendant

que «la seule manière» d’accéder à la zone des deux caños serait «d’utiliser le fleuve San Juan pour

atteindre la zone des deux nouveaux canaux. Il s’agit pratiquement», affirme le professeur Kohen,

«de la seule manière d ’y accéder, compte tenu de la nature du terrain, qui rend difficile, voire

impossible, d’arriver par voie terrestre ou même par hélicoptère. [Il s ’agit] de permettre d’accéder

à la région par voie aquatique, en vue d’ effectuer ces travaux, sans préjuger des positions des

Parties pendente lite. Et je me demande, par ailleurs, quel serait le problème que poserait au
50
Nicaragua la présence de ces navires sur le San Juan ?» . Le procédé est facile ; la réponse l ’est

aussi :

 en droit, une telle demande n’ a aucune justification : la Cour ne saurait, par le biais de

l’indication de mesures conservatoires, porter atteinte à l ’indiscutable souveraineté territoriale

du Nicaragua sur le San Juan (indiscutable mais apparemment tou jours discutée puisque le

Costa Rica revient sans cesse à la charge sur ce point...) . La Cour l’a dit à plusieurs reprises :

dans le cadre de contentieux territoriaux ou front aliers, elle ne peut ni ne doit préjuger au stade

des mesures conservatoires « l’existence ou la valeur des droits souvera ins revendiqués par

[l’une ou l’ autre des parties] sur le territoire dont il s ’agit» 51 ni l’existence ou le tracé d ’une

52
ligne quelconque ;

48Article VI du traité de limites (Jerez-Cañas) du 15 avril 1858 conclu entre le Nicaragua et le Costa Rica (CRM,
annexe 1, vol. II, p. 11). Texte espagnol original : «el dominio y sumo imperio sobre las aguas del río de San Juan desde
su salida del Lago, hasta su desembocadura en el Atlántico».
49
Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt ,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 269, par. 156, point 1) a) du dispositif.
50
CR 2013/26, p. 28-29, par. 15 (Kohen). Voir aussi CR 2013/24, p. 58-59, par. 32 (Kohen).
51Statut juridique du territoire du sud-est du Groënland, ordonnance du 3 août 1932, C.P.J.I. série A/B n 48,
p. 285 ; voir aussi Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali) , mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
10 janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 19, par. 17 ; ou Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria

(Cameroun c. Nigéria), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 22, par. 40.
52 Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali) , mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
10 janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 11, par. 28-30. - 30 -

 c’est tout aussi facile de répondre à M. Kohen en fait, car il n’est tout simplement pas exact de

53
dire qu’il «s’agit pratiquement ... de la seule manière» d’accéder à la zone en question .

10. En réalité :

 il suffit de jeter un coup d’ Œil sur une carte pour constater que si l ’emplacement en question

(celui où se trouvent les caños ) était difficile à atteindre par la voie terrestre, quod non, il

pourrait, de toute façon l ’être, et très aisément, par la mer  ce qui, il est vrai, obligerait à

traverser le fleuve San Juan, qui relève de l’imperium et du dominium exclusifs du Nicaragua ;

 ce serait un moindre mal, mais ce n’est même pas nécessaire, car la voie terrestre est tout à fait

praticable : premièrement, le Costa Rica a établi, dans les environs immédiats des caños

litigieux, des tours d’observation dont la construction a sans doute demandé l’acheminement

d’un matériel plus considérable que ce qui pourrait être nécessaire à la « remédiation» de

l’approfondissement de ces caños ;

 d’ailleurs, l ’affirmation selon laquelle les Costa -Riciens ne pourraient accéder à leur

emplacement que par la voie fluviale fait sourire, lorsque l ’on constate qu’ils ont produit des

photographies des caños en question prises à l ’évidence depuis la terre ; ou le Costa Rica

aurait-il, une nouvelle fois, violé l ’interdiction de naviguer sur le fleuve San Juan à des fins

autres que des fins de commerce ?

 plus sérieusement, je rappelle que c’ est, soi-disant, pour pouvoir accéder aisément au territoire

litigieux que le Costa Rica dit avoir construit la route 1856 ; puisqu’il l’a construite, fût -ce

illicitement et au mé pris de l’ordonnance de la Cour enjoignant les Parties de ne pas aggraver

le différend, qu’il l’utilise plutôt que de tenter, une nouvelle fois, de vous convaincre de porter

atteinte à la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua !

3. Un Etat ne saurait, par le biais d’une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires,

ou de sa modification, ou de la formulation de nouvelles demandes
modifier le champ de sa requête initiale
o
[Projection : Croquis n 5, Punta Castilla et le secteur de la b aie de San Juan del Norte (MCR,

fig. 4.6, p. 154).]

53CR 2013/26,p. 28-29, par. 15 (Kohen). - 31 -

11. Territoriale ai-je dit ; «territorialement», la demande du 23 septembre dernier est affectée

d’un autre vice, dont, je dois dire, nous n’avions pas conscience avant les audiences de cette

semaine. Le Costa Rica tente en effet de saisir le prétexte de cette demande pour élargir le champ

d’application territoriale de sa demande. Et ceci est mon troisième point.

12. Dans la requête costa -ricienne, ce champ d’application territoriale est défini de manière

assez vague 54. Mais il est très clairement illustré sur la carte, qui est projetée en ce moment et qui

figure à la page 154 du mémoire costa- ricien. Elle figure également dans vos dossiers. La limite

des prétentions territoriales du Costa Rica y est figurée par un trait bleu suivant la rive droite du

San Juan et définie, dans la légende, comme la «limite internationale» (the «international limit»).

Et ce schéma correspond en tous points à la définition du territoire litigieux tel qu’ il est décrit par

l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 après que la Cour a confronté les prétentions opposées des Parties.

Elle définit ainsi le territoire litigieux :

«la partie septentrionale de Isla Portillos, soit la zone humide d’environ

trois kilomètres carrés comprise entre la rive droite du caño litigieux, la rive droite du
fleuve San Juan lui -même jusqu’à son embouchure dans la mer des Caraïbes et la
lagune de Harbor Head» . 55

13. En demandant le retrait du petit détachement nicaraguayen stationné sur la rive gauche,

le Costa Rica modifie la définition même du «territoire contesté» sur laquelle la Cour et le

Nicaragua pouvaient légitimement tabler. Comme M Reichler l’a montré il y a quelques instants,

ceci constitue une prétention nouvelle qui ne saurait être formulée à ce stade : c’est la requête qui

fixe les contours de l ’affaire 56 ; c’est sur elle que la Cour s’ est fondée lorsqu’ elle a indiqué les

mesures conservatoires de 2011 ; et en fonction d’elle aussi que le Nicaragua a préparé sa défense

et que ses plus hautes autorités ont fixé leur ligne de conduite pour respecter et faire respecter

l’ordonnance de la Cour. Le Costa Rica ne peut aujourd’hui s’en dédire pour élargir la portée de sa

requête en redéfinissant subrepticement son champ d’application territoriale.

54 Voir la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, p. 14, par. 17-18.
55
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica cNicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 19, par. 55 (les italiques sont de nous).
56 Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru (Nauru c. Australie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,

C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p. 266-267, par. 69. V oir oussi Administration du prince von Pless, exception préliminaire,
ordonnance du 4 février 1933, C.P.J.I. série A/B n2, p. 173 ou Plates-formes pétrolières (République islamique d’Iran
c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 213-214, par. 117. - 32 -

14. Certes, les demandes initiales ne sont pas gravées dans le marbre et il est loisible à l ’Etat

requérant de les ajuster. Mais, comme vous l’avez rappelé à maintes reprises, «c’est la requête qui

indique l’objet du différend ... [et] le mémoire, tout en pouvant éclaircir les termes de la requête, ne

peut pas dépasser les limites de la demande qu ’elle contient» 57; dès lors, «[i]l convient que la

demande additionnelle soit implicitement contenue dans la requête ... ou découle «directement de la

question qui fait l ’objet de cette requête»» 58. Certes dans tous les précédents que j ’ai

trouvés  avec l’aide précieuse de mon assistant, Benjamin Samson --, il s’agissait non de mesures

conservatoires mais d ’exceptions préliminaires ou d ’arrêts au fond ; mais cela ne change rien à

l’affaire : les droits qui peuvent être préservés par l ’indication de mesures conservatoires en vertu

de l’article 41 du Statut sont, à l’évidence, ceux qui sont énoncés dans la requête.

15. En apparence, l’objet de la requête costa- ricienne ne change pas de na ture du fait de la

modification de son champ territorial . Malheureusement, Monsieur le président , cette apparence

est trompeuse : comme cela ressort de la définition par la Cour du « territoire litigieux» que j’ai lue

toute à l’heure , celui-ci est borné pa r «la rive droite du fleuve San Juan lui-même jusqu’à son

embouchure dans la mer des Caraïbes». En étendant ses prétentions à une partie de la rive gauche,

le Costa Rica modifie profondément la portée de ses demandes. La Cour ne saurait l ’admettre et il

va de soi, à plus forte raison, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, que vous ne sauriez consacrer par

avance, en catimini en quelque sorte, par l ’intermédiaire d ’une ordonnance en indication de

mesures conservatoires, des droits qui ne sont pas même l ’objet de la requête et ne sont, par

conséquent, pas non plus l’objet du différend !

[Fin de la projection.]

57
o Administration du prince von Pless, exception préliminaire, ordonnance do 4 février 1933, C.P.J.I. série A/B
n 52, p. 14 ; ou Société commerciale de Belgique, arrêt, 1939, C.P.J.I. sérA/B n 78, p. 173 ; ou Ahmadou Sadio
Diallo (République de Guinée c. République démocratique du Congo), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010 (II), p. 656, par. 39.
58 Certaines terres à phosphates à Nauru (Nauru c. Australie), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p. 266, par. 67 citant Temple de Préah Vihéar (Cambodge c. Thaïlande), fond, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 36 et Compétence en matière de pêcheries (République fédérale d’Allemagne c.Islande), fond,

arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 203, par. 72. Voir aussi Différend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras
dans la mer des Caraïbes (Nicaragua c. Honduras), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II), p. 695-696, par. 110 ou Ahmadou
Sadio Diallo (République de Guinée c. République démocratique du Congo), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010, p. 657, par. 41. - 33 -

Le PRESIDENT : Monsieur le professeur, je voudrais juste attirer votre attention sur le

temps. Je crois qu’il reste environ 18 minutes pour le Nicaragua pour compléter les plaidoiries

jusqu’à 11h 40.

M. PELLET : Je vais essayer de ne pas trop dépasser le temps, Monsieur le président, je me

permets de rappeler que la Cour est arrivée un peu en retard ce matin.

Le PRESIDENT : J’ai pris en compte 10 minute s, c’est pourquoi je dis à 11 h 40.

Eleven forty.

M. PELLET :

4. La Cour ne peut préjuger, dans une ordonnance en indication de mesures
conservatoires la responsabilité de la Partie défenderesse

16. Monsieur le président , comme je l ’ai dit, la Cour ne peut évidemment pas non plus

préjuger, dans une ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires , la responsabilité de la

Partie défenderesse  ce que le Costa Rica lui demande pourtant très ouvertement et

obstinément  au point que l’on a eu l’impression, au cours de ses plaidoiries, que la demande du

23 septembre était pour l’Etat demandeur l’occasion d’intenter un procès en responsabilité contre le

Nicaragua  pour ne pas dire un procès pénal.

17. Le Nicaragua serait ainsi l’auteur de faits interna tionalement illicites engageant sa

responsabilité.

18. Plus prudent sur ce point que mes collègues, j’avais dit que le Nicaragua était «peut-être»

59
responsable des actions de M. Pastora . Je persiste et signe, Monsieur le président ! Certes :

 même s’il n’est pas ministre mais seulement assimilé à un directeur d ’administration centrale,

M. Pastora exerce des fonctions officielles ;

 les travaux effectués sur les canaux (dont il me semble qu ’il reste à prouver qu’il les a creusés

ou fait creuser en l ’absence de tout canal pré -existant) sont, sans aucun doute, incompatibles

avec les indications de votre ordonnance de 2011 ; et

 ces mesures, jurisprudence LaGrand oblige, sont juridiquement obligatoires pour les Parties.

59CR 2013/25, p. 51, par. 22 (Pellet). - 34 -

Ergo, conclut le Costa Rica : le Nicaragua est responsable de ce ou de ces manquements.

19. Alors pourquoi nuancé-je en ajoutant «peut-être» ? Pour trois raisons :

 la première est qu’il faut qu’il n’existe aucune circonstance excluant l’illicéité ;

 la deuxième est qu ’il ne suffit pas d ’affirmer que les actes de M. Pastora sont attribuables au

Nicaragua ; il faut encore savoir à quel titre ils engageraient la responsabilité de celui-ci ; et

 la troisième est que cette discussion est prématurée : il s ’agit de questions de fond, qu’il

n’appartient pas à la Cour de trancher à ce stade.

20. Je vais reprendre les deux dernières de ces remarques : la première  celle de savoir s’il

existe d ’éventuelles circonstances excluant ou atténuant la responsabilité  n’appelle pas de

remarque à ce stade, sinon pe ut-être que ce n ’est pas sans raison que, par votre ordonnance du

17 avril 2013, vous avez décidé de joindre les affaires relatives à Certaines activités, d’une part, et

à la Construction d’une route, d’autre part. Je ne me placerai pas sur le terrain jur idique puisque,

comme je l’ai dit, ce n’est pas le moment de discuter de ces questions de responsabilité au fond ;

mais je me permets tout de même de relever que le Costa Rica, si prompt à dénoncer la paille dans

l’Œil du Nicaragua, est obstinément muet su r la poutre qui afflige le sien : la construction de la

o
route n 1856.

21. Deuxième question, celle du fondement de la responsabilité éventuelle du Nicaragua .

Que M. Pastora soit un officiel, nommé par décret du président de la République responsable du

dragage du San Juan, nous ne le nions nullement . Mais cela ne signifie pas qu ’il ait agi dans le

cadre ou dans les limites de ses fonctions :

 primo, comme le précise le décret de nomination du 10 janvier2012, M. Pastora est «d élégué

de la présidence de l a République à la commission pour le développement du San Juan» 60

 mais, en soi, cela n ’implique pas que tous ses actes engagent la responsabilité du

Nicaragua ;

 secundo, il ne résulte pas du titre de M. Pastora qu’il ait vocation à creuser ou aménager des

canaux à bien plaire sur toute la longueur du fleuve ;

60Dossier des juges du Costa Rica, 14 octobre 2013, onglet n 24 (Crawford). - 35 -

61
 tertio, quoi qu’en dise le Costa Rica , les instructions de la présidence (dont dépend

M. Pastora) étaient claires ; elles ont été relayées par l ’ordre du chef d’état-major des armées,

répercuté par l e chef du détachement militaire du sud, qu’a également cité mon collègue

Paul Reichler  ce document, en date du 9 mars 2011 a fait l’objet de questions de la part de

M. le jugeGreenwood ;

 au surplus, les réactions immédiates du président de la République, dès qu ’il a été avisé du

problème, ne laissent aucun doute : une enquête diligente , l’interdiction de poursuivre les

travaux, l’ordre clair donné à M. Pastora de se retirer du territoire litigieux (et de ne plus y

retourner) aussitôt ces investigations  fort rapides  achevées, ne peuvent laisser le moindre

doute sur le fait que celui-ci avait agi ultra vires.

22. Ceci étant, je le répète, et c’ est mon dernier point : cette discussion sur la responsabilité

est prématurée et n ’a pratiquement rien à voi r avec la demande en indication de mesures

conservatoires qui nous réunit aujourd’hui,

«la Cour, dans le contexte de la présente procédure concernant l’indication de mesures

conservatoires, doit, conformément à l ’article 41 du Statut, examiner si les
circonstances portées à son attention exigent l ’indication de mesures conservatoires,
mais n’est pas habilitée à conclure définitivement sur les faits ou leur imputabilité
et ... sa décision doit laisser intact le droit de chacune des Parties de contester les f aits

allégués contre elle, ainsi que la responsa63lité qui lui est imputée quant à ces faits et
de faire valoir ses moyens sur le fond» .

23. Notre problème n’est pas l ’attribution de la responsabilité internationale au Nicaragua

mais la connaissance des agissements de M. Pastora que pouvait avoir le pouvoir central, celui dont

la parole fait foi au plan international. Les autorités nicaraguayennes les ignoraient . Cela

n’empêche pas, peut-être, que ces agissements engagent la responsabilité du Nicaragua, mais cela

suffit à écarter l’accusation de mauvaise foi, si pesante, si déplaisante et si mal fondée, sur laquelle

repose toute la thèse de la Partie costa-ricienne.

61 Voir, par exemple, CR 2013/24, p. 42-43, par. 25 -26 et p. 44, par. 30Crawford) et CR 2013/26, p. 12,
par. 12-13 (Crawford).
62
CR 2013/25, p. 50-51, par. 21 (Pellet).
63
Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de géide (Bosnie-Herzégovine
c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro) ), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 avril 1993, C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 22,
par. 44. Voir aussi Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide
(Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)) , mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
13 septembre 1993, C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 347, par. 48 ou Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le
Nigéria (Cameroun c. Nigéria), mesures conservat oires, ordonnance du 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 23,
par. 43. - 36 -

24. Plutôt que de saisir la Cour dans la précipitation d’une demande en indication de mesures

conservatoires, demande qui a occasionné la lourde et coû teuse procédure qui nous réunit, j ’ai le

sentiment que le Costa Rica eût été mieux inspiré de «faire de son mieux pour rechercher avec [le

Nicaragua] des solutions communes »  comme la troisième mesure que vous avez indiquée dans

votre ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 lui en fait l’obligation. Il est d’autant moins excusable que, je le

dis avec respect mais regret, cette mesure fait pourtant nettement pencher la balance en sa faveur

 peut-être que ce déséquilibre est la raison de sa hardiesse à demander encore plus...

25. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président.

Le PRESIDENT : Je vous remercie, Monsieur le professeur. I now call on the Agent, unless

Mr. Reichler is going to provide clarification? So, as I said, either Mr. Reichler or the Agent.

Please, you have the floor, Ambassador.

Mr. ARGÜELLO:

1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I will begin my final presentation by

responding to the questions put to Nicaragua by two — now three — Members of the Court.

2. In response to Judge Donoghue’s question, Nicaragua informs the Court that in

64
accordance with the official information transmitted yesterday and inserted in the judges’ folder

in tab 28, the equipment shown in Costa Ric a’s attachments PM- 13 and PM -14, is currently

stationed at the Sovereignty Camp in the town of San Juan de Nicaragua 65. The UTM co-ordinates

are shown on the map that is in tab 29 of the judges’ folders (E 202069, N 211110).

3. In response to Judge Gaja’s question, Nicaragua understands that “the beach north of the

two new caños ” to which Judge Gaja refers, is the sand bank , or island, that has always been

considered part of Nicaraguan undisputed territory as explained by Mr. Reichler earlier this

morning.

6See letter from the Executive President of the National Port Authority to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua, Ref: PE-VSM-630-10-2013, 15 Oct. 2013.

6Dredge Sovereignty#2. - 37 -

4. Notwithstanding the above understanding, the response to Judge Gaja’s question is in the

affirmative. Nicaragua considers itself bound not to undertake activities likely to connect either of

the two caños with the sea and to prevent any person or group of persons from doing so.

5. This response of Nicaragua is based on its commitment to comply w ith the Order of the

Court of 8 March 2011 that indicated that “ [e]ach Party shall refrain from any action which might

aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve” 66.

6. The instructions of the President of Nicaragua are not only to withdraw from the area in

dispute, but to cease any works in the Delta  that is the general area near the territory in

dispute  that might affect the said territory in dispute. The type of works in the area indicated in

Judge Gaja’s question might affect the territory in dispute, and hence, are prohibited by the

President’s instructions. As the Court has been informed, these instructions were transmitted by

the Port Authority to Mr. Pastora 67.

7. A quick answer to Judge Greenwood’s questions is as follows. Number one: the Order of

March 2011 was issued by the Army and it literally orders all military personnel to stay out of the

disputed area. In practice, as the principle authority in this remote area, it was applied by the Army

against all Nicaraguan Government officials, the employees, in conformity with the Government’s

policy following the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011. Mr. Reichler said these instructions were

applicable to Mr. Pastora that is correct. Question number two: the Army’s order was issued on

9 March 2011 as Mr. Reichler stated. The Presidential Decree to which reference is made was

issued in 2009: you can see tha t the Presidential Decree bears a number 79/2009  the latter

number is the year of issue.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, the question has been repeatedly asked by Costa Rican

counsel as to the purpose of the trenches dug up on the sand bank or island located north of the area

68
in dispute . The reply to this question is the reply to the classic question “Qui Bono?”.

8. Mr. Reichler has explained that if this caño were to become a canal to th e sea, and the

waters of the San Juan were diverted to it, then the material loss to Nicaragua would be extreme by

66
Order of 8 March 2011.
67Idem.
68
CR 2013/26, para. 29 (Kohen). - 38 -

the parameters of that area: the only town of several thousand inhabitants located in that part of the

Caribbean would be practically isolated from the rest of Nicaragua. The presumed benefit woul d

be a new outlet to the sea, leading nowhere and benefiting a little swamp of approximately

35 hectares without any population or permanent structures, to the detriment of the only

Nicaraguan town in a radius of nearly 100 kilometres.

9. One further poin t that apparently has been overlooked. If the river were diverted

artificially into a new channel, Nicaragua could not legally claim the accretion of even that

insignificant area of 35 hectares. The claims of Nicaragua on this case are not based on artif icial

channels but on natural and long existing channels.

10. The question then, repeated, would be “Qui Bono?”

11. One final point on the trench dug up by hand on the sand bank or island located to the

north of the two new caños . In spite of the fact t hat this trench, if completed, would be more

damaging for Nicaragua, President Ortega has withheld approval of it being filled back up, in order

to avoid further misunderstanding while this case is before the Court. Nonetheless, I am authorized

to state t hat if there is no objection, he will order this trench filled up again. This could be

completed in a few days and would involve the use of no more sophisticated equipment than the

useful and ubiquitous shovel.

12. Mr. President, Members of the Court, C osta Rican counsel stated that the Court must

have remarked how rapidly President Ortega responded to Costa Rica’s protest of 16 September

and that in their experience it was unusual for a Nicaraguan Head of State to give such prompt

personal attention to a Costa Rican protest, especially since he did this unaided — as Mr. Reichler

69
had testified that President Ortega’s legal team was otherwise engaged .

13. I would point out, that the quick reaction of President Ortega is not unusual in a matter

that might be seen to affect the consistent compliance of Nicaragua with the decisions of the Court.

Naturally President Ortega did not need the assistance of his international legal team to investigate

the claims and give the orders in question putting a stop to all activities that might affect the area in

6CR 2013/26, para. 3 (Crawford). - 39 -

dispute. This was an internal Government investigation which would have been most unusual if

conducted publicly and keeping Costa Rica informed of every step taken.

14. The need for consultations with the int ernational team arose after 24 September when

Costa Rica filed with the Court the Request presently under consideration. The highly politicized

way Costa Rica handled the situation brought before the Court required repeated consultations with

the political authorities in Nicaragua and not only legal consultations.

15. Furthermore, the legal team considered that the steps taken by Nicaragua would convince

Costa Rica and the Court; that the requested measures had become a moot point.

16. Unfortunately, the Costa Rican Government decided not to accept as sufficient the

measures taken by Nicaragua in order to forestall any aggravation of the situation, and preferred to

have these costly hearings.

17. Mr. President, Members of the Court, i n normal circumstances, I would have refrained

from making certain comments and unpleasant reminders, but I note the following that might

explain Costa Rica’s tone and counsel’s tone during these hearings. International polls are

regularly conducted in order to establish t he internal backing of Latin American g overnments.

These are published in the newspapers of the region . In the past few years the Nicaraguan

Government has ranked with the top 25 per cent of the most well -considered governments and at

present it is in fo urth place out of 19 g overnments polled. The Government of Costa Rica in the

past few years has consistently been ranked in the bottom 10 per cent and at present is in the

70
19th place out of19 .

18. Costa Rican counsel during the two hearings in which th ey made statements, have

surprisingly admonished the Court that if it declines ordering the measures requested by

Costa Rica, its authority will be flouted and somehow diminished 71. The Court does not need any

props to maintain its authority . As Mr. Reichler commented, it is the World Court . Period. The

Costa Rican Government is the one that needs propping . Granting Costa Rica’s request of

7See, e.g., Poll Mitofsky (Mexico) published this month ranks President Daniel Ortega in the 4th place out of the
19 American governments polled and ranks President Chinchilla at the bottom of the list in the 19th place, available at:
http://consulta.mx/web/images/mundo/2013/EvMandatariosCM.pdf.

71CR 2013/26, para. 48 (Crawford). - 40 -

unnecessary new measures will simply be used by that Government, for its own reasons, to raise

further animosity against Nicaragua.

19. Contrary to this Costa Rican stance, as recalled in m y first presentation, President Ortega

has invited Costa Rica on several occasions to work together towards the conservation of the whole

72
San Juan de Nicaragua River, including the area in dispute .

20. In this spirit, Nicaragua would ask the Court to call on the Parties to engage in a bilateral

dialogue in order to facilitate collaboration on any aspect related to the i mplementation of the

Order of 8 March 2011.

Mr. President, I will now place on record Nicaragua’s submissions:

F INAL SUBMISSION

21. In accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and having regard to the Request for

the indication of new provisional measures of the Republic of Costa Rica and its oral pleadings, the

Republic of Nicaragua respectfully submits that,

 for the reasons explained during these hearings and any other reasons the Court might deem

appropriate, the Republic of Nicaragua asks the Court to dismiss the Request for new

provisional measures filed by the Republic of Costa Rica.

22. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, to conclude our participation in this

stage of oral proceedings, I wish to express, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of

Nicaragua, our thanks to you, Mr. President, and each of the distinguished Members of Court, for

the attention you have kindly provided to our presentations . May I also offer our thanks to the

Court’s Registrar, his staff and to the interpreters and translators? Thank you, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador. The Court takes note of the final

submissions you have just read on behalf of your Government. This brings to an end the

presentation of Nicaragua in the course of these hearings. If Costa Rica wish es to comment on

answers provided by Nicaragua to questions put by Members of the Court, the Court will meet

7Speech of President Daniel Ortega, 19 July 2011, available at http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/index.php
?option=com_content&view=article&id=367:50-aniversario -de-fundacion-del-fsln&catid=87:julio-2011&Itemid=54&
showall=1. - 41 -

again a little bit later. Perhaps I will give the floor to the Agent of Costa Rica to inform us whether

Costa Rica would like to avail itself of this right.

Mr. ÁLVAREZ: Good morning, Mr. President, Members of the Court. Costa Rica is ready

to answer — in an hour, according to your orders.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So, the Court will meet again at 12.30 p.m. and

statements of Costa Rica should be limited to answers provided by Nicaragua. Thank you. This

sitting is adjourned.

The Court adjourned from 11.40 a.m. to 12.35 p.m.

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The Court meets this afternoon, briefly, in order to

give the opportunit y to Costa Rica to comment on answers provided by Nicaragua to questions

from Members of the Court. I invite now Professor Kohen to the podium. Vous avez la parole

Monsieur.

Mr. KOHEN: I will speak English this morning.

The PRESIDENT: Certainly, we are a bilingual institution, you may plead in English as

well.

Mr. KOHEN: Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for providing Costa Rica

with the opportunity to comment on Nicaragua’s responses to the questions put to it by the Court.

Following your instructions, I will comment only on Nicaragua’s responses to the judges’ questions

and of course I will not refer to the new evidence, including scientific evidence, submitted by

Nicaragua today.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, I turn to the question asked by Judge Donoghue.

Costa Rica accepted that the dredger shown in attachment PM-13 was not in the eastern caño on

5 October 2013. Nicaragua now says that the dredgers Sovereignty 1 and Sovere ignty 2 are at

San Juan de Nicaragua. It says that “both dredgers are under repair in the proximity of the delta”. - 42 -

The Gaspar Garcia dredger, it says, is navigating towards the same place, it gives the exact

co-ordinates for these dredgers, stationed at Sovereignty Campat San Juan de Nicaragua.

You now see the photograph, which is attachment PM-14, referred to by Judge Donoghue’s

question, on your screens. This photograph includes the Nicaragua military camp. Nicaragua has

indicated to you today, that the military camp remains on the beach, and will remain there. The

constructions of these two caños did not only involve the use of dredgers, there must also have

been chainsaws to cut down trees, and shovels to dig the trench. We do not know whether this

equipment remains in the Nicaraguan camp, very close to the caños.

Now I turn to the question put to Nicaragua by Judge Gaja. Nicaragua’s Agent has answered

this question in the affirmative. He said that this is because your 2011 Order requires the Parties to

refrain from taking any action which may aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court, or

make it more difficult to resolve. Therefore, Nicaragua apparently does not consider itself bound

not to carry out activities on the beach, because the beach is disputed territory, and it is sub ject to

your Order of 2011, requiring the Parties to refrain from entering the disputed territory with

exception of the Costa Rican environmental agents. You define the disputed territory as follows:

“the northern part of Isla Portillos, that is to say, t he area of wetland of some 3 square
kilometres between the right bank of the disputed caño, the right bank of the San Juan
River up to its mouth at the Caribbean Sea, under Harbo r Head Lagoon (hereinafter
‘the disputed territory’)”.

Your Order of 8 March 2011 did not refer to any boundary line between the forest in Isla Portillos

and the beach of Isla Portillos. The document Nicaragua submitted to your today  as tab 20 of

your folders  with instructions to the army related to the disputed territory, does not distinguish

between the beach and the non -existent sandbar, and the rest of Isla Portillos. The instructions

were:

“To maintain operations against drug-trafficking and other criminal activities in
the disputed territory, operat ions shall be conducte d as provided by the International

Court of Justice. In this regard, operations and patrols shall be carried out in the San
Juan de Nicaragua River and the Harbour Head Lagoon.”

It does not say that they are to patrol from the beach. Nicaragua is require d by the Court’s

2011 Order to monitor the disputed territory from its undisputed territory. According to Nicaragua - 43 -

itself, its undisputed territory is the San Juan River and Harbor Head Lagoon; it is not the beach,

the beach is disputed territory.

A second point of concern, is that Nicaragua’s Agent did not expressly refer to Nicaragua’s

obligations in respect of private individuals in the disputed territory, to its citizens, or to persons

coming from its territory. Only four months ago, Nicaragua said “that it had no obligation to

prevent such persons from carrying out activities in the disputed territory”.

This is a matter of grave concern to Costa Rica. Consequently, Costa Rica considers that

Nicaragua’s answer to Judge Gaja’s question is absolut ely unsatisfactory, in order to prevent

activities likely to connect either of the two caños with the sea. Costa Rica observes that Nicaragua

also stated today, that the military camp is located on what it refers to as “undisputed Nicaraguan

territory”. However to support this claim, that the beach where the military camps are located,

Nicaragua places the satellite co -ordinates that Costa Rica provided to the Court, yesterday, on

Costa Rica’s sketch-map of 2006, which shows a sandbar. This map, contrary to what counsel of

Nicaragua mentioned today, are not from the Memorial of Costa Rica in this case, but from the

Memorial of Costa Rica in the Navigational and Related Rights case.

However, as Costa Rica showed you yesterday  at tabs 4 and 5 of Costa Rica’s judges’

folder that sandbar no longer exists. The fact that the sandbar does not exist is confirmed by

Nicaragua’s 2011 map  shown at tab 29 of Nicaragua’s judges’ folder  there is no sandbar in

front of the part of Isla Portillos in which the canals were constructed.

Furthermore, Costa Rica observes that the Nicaraguan Agent has suggested that Nicaraguan

activities in the disputed territory will continue. As he said, that Nicaragua itself would close the

trench. Costa Rica cannot accept th is, and does not accept that Nicaragua is entitled to continue

carrying out activities on the disputed territory.

As Costa Rica has requested, and having regard to the fact that this is an international

protected wetland for which Costa Rica is responsi ble, only Costa Rica can be put in position to

carry out remedial works.

Consequently, Costa Rica considers that Nicaragua’s answers to the questions are

unsatisfactory and aggravates the situation requiring provisional measures, as requested by

Costa Rica. - 44 -

Now I briefly turn to Judge Greenwood’s questions. Judge Greenwood asked questions

about the military order, which Nicaragua submitted at tab 20 of your folders. Nicaragua now says

that, by this order, it forbids Mr. Pastora from carrying out acti vities in the disputed territory on

9 March 2011. This order is described in Nicaragua’s Counter -Memorial as an order forbidding

military personnel from carrying out operations, patrols or any type of presence in the disputed

territory which, incidentally, it described it as including the beach, as the Court had defined it. It

never described it as an order to Mr. Pastora to the national port authority, or to the personnel

dredging the San Juan River. This new interpretation, this military order, was advanced by counsel

for Nicaragua for the first time today.

This concludes the comments by Costa Rica on Nicaraguan answers to the questions raised

by the judges of this Court. I thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Thank you

very much, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor Kohen, for your comments. I know

that you have done so as part of this new digital generation.

This brings to an end the present series of sittings. It remains for me to thank the

representatives of both Parties for the assistance they have given to the Court by their oral

observations in the course of these four hearings. In accordance with practice, I ask the Agents to

remain at the Court’s disposal.

The Court will render its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures as

soon as possible. The date on which this Order will be delivered at a public sitting will be duly

communicated to the Agents of the Parties.

Having no other business before it today, the Court now rises.

The Court rose at 12.45 p.m.

___________

Document Long Title

Audience publique tenue le jeudi 17 octobre 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) et Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica)

Links