Requête introductive d'instance

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

.TREATMENT IN HUNGARY OF
AIRCRAFT AND CREW OF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.HUNGARIAN
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC ;UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA v.UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLICS) COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

MEMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

TRAITEMENT EN HONGRIE

D'UN AVION DES ÉTATS-UNIS
D'AMÉRIQUE ET DE SON ÉQUIPAGE

(ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE C.REPUBLIQUE
POPULAIRE DE HONGRIE;
ÉTATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE c. UNION DES
REPUBLIQUES SOCIALISTES SOVIETIQUES)

ORDONNANCES DU 12 JUI1954RADIATION DU RÔL, PART 1

APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
AND PLEADINGS

PREMIÈRE PARTIE

REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE
ET PIÈCES DE LA PROCÉDURE &CRITE SECTION A.-APPLICATIONS

INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
1. APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

THE HUNGARIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

THE AGEXTiOF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE
REGISTRkR OF THE ISTERNA'CIOXAL COURT OF JUSTICE

February 16, 1954,
Sir :

I. This is a written application, in accordance with the Statute
and Rules of the Court, submitted by the Government of the
United States of America instituting proceedings against the
Government of the Hungarian People's Republic on account of
certain actions of the latter Government, in concert with the
Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. A separate
written application is being submitted by the Government of the
United States of America simultaneously herewith instituting

proceedings against the Goveriiment of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on account of the same matter. The Govern-
ment of the United States of America requests that so far as it ,
may be convenient and proper to do so the two applications and
the proceedings thereon be considered and dealt with together.

The subject of the dispute and a succinct statement of the facts
and grounds on which the claim of the Government of the United
States of America is based are set forth in two notes, one delivered
to the Hungarian Government on March 17,1953, and one delivered
to the Soviet Government on the same day ;the note tothe Soviet
Government was incorporated by reference in the note to the

Hungarian Government, the note to the Hungarian Government
was incorporated by reference in the note to the Soviet Govern-
ment, and each of the two Governments received from the United
States Government a copy of the note addressed by the United
States Government to the other Government. Copies of both notes
are attached to this application as an annexl.

See pp. 11-3and PP.45-60. SECTION A. - KEQUÊTES
INTRODUCTIVES D'INSTANCE

1. REQUETE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE CONTRE LA

RÉPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE DE HONGRIE

L'AGENT DU GOUVERNER~ENT DES ÉTATS-UNIS D'AM~I~IQUE AU
GREFFIER DE LA COUR ISTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
[Tradz~ction]

DEPARTEMEND T'ÉTAT.
WASHINGTON.
16 février1954.
Monsieur le Greffier,
I. Conformément aux dispositions du Statut et du Règlement

de la Cour, j'ai l'honneur de vous remettre la présente requête
introduisant, au nom dii Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Améri-
que, une instance contre le Gouvernement de la République popu-
laire de Hongrie, en raison de certains actes accomplis par ce
dernier Gouveriiemeut de concert avec le Gouvernement de l'Uni011
des Républiques socialistes soviétiques. En mêmetemps que la
présente requête,le Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique en
présente une autre introduisant une instance contre le Gouverne-
ment de l'Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques. pour la
même question. Le Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique
demande que ces deux requêtes et la procédure qui s'ensuivra
soient examinées en mêmetemps, dans la mesure où cela sera com-
mode et approprié.

L'objet du différendet l'exposé succinctdes faits et des motifs
par lesquels la demande du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amé-
rique est prétendue justifiéesont énoncésdans deux notes remises
l'une au Gouvernement hongrois, le 17 mars 1953,et l'autre au
Gouvernement soviétique le même jour ;la note au Gouvernement
soviétique est incorporéepar référencedans la note au Gouverne-
ment hongrois, la note au Gouvernement hongrois est 'incor-
porée par référencedans la note au Gouvernement soviétique, et
chacun des deux Gouvernements a reçu du Gouvernement des
États-Unis une copie de la note adressàel'autre par ce Gouverne-
ment. Copies des deux notes sont jointes à la présente requêt'.

'Voirpp. 11-3et pp.45-60. APPLIC.4TION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINCS (16 1154)
9
z. The United States Government notes that the present dispute
concems matters of the character specified in Article 36 (z) of
the Statute of the Court, including subdivisions (a) through (d).
As will he seen from the annex, the legal dispute of the United
States Govemment with the Hungarian Govemment involves the
interpretation of the Treaty of Peace, signed at Pans Febmary IO,

1947, to which the United States Government, the Hungarian
Govemment and the Soviet Govemment are parties; the Treaty
of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights, signed at Washing-
ton June 24, 1925, which was in effect during the period relevant
to this dispute and to which the United States Govemment and
the Hungarian Govemment are parties ; numerous questions of
international law, as set forth in Part II of each of the annexed
notes ; numetous. issues of fact which if.established would con-
stitute breaches of intemational obligations by the Hungarian
Govemment ; and questions of the nature and extent of reparation
to be made to the United States Govemment hy the Hungarian
Government for these breaches.

The United States Government, in filing this application with
the Court, submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes
of this case. The Hungarian Government appears not to have filed
any declaration with the Court thus far, and although it was
invited to do so by the United States Government in the Note
annexed heretol it has not made any responsive reply to the
invitation. The Hungarian Govemment is, however, qualified to
submit to the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter and may
upon notification of this application by the Registrar, in accor-
dance with the Rules of the Court, take the necessary steps to
enahle the Court's iurisdiction over both ~arties to the disvute

this Court on the foregoing considerations and on Article 36 (1)
of the Statute.
3. The claim of the Govemment of the United States of America
is hriefly that the Government of the Hungarian People's Republic
in concert with and aided and abetted by the Government of the
Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics on November 19, 1951,
wilfdly and unlawfully caused to be seized a United States Air
Force C-47 type aircraft together with its crew of four American

nationals and its contents, dnven over Hungaq by winds un-
known to the crew ; that thereafter hoth Govemments engaged in
unlawful actions against the crew and against the United States
with respect to the incident, constituting both serious violations
of existing treaties as well as manifëst denials of justice'and other
intemational wrongs. For these breaches of international obliga-
tion the United States has demanded and demands monetary

Annex i. see pp.11-39. REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE (16 II54) 9

2. Le Gouvernement des États-Unis constate que le différend
actuel a trait à des questions relevant des catégories spécifiéesà
l'article36, paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour, y compris les
subdivisions a) à d). Comme on le verra par l'annexe, le différend
d'ordre juridique entre le Gouvemement des États-unis et le
Gouvernement hongrois met en jeu l'interprétation du traité de
paix, signéà Paris le IO février1947 .uquel le Gouvernement des
États-unis, le Gouvernement hongrois et le Gouvernement sovié-
tique sont parties ;le traité d'amitié, de commerce et consulaire,
signéà Washington le 24 juin 1925 ,ui était en vi ueur à l'époque
du différend et auquel le Gouvernement des 8 tats-Unis et le
Gouvernement hongrois sont parties ;de nombreuses questions de
droit international, indiquées dans la deuxième partie de chacune
des notes en-annexee.; de~nombreux~poink-de-fait qui; scils.étaient

établis, constitueraient la violation d'un engagement international
par le Gouvernement hongrois ; et des points relatifs à la nature
et à l'étendue de la ré aration due par le Gouvernement hongrois
au Gouvernement des $ tats-Unis en raison de ces violations.
Le Gouvernement des États-Unis, en présentant à la Cour la
présente requête, déclare accepter la juridiction. de la Cour dans
la présente affaire. Il ne semble pas qu'à ce jour, le Gouvernement
hongrois ait remis une déclaration à la Cour, et bien qu'il ait été
invité à le faire par le Gouvemement des États-Unis dans lanote
jointe en annexe ',il n'a fait aucune réponseutile à cette invitation.
Le Gouvernement hongrois est cependant qualifié pour recon-
naître la juridiction de la Cour en la matière et il lui est loisible,
lorsque cette requ&telui sera notifiée parle Greffier, conformément
au Règlement de la Cour, de prendre les mesures nécessairespour
que soit confirmée la juridiction de la Cour à l'égard des deux
parties au différend.
Ainsi, le Gouvernement des États-unis fonde la juridiction de la
Cour sur les considérations qui précèdentet sur l'article36, para-
graphe 1,du Statut.

3. La thèse du Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique peut
se résumercomme suit : le Gouvernement de la République popu-
laire de Hongrie, de concert avec le Gouvernement.de l'Union des
Républiques. .socialistes soviétiques et avec la complicité de ce
dernier, avolontairement et illégalement fait saisir, 19 novem-
bre 1951 ,n avion du type C-47 de la iUnited States Air Forces
avec son équipage de quatre citoyens américains et son contenu,
l'avion ayant étépoussé au-dessus du temtoire de la Hongrie par
des vents inconnus de l'équipage ;par la suite, les deux Gouverne-
ments ont pris des mesures illicites à l'occasion de l'incident,. tant ..
contre l'équipage que contre les États-Unis, mesures qui CO-Gti-
tuent à la fois des violations graves de traités en vigueur. des
dénisde justice manifestes et autres délitsinternationaux. En raison

'Annexe r.vair pp.ri-jg.and other reparation from the Hungarian Government. The Soviet
Government has sought to justify some of its conduct by Article 22
of the Treaty of Peace to which reference has been made, a conten-
tion which the United States Government denies.

As the United States Government, in further pleadings herein,
will more fully set forth, the United States Government proposes
that the issues of law and fact in this dispute be heard and decided

by the Court in accordance with its Statute and Rules ;that the
Court decide that the accused Governments are jointly .and sever-
ally liable to the United States for the damage caused,; that .the
Court award damages in favor of the United StatesGovernment
against the Hungarian Government in the sum of $637,894.11, with
interest, as demanded in the annexed notes ; that the Court
determine the nature and extent of other reparation and redress,
which the Court may deem fit and proper ; and that the Court
make the necessary orders and awards, including an award of
costs, to effectuate its determinations.

4. The undersigned has been appointed by the Government of
the United States of America as its Agent for the purpose of this
application and al1proceedings thereon.
Very tmly yours,

(Signed) Herman PHLEGER,

The Legal Adviser of the
Department of State. XEQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE (16 II54) IO

de ces violations d'obligations internationales, les États-uniont
réclaméet réclament au Gouvernement hongrois des réparations
monétaires et autres. Le Gouvernement soviétique a tenté de
justifier en partie sa conduite en invoquant l'articl22 du traité
de paix auquel on s'est déjà référét,hèse que le Gouvernement
des États-Unis conteste.

Comme le Gouvernement des États-Unis l'exposera plus en
détail dans la suite des écritures, il propose de soumettre les points
de droit et de fait du présentdifféreàdla Cour pour êtreexaminés
et tranchés par elle, conformémentà son Statut eà son Règlement.
Il deniande à la Cour de dire que les Gouvernements accuséssont
conjointement et solidairement responsables envers les États-Unis
des dommages caiisés. Il demande à la Cour de condamner le
Gouvernement hongrois à payer au Gouvernement des États-
Unis une indemnité de $637.894,11 avec intérêts.comme il est
dit dans les notes jointes. Il demande à la Cour de déterminer
la nature et l'étendue des autres réparations et satisfactions que
la Cour jugera converiables et de rendre les ordonnances et sen-
tences nécessaires,y compris en matière de dépens, pour donner

effet à ses décisions.
4. Le soussignéa éténommé par le Gouvernement des États-
Unis d'Amérique comme son agent aux fins de la présente requête
et de la procédure qui s'ensuivra.
Veuillez agréer, etc.

(Signé) Herman PHLEGER,
Conseiüer juridique du
Département d'État. ANNEXES

Annex r

NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT
OF MARCH 17, 1953

NO. 115.
Excellency :

1have the honor to present to you, upon the instruction ofmy
Govemment, the foliowing communication :

The Govemment of the United States of America refers again
to the case of.the four American Air Force personnel, Captain Dave
H. Henderson, Captain John J. Swift, Sergeant Jess A. Duff and
Sergeant James A. Elam, al1 nationals of the United States of
America. who were detained in Hungary from November 19, 1951,
to Decemher 28, 1951. The United States Govemment has studied
the communication of the Govemment of the Hungarian People's
Republic of January 23, 1953, replying to the diplomatic note of
the United States in this matter which was delivered to the Hun-
garian Government on December IO, 1952.
The United States Govemment's note of December IO, 1952,
contained reasonable requests for information and other material
entirely in the possession of the Hungarian Govemment with
respect to the Hungarian Govemmeiit's treatment of the four
American nationals. The reply of January 23, 1953,must be charac-

terized as completely unresponsive because the Hungarian Govem-
ment fails to provide any of the material or information requested,
and it must be characterized as completely unsatisfactory since it
contains no valid excuse or justification for that failure.
The Hungarian Govemment cites two domestic Hungarian
statutes as its sole justification for this failure. The United States
Govemment finds nothing in either statute lending any color of
justification for the Hungarian Govemment's failure to comply
with its international obligations. One statute cited appears to
make aliens in Hungary subject to Hungarian law ; but the Hun-
garian Govemment cannot seriously claim that this domestic
legislatioii justifies or purports to justify manifest denial of justice,
according to the standards of international law, to aliens found in
Hungarian jurisd'iction,or that it precludes or purports to preclude
the Hungarian Government from supplying information of the
character requested by the United States Govemment. The second
statute cited appears to deal with the appeliate procedure ofdomestic

Hungarian courts ; but this can hardlybe cited by the Hungarian
Govemment as preventing coliateral intergovernmental inquiry
into the circumstances of any appeal in the light of the Hungarian
Govemment's international obligations, or as precluding that12 NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERXMENT (17 III53)

Government from disclosing to the United States Govemment
judicial dossiers concerning American nationals in accordance
with established intemational law and practice.
The United States Govemment has &O received from the Hun-
ganan Govemment a reply, delivered to the American Minister
at Budapest onFebruary 9,1953, to the United StatesGovemment's

communication of January 30, 1953. relating to the United States
C-47 airplane 6026 said by the Soviet Govemment to have been
tumed over to the Hungarian Govemment by Soviet authonties in
Hungary. The Hungarian Government's reply refused the request
contained in the United States Govemment's communication of
January 30 for the return of the plane, its equipment and its cargo
and of the documents on board. The Hungarian Government
appears to justify this behavior by the citation of an alleged order
of confiscation of this property of the United States Govemment
said to be contained in a judgment by a military court against the
four airmen ;but the Hungarian Govemment refuses to disclose
to the United States Government the judicial record upon which
the validity of such an order of confiscation must rest. Moreover,

the United States Govemment cannot, under international law,
or under any system of domestic law purporting to provide due
legal process, be foreclosed from inquiry into the legal propriety
of proceedings, or into the record thereof, which resulted in the
confiscation of United States Government property when the
United States Government \vas not permitted representation or
participation in the proceedings or any prior opportunity at al1
to contest on the facts and on the law the order of coiifiscation.
The Hungarian Government's reply must be taken as a flat refusa1
to comply in any respect with any of the requests so made by the
United States Govemment. The United States Government can
find no suggestion of legal justification for this refusal.
The inference is compelled that the Hungarian Govemment

knows that to reply truthfuiiy to the questions asked, and to
provide the material requested, in the United States notes, would
seriously incriminate the Hungarian Government and that the
Hungarian Government is acutely aware of the legal and moral
impropriety of its conduct in reference to the case above mentioned.
The conclusion is reinforced that the Hungarian Government is
in possession of evidence to which the United States Government is
entitled, including that to which reference is made in both notes
above mentioned, and that that evidence fully supports the findings
which the United States Government has made on the basis of other
available evidence gathered in its investigation of the case, âs
described in the same notes.
The purpose of the present communication is to place these
facts, in summary form, formally upon the record and to prefer

against the Hungarian Govemment an intemational diplomatic
claim for the purposes and in the amounts set out belon. Simul- NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERN~IENT (17 III53) I3

taneously, the Government of the United States of America is also
preferring a similar claim against the Soviet Government, with
which the Hungarian Government was associated and participated
in the infliction of the wrongs against the United States and its
nationals which are recounted herein. A copy of the diplomatic
note embodying that claim is transmitted herewith as a part hereof;
and a copy of the present note is being transmitted to the Soviet
Government as a part of the claim against that Government.

1

The United States Government has found as a result of its
investigation into the facts of the matter, and therefore asserts as
true and is prepared to prove in an appropriate fomm by evidence,
the follo\ving :
I. At approximately II o'clock in the morning of November 19,
1951, an American C-47 type aircraft, known as No. 6026, and
bearing the identification symbol 43-16026, set off from Erding,
Germany, for Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The crew of the plane, al1 of
them the11and at al1times thereafter nationals of the United States

of America, consisted of personnel attached to the Erding Air
Depot, known as the 85th Air Depot Wing of the United States Air
Forces in Europe.They were the pilot, Captain Dave H. Henderson
(U.S. Air Force Serial No. AO-1-169-j65), the CO-pilot,Captaiii John
J. Swift (US. Air Force Serial No. AO-7-42-797).the airborne radio
operator, Sergeant James A. Elam (U.S. Air Force SerialNo. AF-18-
349-150).andthe crew chief or engineer, Sergeant Jess A. Ihff (US.
Air Force Serial No. AF-39-450-853) The sole purpose and mission
of the flight was to carry to the American Air Attaché attached
to the Amencan Embassy at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, various items
of freight which that Air Attaché had from time to time ordered
through normal channels to be supplied to him for the needs of his
establishment in 13elgrade.The United States Air Depot at Erding,

Germany, was then and is now a supply and aircraft maintenance
depot attending to the needs of American Air Attachés stationed
at various American Embassies in Europe, Asia, and Africa,
including the Emhassy at Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The plane at no
time had on board, nor was it at any time intended that there
should be on board, aiiy other persons than those above named.
The aircraft and the crew were at al1 times, from their departure
above noted until their landing, under circumstances to bedescribed,
at an air base situated near Papa in Hungary and controlled by
the Soviet Govemment, unarmed, and the plane carried only its
normal equipment and the cargo to which reference has been
made ; when the sole mission, the delivery of the cargo, as stated

above, was completcd, the plane and crew were required to return
to Erding as promptly as possible, expected to be the next day,
November 20, 1951.
2I4 SOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOYERNAIENT (1711153)

These facts were fully described in the usual air flight documents
and official orders on board the plane from its departure and
after its arriva1 at the Soviet-controlled base mentioned above.
These documents and officia1orders are last known to have been
in the possession of the Soviet Government siuce November 19,
1951, and the Soviet Government has failed, although duly
requested, to inform the United States Government unequivocally
with respect to the disposition it has made of these documents
and orders. In its note of January 30, 1953. to the Hungarian

Govemment the United States Government aiso called upon the
Hungarian Government to make these documents available to
the United States Government. The United States Government
believes, however, that if they have not yet come into the posses-
sion of the Hungarian Government the Hungarian Govemment
has had access to their contents. They included the manifest
of the cargo, the flight plan, the pilot's navigation log, the crew's
official travel orders and other routine documents which the
United States Government has described in its communications
above mentioned.
As those documents show, the crew were instrncted, and
attempted, to foilow a course from Erdiug to Munich, to Inns-
bruck, to Bolzano, to Venice, to Udine, to Ljubljana, to Zagreb,
to Sela, to Sisak, thence to Belgrade. The course was a normal
route for flight to Belgrade ; it was determined by routine flying
factors and, insofar as the Yugoslav portion was concerned, by
the regulations of the Yugoslav Government with respect to inter-

national flights to Belgrade from the west.

z. The airplaue and crew attempted at ali times to follow the'
course so given for Belgrade, but while the crew, and in particular
the pilots, believed that the plane was flying that course, it was
actually blown by winds the existence and direction of which
the pilots did not the11know or have any warning of, and the
velocity of these winds accelerated the speed of the plane consider-
ably beyond the speed at which the pilots believed the plane was
flying. The plane, therefore, flew somewhat uorth of the expected
course and covered a distance considerably greater than the pilots
then thought or had reason to believe they were covering. In
consequence of the effect of these unknown winds, the plane flew
beyond Belgrade to the north and the east and the crew were
unable to find or descend at Belgrade ; and at approximately
4 p.m. local time the pilots reversed the plane's course and flew
westward with the intention on the part of the pilots of returnina
-
to Udine or Venice.
Practically the entire return trip was made in darkness. The
crew realized that thev were lost. and findin~r that the plane's
fuel supply was mnnini dangerously low, they made every Îeason-
able effort to find a landing place on the ground, to alert ali persons NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNXIENT (1711153) 15

on the ground who might be seeing the plane in flight, or listening
to its radio commi~nications, to the fact that the plane was lost,
that it was in distress, and that it was seeking a safe landing
place. The pilots for this purpose put on all the plane's lights
and sent distress signals with its landing lights, caUedfor assistance
on the intemational emergency frequencies by voice and in inter;
national Morse Code communication by liaison radio ; and the
pilots caused the plane to descend to lower altitudes at various
points in order to ascertain whether air fields were on the ground
belo\v at which they could land. Al1 this was without success.

Shortly before 6 p.m. local time, after the crew had prepared
themselves to abandon the plane, the plane was intercepted by
an aircraft and shown to a landing place at an airfield consider-
ably to the north of the course which 6026 was then flying. It
later transpired that the interception aircraft was a Soviet air-
craft, that the airfield was Soviet-controlled and Soviet-operated,
and that it was situated near the town of Papa in Hungaqr.

3. The crew selected for the flight were competent for the
purpose. Captain Henderson and Captain Swift were competent
and experienced pilots, Sergeant Elam was a competent and
experienced airbome radio operator, and Sergeant Duff was a
competent and experienced flight engineer. The aircraft and its
equipment, so far as investigation has disclosed, were in sound
flying condition.
4. At al1times beginning at thc crossing of the Yugoslav frontier
between Udine and Ljubljana until after the landing of the plane

at the Soviet airfield near Papa in Hungary, as mentioned above,
the crew thought and believed that the plane was flying solely
within the territorial limits of Yugoslavia. Neither the crew nor
any of the persons concemed in any respect with the origination,
planning or expediting of the flight had any intention that the
plane should at any time fly, or any knowledge that it was at
any point during the trip flying,within the temtory of any counts;
adjacent to Yugoslavia other than Italy, through which the plane
had necessarily to fly after leaving Erding, Germany, and before
returning to Erding, Germany.
At no time during the flight did any person aboard the plane,
make any attempt, nor at any time did he have any instruction.'
to engage in any act of sabotage, espionage or other illegal acti+ity;
to deviate in any way from the flight plan, as shown in the docun'
ments aboard the plane, or to attempt in any way to cross any
frontier into any country, after leaving Italy, other than Yugo-
slavia as above noted ;specifically, no mem6er of the crew od
of the United States personnel concerned with the flight had

any knowledge that the plane was over or would cross into
Hungary or Rumania. In view of the assertions made subsequentlY
by the Soviet and Hungarian Govemments; the .United StateS16 NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (17 III53)

Govemment declares categorically that the aircraft camed no
equipment intended for any iUegal purpose whether with respect
to Hungary, the Soviet Union or any other country.
5. During the flight and thereafter both the Soviet Govemment
and the Hungarian Government were fuUy aware, and neither

the United States Government nor the crew in the airplane nor
any other person associated with the United States Government
then knew, that the airplane flew north of its fixed coiirse in Yugo-
slavia on its trip eastward, had overflown Yugoslavia and entered
Rumania, and Iiad while attempting to return westward crossed
the Hungarian frontier. The airplane was observed and monitored
in its entire westward flight by Soviet, Hungarian and other
Soviet-allied ground authorities froin approximately 4 p.m. to
6 p.m. local time, first in Rumania and then in Hungary ; and
when the plane was brought down at 6 p.m. by the Soviet aircraft
it had almost reached the British occupied zone of Austria. More-
over the Hungarian authorities near the eastern border of Hungary
had notified the Soviet authorities in Hungary of the westward
course of the plane, and the Soviet and Hungarian Govemments
thereupon agreed that the plane should be permitted ta overfly

Hungary, be observed in its flight and then be brought down by
the Soviet aircraft stationed near the western border of Hungary.
6. Thus the Hungarian authorities, together with the Soviet
authorities stationed in Rumania and Hungary, watched the
plane's flight. knew that it was lost and in distress and was seek-
ing a landing place. but refused to corne to the aid of the plane
or the crew, either to aid them iii finding their true course, or to
show them a landing field at any place by lights or signals from
the groiind or in the air, or to rcspond to their radioed calls for
assistance. The Hungarian authorities, together with the Soviet
authorities, deliberately permitted the plane to cross the Hun-
ganan frontier and to overfly Hungarian territory, and then

brought it down, lest, continuing in its flight, it would ina few
minutes amve safely in the British zone of Austria, or in other
territory not controued by the Hungarian Govemment or by
the Soviet Government or its allies. The Hungarian Government.
and the Soviet Government, were at all times aware, therefore,
that neither the airplane nor the crew had any intention to cross
into or to overfly Hungarian territory, or Soviet territory, or
to engage in any improper activity during such flight.
7. From November 19,1951, at approximately 6 p.m., until
December 3, 1951, the four American airmen above named wre
held under arrest and incommunicado by the Soviet authorities

and continuously interrogated with respect to their flight and
other matters. The investigation conducted by the United States
Government compels the conclusion, which the United States
Govemment herewith asserts; that the Soviet and Hungarian NOTE TO THE HUXGARIAN GOVERNMENT (17 11153) 17

Governments aided and ahetted each other in the interception
and seizure of the plane, its contents and the crew, in the deten-
tion and interrogation of the crew while in Soviet custody, and
in au the actions which took place thereafter with respect to
the matter and until the release of the airmen to American author-
ities on Decemher 28, 1951.
In particular aUthe actions of the Soviet authorities with respect
to the airmen during this period were done in pre-arrangement
with, and with the connivauce and approval of, the Hungarian
Govemment. The Hungarian Government is fuUy and equaUy
guilty with the Soviet Govemment of the latter Govemment's
violations of international law and responsible for the damages
suffered by the United States and each of the airmen, above named,
on account of al1 actions which hefell these persons at the hands

of the Soviet authorities. AU these matters are fully described hy
the United States Govemment in a note to the Soviet Govern-
ment, of even date, which is made part of the present note with
the same force and effect as if fuUy repeated herein. The uiilawful
actions of which the Hungarian Government is thus guilty include
the interception of the plane, its seizure, the detention of the men
from November 19, 1951,to Decemher 3, 1951,their interrogation,
the denial during that period of access to American Consular or
other authorities and the public statements with respect to the
matter made by the Soviet Government,particularly the statements
made in the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris
before and since December 1951 by the Soviet Foreign hIinister,
Andrei Y. Vishinsky. These constituted part of a concerted cam-
paign of propaganda and vilification against the United States
conducted by the Soviet Governmeiit, in and out of the United
Nations, in connection with this matter, to cause injury to the
four airmen and to the United States.

S. \Vhen it became known to the United States Govemment
that the airplane 6026 had disappeared the United States Govern-
ment inade official inquiry of the Hungarian Govemment through
the Amencan Legation at Budapest asking whether the Hungarian
Government had any information or knowledge on the suhject.
Such inquiries werc made by the Chargé d'Affairesof the United
States, George Abbott, on several occasions between November 19

and Deceniber 3. The Hungarian Govemment, replying through
the Hungarian Foreign Office, denied knowledge of the where-
abouts of the plane or of the crew. In the aftemoon of Novembe19,
1951, the competent Yugoslav authorities, seeking to ascertain
the whereahouts of the airplane after it was overdue at Belgrade;
made inquiry of the competent Hungarian authorities who there-
upon denied knowledge of the whereabouts of the airplane. This
conduct of the Hungarian Govemment caused the United.State.S
Government to engage in an elaborate and expensive search for18 NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERMENT (1711153)

the missing plaiie and crew which would have been obviated had
the Hungarian Government tnithfully answered the questions put
to it or disclosed the information in its possession.

g. On December zand 3,1951 he Soviet Government through
its press and radio state:
"According to information received by TASS the American
military airplane and its crew which landed on Hiingarian
, territory have been transferred by the Soviet Military Com-
mand to the disposition of the Hungarian authonties."

On December 3, the Hungarian Foreign Office informed the
American Legation in Budapest that the airplane was

"put at the disposa1 of the Hungarian authorities by the
Soviet Command".

Subsequently. in an annouiicement of December 23,1951,
conceming the triai of the four airmen by a Hungarian military
court, the Hungariaii Government announced that the military
court purported, as part of its judgmeiit, to "confiscate" the
airplane.
As the Hungarian Governmerit is aurare, the Soviet Government
has twice declined to give specific aiiswers to the specific questions
put to it by the United States Government, in the note to the
Soviet Govemment of December IO, 1952 ,eiterated December 17,
1952, concerning the Soviet Government's actions with respect
to the United States airplane 6026, its equipment, cargo and other
contents. The Hungariaii Government has likewisefailed to respond
to these specific questions. The United States Govemment there-
fore is compelled to iiifer, and so asserts. that apart from the

liability of the Hungarian Government for aiding aiid abetting the
Soviet Govemment's seizure of the airplane and its contents on
November 19,1951, the Hungarian Govemment committed an
illegal act of conversion of the United States property in question
on or about December 2.1951 ,hen it accepted from the Soviet
Government the United States property in question. The United
States Government aione had the legal authority to dispose of
that property arid neither the Soviet Government nor the Hunga-
rian Government had any lawful right, title, or interest in the plane
or its contents, or any authority to dispose of aiiy part of it, and
the United States Government never empowered either the Soviet
Government or the Hungarian Govemment to make any such
disposition. The United States Government cdls attention to the
fact that the Hungarian Government refused to permit the United
States Government to be represented at the trial, to offer evidence
or to participate in any appeal. and the United States Government
therefore cannot bc bound by any judgment in this case against

United States property, and it asserts further that no Hungarian KOTE TO THE HUSGARIAN GOVERNXENT (17 III53) '9

military court or othertribunal or agency of the Hungarian Govern-
ment had any lawful authority to order the confiscation of the
United States property in question and such act of confiscation,
if it took place, was legally nul1and void. Furthemore. the failure
of the Hungarian Government. evidenced in its communication of
February 9, 1953. to respond to or comply with the requests set
forth in the United States note to the Hungarian Govemnient of
January 30, 1953. or to provide adequate legal justification for
this failure, confirms the liability of the Hungarian Government
for unlawful conversion of the airplane, its equipment. cargo and

other contents. including the documents therein ;the property in
question, to the estent that it may stiU be in the custody or jiiris-
diction of the Hungarian Govemmeiit. rernains exclusively the
property of the United States, and any disposition or retention
thereof except by the United States is unlawful.

IO. Following the delivery of the four American airmen to the
Hungarian Government's custody they were kept under arrest and
incommunicado by the Hungarian Government, being confined ta
a secret prison believed to be maintained in the city of Budapest
by the Hungarian Secret Political Police, known as the AVH,
acting under the persona1 direction of General Gabor Peter. They
were subjected to pitiless, repeated interrogation, upon the false

representation to the airmen that such interrogation was necessary
in order ta satisfy the Hungarian Government with respect to the
innocence of the flight of November 19, 1951, prior to permitting
them to return to their base in Germany. In truth and in fact,
the Huugarian Government was tlioroughly infomied with respect
to these facts by the Soviet authorities following the Soviet inter-
rogations and knew the airmen ta bc innocent of any violation of
Hungariari law in the premises. The Hungarian authorities attemp-
ted by such renexved interrogation to induce the men to desert
their government or to provide confessions that they had crossed
the Hungarian frontier and overflown Hnngary with a premedi-
tated purpose of committing espionage, sabotage or other unlawful
acts, the Hungarian authorities knowing at al1times full well that
such confessions mould be untrue and obtainable only by fraud,

intimidation or coercion.
In the course of these interrogations, the four American airmeii
answered fully, truthfully and adequately al1 questions put to
them. At the end of approximately three weeks of arrest and
interrogation the Hungarian police in charge of the airmen insisted
upon and by coercive measures succeeded in obtaining signatures
from three of the airmen ta statements prepared by the Hungarian
authorities. The signatures were obtained by the representation to
the airmexi that signed statements were necessary in order to
effect the retiim of the airmen to the American authorities in
Germany, and the men were informed that the statements were not20 SOTE TO THE HUSGARIAS GOVERN&IEST (17 11153)

intended to be used in any legal proceeding against them by
Hungarian authorities. The English translations were exhibited to
the airmen as accurate translations of statements in the Hunga-
rian language ; specifically these translations, in the versions
exhibited as final and true, excluded any admission that any of

the individnals aboard the airplane 6026 had had any intention at
any time of crossing the Hungnrian border. The airmen had insisted,
as \vas the tmth, that there never had been such an intention and
that written statements in any other sense could not be true and
would not be signed. Unless, therefore, such statements have been
tampered with, altered or forged by unauthorized persons the
English language versions of these staternents should still show,
as the Hungarian Goverilment mut ive11know, that no confession
of intention to cross, or of any legal guilt with respect to the
crossing of, the Hungarian froiitier was made by any of the airmen,
orally or in writing.

II.Each of the airmeii requested the Hungarian authorities
to permit him to communicate with or have access to American
diplomatic or consular representatives or other Americaii author-
ities in Hungary or else~vhere,but the replies given by the Hun-
garian authorities were evasive or negative. Beginning Decernber 3,
1951, when the presence of the airmen in Hungary waç first made

knowrn to the United States Governrnent by the Hungarian and
Soviet Governments, the American Legation at Budapest made
officia1requests to the Hungarian Government for access to the
airmen as American iiationals and the Hungarian authorities
denied such access as well. Furthermore, the airrnen requested
from the Hungarian authorities opportunity to visit and converse
with each other but this was denied and the men were kept
throughout Hunganan detention incommunicado, seeing only
Hungarian police officiais concerned with questioning or detainiiig
them.

12. The United States Government has found, and believes
and so asserts, that the Hungarian Government in concert with
the Soviet Government had determined soon after the fortuitous
and innocent descent on Huiigarian soi1 of the United States
airplane 6026, and the four American nationals forming its crew,
to contrive a so-called judicial trial on false charges and irre-

spective of the innocence of the four American nationals, in order
to serve base and improper propaganda and political purposes
of the Soviet Government, and of the Hunganan Government,
and to enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of the United
States. The Hungarian authorities. therefore, wilfully and deliber-
ately failed to disclose to the airmen the true purpose of the
questions put to them in the interrogation and of the documents
which they were requested ta sign and gave them no opportunity
for access to any impartial or reliable advice but instead kept NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (17 11153) 21

them inconimunicado and deliberately and wilfully deceived them
ulth respect to the purposes of the interrogations and nature of
the documents which the Hungarian authonties requested them
to sign. They were led by the Hungarian Government to believe
that these acts were technically nccessary to effect their immediate
release, as has been above noted, whereas in truth and in fact
it \vas the intention of the Hungarian Government. and of the
Soviet Government, to provide the color of some procedural

basis for a criminal trial upon trumped-up charges.
13.On Sunday, December 23, 1951, without any pnor notice
to the United States Government of the holding of the trial,
the men were placed on trial by a tribunal which the Hungarian
Government subsequently descnbed as a military court for the
city of Budapest. This trial constituted a brazen violation of
elementary human rights with regard to the administration of
justice, and consisted throughout of manifest denials of justice
according to the well-established principles of international law.

(a) \17ithout prior warning that they were to be charged with
crime or placed on trial, at about 8 o'clock in the morning the
airmen were taken to a building nrhich it no\' appears is the Civil
District Court building on Fo Street in the city of Budapest.
Upon arriva1 the men were taken one at a time to a person in
military uniform, calling hiniself the niilitary prosecutor of Buda-
pest. Each man \vas told by this persoii that he was under arrest
for violating the Hringarian border. He uns told to sign a statement
prepared in Hungarian, a language which none of the men under-
stood, which allegedly stated that the men understood the charges.
It was csplained to the men that the charges mcrely were that

they had come into Hungarian territory and that they had not
been authorized by the Hungarian Government to do so. The
men were inforined specifically that there was no admission by
such signature that the crossing of the frontier and the entry
into Hungary had been in any wy premeditated. Three of the
men signed, upon this representation, but the fourth refused.
(b) The same person handed each of the accused separately
a list of eight names. This person asserted that these were the
names of the only perçons entitled to practice before the court.
Thereupon eithei the prosecutor himself selected a lawyer from
the list, or the accused simply pointed to a name asserting that

he did not know any of the lawyers on the list. In view of the
subsequent conduct of each of the individuals so selected as lawyers
and in view of the refusal of the Hungarian Government to
provide information on this subject requested in the Uriited
States Government's note of December IO, above mentioned, the
United States Government is compelled to draw the conclusion
and therefore asserts that these individuals did not comprise
al1 the lawyers available for the defense of the four airmen; that.22 NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (17 III53)

assuming these men were actually lawyers, they had been
instnicted by the Hungarian Govemment, or by the Soviet
Govemment, not to conduct a defense of their clients in accordance
with law and the standards of the legal profession applicable
under established judicial procedures for the trial of criminal
charges and in iio event to take any action which would demon-
strate the innocence of the accused or the unjustness of the
govemmerit's accusations and procedures or which might otlierwise
hinder or embarrass the govemment in the execution of its unjust
plan ; or that these lawyers mre to the knowledge of the govern-
ment so incompetent professiondy and so compliant with the

governmcnt's desires and instructions in the matter as to insure
that the government's proposed trial would end in a judgrnent
of guilt against the defendants as planned by the government.
(c) The trial \vas held almost immediately thereafter without
the semblance of opportunity to the accused to understand the
charges or to plan any dcfense. The accused were marched into
the court room witliin approximately five minutes after the last
introduction of counsel to acciised had taken place. By the contriv-
ance of the Hungarian Government, and the Soviet Government,
the trial was held with maximum secrecy. It was held on a Sunday
morning. There was no prior publication of the holding of the

trial. There \vas no invitation to the public to enter the court
room and otherwise no action which might cause the public to
become aware of the proceedings. Only the accused, the so-called
lawyers and Hungarian Govemment officiaisconcerned in the
case were present.
The accused were brought in for trial in states of mental shock,
fear and mental confusion, which the Hungarian Government
contrived and of which it \\,as weii aware. The trial \vas conducted
in the Hungarian language which none of the accused understood.
A single interpreter purported to give the accused only a summary
running oral account of what was being said, and acted as inter-
preter both for statements by the court as well as for statements
by the accused and the so-called lawyers. The person acting as
interpreter was apaid employee of the secret police, biased against
the defendants and in favor of the Hungarian Government. and
who had so acted in the preceding interrogations.

The oiily evidence submitted in open court were answers of
the accused themselves to questions put by the presiding officer.
These answers were bricf replies to a few questions to each accused,
no one's testimony taking more than approximately five minutes,
including translations. No question asked or answer given \vas
incriminating to any of the accused, and no testimony or other
evidence \vas adduced, read or offered which would support any
finding or charge of the guilt of any defendant of the crime charged
or any other crime, nor was any testimony adduced to satisfy
the jurisdictional requirements of the military tribunal. NOTE TO THE HUKGARIAS GOVERSMEST (17 III53)
23
Noiie of the accused had any clear idea of, nor did the Hun-
garian authorities make an). reasonahle effort to explairi, the
nature of the court or the charges and al1 the accused were
impressed with the fact, which the United States Government
charges \iras the truth, that no evidence was produced in the
trial which established in any sense the guilt of any of the accused
of the crime charged, or any other crime, and that they had no
chance at al1 to interpose or be heard in any kind of defense on

the facts or the law such as is the practice in courts, whether civil
or military, in civiiized countries.
The so-called lawyers for the accused made no attempt, such as
is required and expected of members of the legal profession in al1
civilized countries purporting to dispense judicial justice, to
challenge the prosecution's case. to introduce or to effect the
introduction of existing available evidence for their clients, to
raise questions of law or jurisdiction of the court or to perfect
appeals or othenvise obtain review of the actions of the trial court.
The United States Government charges that the proceeding was
replete from beginning to end with violations not only of inter-
national law but even of the provisions of published Hungariari
law and procedure, violations which no free, independent or reason-
ably competent Hungarian lawyer would fail to recognize aiid
exploit on behalf of his client under conditions of freedom and
the integrity of legal and judicial institutions, and which no free,

independeiit or reasonably competcnt court would fail to recognize
and thereby be moved to dismiss the charges and release the
accused or at least to renounce military jurisdiction over the case.
(d) The time which elapsed bctweeii the reading of the charges
by the prosecutor to the first of the four accused, at approsimately
8 am., on Sunday, December 23, 19j1, as noted above, and the
completioii of the reading of the judgment of the tribunal, \vas
approximately seven hours. The so-called trial, from the arraign-

ment of the accused to the completion of the testimony of the
witnesses (that is, of the four accused), was approximately fifteen
to twenty minutes, including translations. The defense offered by
the so-called lawyersconsisted of speeches to the court of approxi-
mately teil minutes each. The United States Government, as a
result of its investigation, concludes and charges that the Hun-
garian Government, and the Soviet Government, contrived that
the so-called trial should not consume more than a fixed period of
timeand that the lawyers, judges, prosecutor, interpreter and other
participants should adhere to the time schedule without regard
to the content of the testimony biit merely provide the color of a
pro forma judicial proceeding.

(e) The opinion of the court as made knoivn to the accused, and
the announcement ,made by the Hunganan Government with
respect thereto on December 23, ~gsr, ruling that the men had NOTE TO THE HUXG.4RIAS GOVERll>lENT (17 III53)
24
been found guilty of premeditated crossing of the Hungarian
frontier, was completely without any foundation or support in the
testimony adduced before the tribunal or presented in open court
or in any other way made known to the accused. The Hungarian
Government having refused to supply the United States Govern-

ment, although repeatedly duly requested, with a copy of the
judgment of tlie court, the United States Government calls attention
to the December 23, 1951, declaration of the Hungarian Govern-
ment with regard to the judgment of the court. The United States
Governrnent asserts specifically that, to the extent that the opinion
of the court is reflected in the declaration, both it and the decla-
ration were false and known by the Hungarian Government to be
false when made, in the following respects :

(i) It stated that the men had admitted their guilt. This \vas
false for the question of their guilt wasnotput andno such testimony
was given in the course of the trial. In this connection the United
States Government must characterize as also false the contrary
statements made by the Hungarian Government in its notes of
January 30, 1953, and February 9, 1953. in this matter.
(ii) It said tliat the accused could not explain satisfactorily why
there were certain maps in the aircraft. This issue was not raised
in the testimoiiy at the trial, iior \vasit covered by any of the signed

or other statements. One of the accused, the pilot, was merely
asked by the court whether he had selected the maps in the plane
and he tmthfully replied that he had not. The other defendants
were asked no questions concerning the maps. No maps whatever
were produced in evidence at the trial, nor by any of the Hungarian
interrogators during the interrogations preceding the trial. The men
had previously explained fuUy, truthfully and adequately the
circumstances and purposes of al1 maps in the aircraft to the
apparent satisfaction of the Soviet interrogators. \Yhile the written
indictment read to the accused in open court, as translated, stated
that the airplane carricd maps on which were shown countries
friendly with tlie Soviet Union, neither the prosecutor, the judges
nor the defendaiits' counsel presented in evideiice any of the

explaiiations already given hy the airmen with respect to the maps
on board the airplane ;the pilot, in particular,made attempts during
the trial, directed to the defense counsel appointed for him. to
explain the innocent nature of the maps, but the pilot's attempts
in this regard were iii vain since he \vas giveii no opportunity to
give testimony on this subject.
(iii) The statement said that the meii could not explain "why

they had necessity for a radio station suitable for field use". This
was false. The oiily testimony on this subject at the trial \vas
directed to the question whether there was a radio set on board
the plane that could be used on the ground. The radio set was not
produced in court and the men had many times explained in the SOTE TO THE HUXCARIAS GOVERS31EST (1711153) 25

interrogations that the set in question \vas an emergency set which
could not receive messages but was standard equipment and was
for use to send.outSOS signals by cranking, in the event of an
emergcncy landing. Indeed, the eqiiipment in question lacked a
parachute section, so that the radio set could not have been iised
in an emergency calling for jumping from the plane.

(iv) Tlie statement said that the men could not explain "why
the airplaiie carried surplus parachutes". This \vas likewise false.
The only testimony on this subject at the trial was that thcre were
t\vo more parachutes on the plane than crew members. The para-
chutes werc not produced in court or brought in evidence. Rlore-
over, the explanation for the presence of parachutes on board the
plane had been given officially by the United States Government
on December 20, 1951, in the course of the debate in the General
Asscmbly of the United Natioiis on this subject. This \vas the only
way in which the United States Government could submit evidence
on this subject, since, while it was forewarned through Mr. Andrei
Y. Vishinsky of the Soviet Delegation that the presence of para-
chutes \vas an incriminating fact, the United States Government
\vas not forewarned of the date of the trial nor permitted access
to the mcn or to the Hungarian authorities concerned.

(v) The statement said that blankets on board the plane "had
.been prepared for droppuig". That was false and unsupported by
any evidence. The blankets had not been in the court room and
had never been examined in the prcsence of the defendants. The
only tcstimoriy at the trial was that the blankets were presumably
part of the cargo, so shown in the manifests, and had been placed
on board with the rest of the cargo without the specific knowledge
of thecre\rr,who were not concerned with the contents of the cargo
for delivery to the American Air Attaché at Belgrade.

(vi) The statement said that the crew "wanted to drop these
items to proyagandists and diversionists operating in the Pcople's
Democracies". This \vas similarly false and unsupported by any
testimony.

(vii)The statement said that the men admitted that thcy
maintained uninterrupted contact with the American Military
Staff at Fraiikfurt et cetera. This was false wliereit was iiot mis-
leading. No such statement was made at the trial. Statements with
respect to radio contactsderive only, therefore, from the preceding
interrogations. The Hungarian Government deliberately concealed,
as it well knew from the interrogations, the fact that the accused
had explaincd that such radio contacts were not directioiial and
had no bearing on the location of the aircraft in flight.

(viii) The statement was made, and was likewise false, that the
men "admitted that they knew they were flying in the air space
of the Hungarian Republic". No such statement was made at the26 SOTE TO THE HUSGARIAS GO\~ERXAIENT (17 11153)

trial. On the contrary, the men had specificaiiy informed Hungarian
authorities and Soviet authorities in the interrogation that they
at al1 times believed that they were in Yugoslavia, and that they
had no knowledge urhatever that they had overflown or were even
then in Hungary except insofar as their interrogators asserted
that they were.

(ix) Thestatement said the men knew they were over a restricted
area. This was likewise false. There was no such testimony at the
trial and no evidence that any area over which the men flew \vas
restricted to their flight, or made known to them in any way as
being restricted, except to the extent that, believing they were in
Yugoslavia, and finding themselves lost, the men considered that
they had flown off the course from Zagreb to Belgrade which the
Yngoslav authorities had prescribed as a corridor for the flight.
(x)The statement said that the accused admitted that they
had deliberately avoided carrying out an obligation to transmit a

signal indicating an off-flight and to land voluntarily at the nearest
Hungarian airfield. This too \vas false. There was no such evidence
at the trial nor was such a statement ever made in the interroga-
tion conducted of the airmen ; on the contrary (as the Hiingarian
authorities wil knew, having watched the plane attempting to
find a landing place and after obsenring its distress signals for one
hour and forty-one minutes, upon the Hungarian Govemment's
own statement),the men transmitted all possible signals indicating
off-flight, distress and urgent desire to find an airfield. The plane
landed at the first airfield of which the crew had any iiidication
and the first one lighted for them for the purpose.
(f)The statement said that the men on Ilecember 23 had
acquiesced in the verdict. This was false.

(g)The Hungarian Govemment deliberately deceived the four
accused aimien with respect to their right of appeal. The men had
been told by the lawyers chosen by the Hungarian Govemment that
they should not appeal from any verdict. The only appeals of
which any of the defendants were aware of were, first, an appeal
which was announced in the court by the prosecutor against the
alleged leniency of the verdict, and second, one or more of the
defendants' counsel indicated to the defendants that an appeal
was lodged from the amonnt of the fine but saying nothing regard-
ing the verdict of guilt. The men were left iinder the definite
impression that they had in fact appealed through the actions of
the lawyers. While the men remained in Hungarian custody until
December 28, 1951 and were told in the court room that an appeal

would be decided within three days after the verdict, namely,
December 26, not even such an appeal appears actually to have
taken place, for the men were never informed with respect thereto.
In this connection the United States Government must charac-
terize as false and misleading the Hungarian Govemment's state- XOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNIVIENT (17 III53)
27
ment, in its note of January 23, 1953, reiterated in its note of
February 9, 1953, in this matter, that the airmen "did not avail
themselves of the right of appeal" ;and it rejects as inadmissible
in law or mords the suggestion that any failure by the accused
in the circumstances of this case to take full advantage of the

legal procedural possibilities of appellate review under Hunga-
rian law precludes any reexamination by the United States Govern-
ment, the Hungarian Government or any appropriate international
body of the merits of the judgment of conviction of the men and
confiscation of United States property.
Furthermore, the United States Govemment is compelled to
conclude, and it so charges, that any attempt io obtain judicial
review by the airmen in the channel of domestic Hungariaii legal
procedure would be futile and sterile, since the intentions and
plans of the Hungarian Government and the Soviet Government,
and their evident control over al1judicial authority at every level,
would dictate the procedures and decisioiis of every reviewing or
appellate tribunal as of the trial conrt itself.

(h) As noted above, the United States Government has repeat-
edly requested the Hungarian Government for a record of the
trial and other proceedings. The Hungarian Government has
refused to provide the same. In the circumstances the United
States Government is compelled to believe, and it asserts, that
either no record, such as is the practice and the right of the accused
in civilized countries, was kept by the Hungarian Government or
that such record as exists nould if disclosed support the findings
made by the United States Government with respect to these
proceedings.
Furthemore, the Hungarian Governhent has failed and refused,
althoiigh duly requested in the note of the United States Govern-

ment to the Hungarian Government of December IO, IgjZ, partic-
ularly paragraphs numbered I through Io, to provide the United
States Gorernment with an explanation of various aspects of this
trial. From this condiict of the Hungarian Government. and from
investigations conducted by the United States Government inde-
pendently in the matter, the United States Government concludes,
and therefore asserts, that truthful replies by the Hungarian
Government would clearly demonstrate that its actions were
arbitrary and unlawful both in international law and, as herein-
after set forth, under applicable Hungarian domestic law. It
asçerts further that in violating and distorting provisions of Hun-
garian domestic law the Hungarian Government, in concert with
the Soviet Govemment, wilfully and deliberately acted arbitrarily

against the United States and its nationals in the application of
that law in thismatter and thereby further was guilty of a mauifest
denial of justice as established in the recognized pnnciples of
international law. The conduct of the police, the prosecutor, the 28 KOTE TO THE HUXGARIAS GOVERX~IENT (17 III53)

judges, and the lawyers chosen by the governmeiit as defense
counsel for the accused and their failure to obtaiii revision of the
trial court decision hy an appellate or review body, fiirther demon-
strate the Hungarian Government's deliberate intention to deny
to the accused American nationals, and to the United States, the
semblance of any justice.

14. The evidence in the possession of the United States Govern-
ment with respect to the Hunganan Govemment's actions in
effecting the detention, arrest and conviction of the four airmen
discloses numcrous flagrant errors and glaring violations of Hun-
garian doiiiestic substantive law and legal procedure and practice
so serious and material as to render al1the legal proceedings taken
nuU and void. Among these errors and violations are the following :

(a) Applicable Hungarian law required the appropriate Hunga-
rian authorities to give waming to the airplane 6026 when it was
ohserved over Hunganan terntory ;to show it to a safe landing
place in its distress; to notify the Hungarian Foreign Office for
the purpose of notification thereupon to the United States Govem-
ment of the presence of the plane and crew on Hungarianterritory ;
and to release the plane and the crew to the Amencan authorities
thereafter. The Hungarian Govemment failed to comply with any
of these provisions of Hungarian legislation.

(6) There is no provision of Hunganan law aiithorizing the
. Soviet authorities on Hungarian territory to take such actions
with respect to the airplane and its contents or with respect to the
crew as were taken by them in this case.

(c) The detention of the crew by Hungarian aiithonties from
December 3, 1951 w,as a violation of Hungarian law for the reasons,
among others, that they were not permitted to obtain counsel or
appeal against their detention, and that the deterition, or inter-
rogation, was not justified hy the presence of any reasonable
cause therefor.

(d) The trial by military court was illegal since it was not
authorized by any statute confemng jurisdiction upon military
courts ;furthermore, holding the trial in the city of Budapest was
arhitrary and improper.
(e) The facts with respect to the choice or assignment of counsel
evidence violation of Hunganan law in a number of respects.

Among these are :
(i) The accused should have been notified at the very first
interrogation that they were entitled to choose counsel for their
defense and should have been given opportunity to make a free
choice of counsel satisfactory to them.

(ii) Restriction to a list of only eight lawyers among whom the
accused were to choose their counsel was improper since there NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERXMENT (17III53) 29

were then, and stiil are, many times more lawyers in Budapest
competent to plead in a military court.
(iii) The lawyers selected had obviously been carefully selected
and instructed with a view not to represent the interests of the
accused but of the govemment.

(f) The period of time granted the accused to prepare their
defense was patently too brief and in specific violation of law.

(g) The indictment was erroneous in law and should neither
have been lodged by the prosecutor nor sustained by the court
inasmuch as the subject of aviation overflights of Hungarian
temtory does not faIl withiu the purview of the statute concerning
illegal border crossing but is covered by special laws relating to
aviation. \%rithmaterially lesser penalties.

(h) The uncontroverted fact that the crew did not intend to
enter or be in Hungary at any time, and that their overflying
Hungary was unwitting and the result of unknown winds which
blew the airplane off its course, exculpated the accused of any
crime under Hungarian la\%-.This is specifically provided iii the
statute relating to aviation overflights and the facts constitute
a case of force majeure and therefore a defense to any criminal
charge under Hungarian criminal law. These facts having been
established, no indictment should have been lodged by the prose-
cutor or sustained hy the court.

(i) The conduct of the trial by the court shows nuinerous
violations of Hungarian law including:
(i) The written charge and al1 the testimony and proceedings
should have been, but were not, translated verbatim into English.

(ii) The testimony \vas restncted to answering a few questions
addressed to each of the accused-as to most of the accused only
one or two questions were asked-and neither the questions nor
the answers covered the issues raised by the charges.
(iii) No other testimony or evidence \vas admitted or allowed
than the few answers of the accused; the most relevant items
of evidence relating to the issues were completely unexplored
by the court, by the prosecution and by the defense counsel.
Evidence not offered included the lack of intention to cross the
Hungarian border ; the circumstances under which the airplane
was driven over Hungarian territory, unknown to the crew ;
the attempts of the crew to obtain aid and directives from the
ground; the fact that the Hungarian and Soviet authorities

knowingly permitted the plane and crew to cross into and over
Hungary without warning, knowing that the crew were unwit-
tingly there and seeking a landing place or other assistance ;
and the financial situation of the defendants which, under Hun-
garian law, has a bearing upon the provisions of the judgment.
3 SOTE TO THE HUSGARIAN GOVERS>IEXT (17III53) 31

360,000 forints each. The maximum provided by law in case of
felony \vas 50,000 forints, and in case of petty offenses provided
by statute 25,000 forints and petty offenses provided by cabinet
order zo,ooo forints ;and there exists no justification in the record
for denominating the case one of felony rather than petty offense.
(IZ The court failed to take account in the imposition of

sentence of the fact that the accused had been detained under
conditions of arrest from November 19 to the date of trial. The
fine should have been reduced considerably on that account or
the defendants should have been released from any payment.
(O) There was no justification nnder Hungarian law for barring
access to the accused by American diplomatic or consular author-
ities before or after trial. This \vasparticularly soafter the announce-
ment of the court's judgment when the defendants should have been
given an opportunity to consult persons in their confidence with

respect to the course of the appellate proceedings.
(fi)The Hungarian Government was uiider a legal obligation
to permit the defendants, and the United States Government
on their behalf, and OII its own behalf, to examine the judicial
dossiers in the case. The four airmen are entitled under Hungarian
law to access, at any time afterthe written charge has been served
upon them, to the dossiers in their cases in the possession of the
Hungarian Government. International law recognizes the right of
the governmeiit in such matters to act on behalf of its nationals
and is applied in Hungarian jndicial practice. Therefore, the

United States Govemment may under Hungarian law properly
obtain access to the dossiers of the four airmen, who are American
nationals. Furthermore, the United States Goïernment, being the
owner of the property which the court ordered confiscated, is
under Hungarian law an aggrieved party in the case and is there-
fore entitled to appeal against the confiscatory measures of the
judgment. shoiild be sen~ed with a copy of the judgmeiit and
should be given access to the dossiers in the case on its own behalf.
(q) The legislation of the Hungarian Government conceming the
confiscation of property \\.as not applicable to the facts of the case

and the order of confiscation \vas therefore erroneous.
(r) Contrary to the statcments coritained in the note of the
Hungarian Government to the United States Government, datcd
January 23, 1953, the Hungariaii law provides adequate remedies
for reexamination of the legal propriety of the proceedings, for
setting aside the judgments of conviction, fine and confiscation of
the airplane and its contents, and for the retum to the United
States Government of the money paid and of the airplane aiid its
contents or the fair value thereof. Siich remedial action by the
Hungarian Govemment ma)?take place at any time and regardless
of the limitation of time provided for appellate proceedings. The foregoing errors and violations are so glaring and numerous
as to be consistent only with concerted action by al1participating
Hungarian authorities, including the prosecution, the courts and
the defense counsel, to accomplish a prearranged manifest denial
of justice to the accused without any opportunity to the accused
for the presentation of their defense, or of the true facts and the
applicable Lawin their behalf or of appropriate argument.

15. The United States Goverliment agreed to pay and paid to
the Hungarian Govemment the sum of $123.605.15 as the only
practicable altemative available to it to effect the release of the
men, making such payment under protest.
As further evidence of the trne purposes, and of the arbitrary

and unlawful character of the acts, of the Hungarian Government,
the United States draws attention to certain circumstances sur-
rounding the Hungarian Government's stipulations for payment.
On December 28, 1951, the date of payment, and for a considerable
period of time prior thereto, the Hungarian Government \vas indebt-
ed to the United States Government in a sum exceeding $38o,ooo
in interest and several million dollars in principal, payablc in dollars,
arising out of an uncontested obligation of the Hungarian Govern-
ment. The Hungarian Government under written agreements of
April 24, 1946, August 9, 1946, and hlarch 21,1947. had purchased
from the United States Government several millions of dollars of
property of the United States Government. By the specific provi-
sions of these agreements the United States Government was
entitled. if it so desired, to cal1 upon the Hungarian Governmcnt
to make available to the United States Government local currency
of the Hungarian Government for the payment by the United

States Govemment of any or al1expenditures in Hungary. Although
the fines imposed by the Hungarian military court against the
four airmen were payable in local currency and although the Hun-
ganan Government had agreed to release the four airmen on the
payment of their fines by the UnitedStates Government. the Hun-
garian Govemment in violation of its written agreements refused
to make available to the United States Government local currency
in the amount of the fines, as provided in the agreements, or to
apply the equivalent in dollars against the liquidated dollar obliga-
tion due and owingtothe UnitedStates Govemment above mention-
ed. Instead the Hungarian Government arbitrarily and unlawfully
demanded as a condition tothe release of the airmen that the United
States Government turn over to the Hungarian Government
;United States dollars from sources outside Hungary ; the United
States Government made the palment with such dollars, under
protest.

The United States Government now solemnly declares that this
sum was knowingly and wilfully demanded and obtained from the
United States Govemment by the Hungarian Government as a NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNXIENT (17 III53)
33
form of barbarous extortion or ransom for Amencan national5
unlawfuily arrested and unlawfully detained, and that this factor
itself constituted an act of manifest denial of justice and violation
of international morality, law and due process.

16. As indicated above, after the trial was over the pilot of the
plane, Captain Dave H. Henderson, was subjected to further inten-
sive interrogation as late as the night of December 27, that is,
after arrangements for the payment of the sum demanded as a
condition to the release of the accused had been made, directed at
forcing or tricking him into a false confession that the crossing into
Hungary on November 19,was premeditated and further that the

pilot knew that he had also crossed into Rumania. Such interroga-
tion could only have been motivated by the awareness on the part
of the Hungarian Government of the iilegality of the proceedings
against the airmen, of the denial ofjustice to them and to the United
States, and of the wrong perpetrated in demanding and obtaining
the payment of the aforesaid sum of $1~3,605.15; and by a pur-
pose to provide a basis, despite the payment of the sum demanded
and the agreement of the Hungarian Govemment to release the
men upon payment, for further wrongful persecution and oppres-
sion of the same defendants in Hungary and also by Rumanian and
perhaps other authorities active as allies of the Hungarian and
Soviet Govemments.

17.-The actions of the Hungarian and Soviet Govemments with
reference to thismatter coincided in time with the meeting of the
General Assembly of the United Kations in Paris. The Soviet
Govemment, in prearranged concert with its allies (including the
Hungarian Governrnent), in and out of the United Nations, was
engaged in a campaign of propaganda and vilification against the
United States, seeking to make it appear that the United States

Government had embarked on a program of subversion of the
Soviet, Hiingarian and allied governments nnder the authonty
of the Mutual Security Act enacted by the United States Congress.
The United States Government believes, and asserts, that this
campaign was intended by the Soviet Government to divert the
niinds of the international public and the member governments of
the United Xations, then meeting in Paris, from the systenlatic
international operations of subversion of established governments
and social institutions throughout the world. and other misconduct,
carried on by the Soviet Government. the Hungarian Government
and their allies, overtly and secretly.
Largely unsuccessful in this campaign, the Hungarian and Soviet
Governments in concert seized upon the fortuitous and wbolly
innocent presence, within their physical power, of four American

airmen uvhomthey had caused to corne down in Hungary and be
detained there, in order to provide so-called evidcnce to prove the
Soviet and Soviet-allied propaganda charges against the United NOTE TO THE HUSGARIAS GOBERSZIEXT (17111 53)
34
States. Knowiiig at al1times that the charges against the airmen,
as against the United States, it.ere false and unfounded and that a
free and open hearing or investigation according to the practice
of civilized aiid honorable govemments would demonstrate the
falsity of these charges, the Hungarian and Soviet Governments in
concert deliberately denied the airmen access to American consular
or diplomatic authorities, denied the airmen representation by
independent legal counsel, subjected the airmen to a trial by a

military court whose judgment was predetermined and dictated iii
advance, held the trial i>~canzara where no memher of the public
or representative of the accused was present, kept the airmen
continuously incommunicado, denied them and, the United States
Government access to judicial records and dossiers in the case,
and in other ways attempted to conceal from the airmen, the
United States Government, and the international public the mani-
fest injustices deliberately perpetrated by the Hungarian and
Soviet Governments iipon theje American nationals as upon the
United States Government.
The statements issued hy the Hungarian and Soviet authorities
in concert with respect to this matter were deliberately and wil-
fully broadcast to the world by these governments, or were uttered
so as to be so broadcast in the usual dissemination of news of
intemational interest, with the purpose and intention of causing
damage to the United States and to thc airmen themselves.

18. As has been indicated, the four airmen \\rith mhom this
claim is concerned have at ail times been and iiow are citizens and
nationals of the United States of America. Dave H. Henderson
was born September 20, 1919, at Dale, Oklahoma, in the United
States of America ; John J. Swift was born July 31, 1917. at
Syracuse, New York, in the United States of America : Jess A.
Duff was born October 12, 191g, at Scotia, Nebraska, in the United
States of America; and James A. Elam was horn November 3,
1931, at Kingsland, Arkansas, in the United States of America.
Al1four airmen were members of the United States Air Force on
the dates relevant to this claim, Dave H. Henderson and John J.
Swift being captains and Jess A. Duff and James A. Elam being
sergeants.

19. The United States Government is compelled to conclude,
and it charges, that the foregoing actions, whether committed
separately by the Hungarian Govemment or in conjunction or

concert with the Soviet Govemment, were deliberately and unlav-
fully committed with ulterior intent to serve a propaganda purpose
of the Soviet and Hungarian Governments, to cause unlawful
damage to the four American airmen above named, and to the
United States, to convert unlawfully to the use and profit of the
Hungarian Government and the Soviet Govemment the United XOTE TO THE HUSGARIAX GOVERN>IEST (17 IIIj3)
35
States Air Force plane 6026, its equipment and its cargo, and to
obtain unlawfully from the United States the sum of $123,60j.~j.

II

The United States Government. as a result of its investigation
above mentioned, believes and asserts that the Hungarian Govern-
ment, aided and abetted by and in concert with the Soviet Govern-
ment, has by committing the foregoing acts in the circumstarices
set forth violated, first, international law ;second, the provisions
of the Treaty of Peace between Hungary and the United States,
particularly the provisions in Article 2 thereof relating to human
rights ; and, third, the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship,
Commerce and Consular Rights between Hungary and the United
States, then in effect, particularly the provisions in Articles 1, 14,

18 and 19 thereof.
Specifically, and without limiting itself by the enumeration, the
United States Government asserts that in the circumstances set
forth above the Hungarian Government is giiilty of the wilful and
intentional violation of its international legal obligations, and of the
\vilful and iiiteiitional commission of intemationally unlawful acts,
as follows :
(1) It \vas the legal duty of the Hungarian Government as soon
as it was aware of the flight of the airplane 6026 over Hungarian

territory to show it to a safe landing place ; the plane having
belatedly been intercepted and shown to a landing place, it \\.as
the legal duty of the Hungarian Govemment to have prevented
the arrest of the men and the seizure of the plane by the Soviet
authonties ; and it was further the legal duty of the Hungarian
Govemment to have assisted the plane and the crew to return
promptly to their base in Germany ;specifically, no provision of
the Treaty of Peace ivith the Soviet Union or any other valid
treaty obligated or entitled the Hungarian Governmeiit to permit
such arrest or detention in Hungarian territory hy Soviet author-
ities.

(2) The plane having I~eenbrought down in Hungary to the
knowledge of the Hungarian Government. it was the legal duty
of the Hungarian Government to notify the United States represen-
tatives in Hungary, or the supenor officers of the airmen in Ger-
many, or other appropriate American authorities that the airplane
and crew were being held iii Hungary, and to do so promptly.

(3) It was the legal duty of the Hungarian Govemment, knowing
that the United Statés Government was engaged in a search for
the plane and the crew, to have made truthful and affirmative
statements informing the United States Government that the plane
and the men were safe and search was unnecessary and it was
furtber the Hungarian Government's legal duty to reply truthfully36 SOTE TO THE HUNGARlAN GOVERSMEXT (1711153)

to the inquines made of it by the United States Government, and
by the Yugoslav authorities, beginning on November 19, 1951,
concerning the Hungarian Govemment's knowledge of the where-
abouts of the plane and the crew.
(4)The Hungarian Government was not legally justified in
continuing the arrest and detention of the crew and the plane,
particularly after these had been tumed over to it by Soviet
authonties in Hungary on December 3, 1951, and the Hungarian
Govemment should then have arranged for th,e immediate turning
over of the men and the plane to American authorities.

(5)The arrest, detention and interrogation by the Hungarian
authonties from Decemher 3, 1951, to December 28, 1951, were
unlawful in principle and unlawful in addition as excessive in
length and in scope.
(6) In violation of its legal duty the Hungarian Government did
not inform the four airmen that they were being detained for the
purpose of trial on cnminal charges but insteadrepresented to them
that they were merely being questioned pnor to release to American
authorities. This representation was false, and known to the Hun-
ganan Government to be false, inasmuch as by arrangement with
the Soviet Government the Hungarian Government had already
determined to place the nien on trial for the purposes and in the

circumstances set forth in the present note.
(7) The detention, trial and conviction of the airmen in the
circumstances of the case constitute a flagrant and manifest denial
of justice, particularly in tha:
(a) The actions of the Hunganan Govemment with reference
to the airmen were in manifest violation of established Hungarian
law and practice. and they therefore constituted arbitrary and
unlawful actions directed against American nationals as such.

(b) Xo reasonable cause existed for indicting or otherwise
charging the accused with the violation of any Hungarian law.
(c) The trial ofthe accused by military court and under military
procedure \vas without legal authority and the court was without
junsdiction to try thein.
(d) The accused wcre denied the advice and representation of

independent counsel or consultation with representatives of the
United States Government, they were denied adequate opportunity
to prepare and present a defense on the facts and on the law, or
to argue their case before their judges, and to prepare and present
a proper appeal from the jiidgments against them. Had these
denials not taken place the innocence of the accused would have
been made manifest.
(e) The accused were tried by judges who were not independent
of Hungarian Government direction but in fact acted throughout
the trial upon instructions, both as to the conduct of the trial and NOTE TO THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (17III53)
38
(IO) The actions and statements of the Hungarian authorities
and of the Soviet authorities in the premises constitute legal and
actionable wrongs to the United States for which the Soviet
Government and the Hungarian Government are joiiitly and

separately responsihle. These, as has been stated ahore, include
al1 the violations of law and the denials of justice set forth in the
note of the United States Gorernment which is simultaneously
heing delivered to the Soviet Government, a copy of \srhich is
attached hereto and \\.hich is made a part hereof with the same
force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
The United States Government helieves that it has on account
of the violations by the Hungarian Government of the foregoing
legal duties, and it hereby asserts and prefers against the Hun-
garian Government, a valid international claim for damages as
specified below.

III

In consequence of the foregoing illegal acts and violations of
duty, for al1 of which the Hungarian Government is responsible,
the United States has suffered the following items of damage,
and demands that the Hungarian Government pay toit on account

thereof, the following sums :
I. The United States Air Force airplaiie C-47 type knowri as
6026 and its equipmènt, and the cargo thereof as showri in the
manifests on board the plane when seized, valued iri total at
$98,779.29, with interest at 6 per cent from Novemher 19, 1951.

2. The amount paid hy the United States Government to the
Hungarian Government, under protest, to ohtain the release of
the four airmen, $123,60j.1j. with interest at 6 per cent from
Decemher 28, 1951.
3. Damages to the four airmen, American nationals, in conse-
quence of their unlawful deterition and mistreatment and mani-
fest denials of justice to them, $zoo,ooo.oo.

4. Damages to the United States by the wilful and unlawful
conduct of the Hungarian Government in concert with the Soviet
Government, $21 j,j09.67.
Total $637,894.11, with interest at 6 per cent as indicated.
The United States Government declares that the figure of
S21j.jo9.67, contained in paragraph 4 above, does not include
any sum on account of the items of intangible injury deliberately

and intentionally caused the United States Government and the
American people hy the wrongful actions of the Soviet and Hun-
garian Governments. Such injury is not easily calculable in money
and money could not compensate for it. The United States
Government has determined therefore, for the present, to defer the
formulation of the kind and measure of redress or other action NOTE TO THE HUSGARIAN GOVERNMENT (17III 53)
39
the Hungarian Government and the Soviet Government should
take which would be appropriate in international law and practice
to confirm the illegality of the actions directed by them agaiiist
the United States Government and the American people.

The Government of the United States calls upon the Goverri-
ment of the Hungarian People's Republic promptly to make its
detailed answer to the allegations and demands made in this
communication. Should the Hungarian Government in its answcr
acknowledge its indebtedness to the United States on account
of the foregoing and agree to pay the dainages suffered, the United
States Govemment is prepared, if requcsted, to present detailed
evidence in support of its calculations of damages suffered and
allcged.
Iii the event that the Hungarian Govemmeiit contests liability,
it is requested so to state in its answer. In the latter event, the
Hungarian Government is hereby notified that the United States

Government proposes that the dispute be presented for hearing
and decision in the International Court of Justice. Since it appears
that the Hungarian Government has thus far riot filed with that
Court any declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Court, the United States Government invites the Hun-
garian Government to file an appropriate declaration with the
Court, or to enter into a Special Agreement, by which the Court
may be enipowered in accordance with its Statute and Rules to
determine the issues of fact and lam which have been set forth
herein ; and the Hungarian Government is requested to inform
the United States Government in its reply to the present note
of its intentions with respect to such a declaration or Special
Agreement.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my high
consideration.

Budapest, Xarch 17, 1953. (Signed) George RI. ABBOTT,
Chargé d'Affaires, a.i.
Enclosure :
Copy of note to
Government of U.S.S.R.

His Excellency
Erik Molnar,
hfinister for Foreign Affairs of the
Hunganan People's Republic,
Budapest, Hungary. Enclosureto the note tothe Hungarian Government
of March 17th. 1953

NOTE TO THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT
OF MARCH 17, 1953

Annex 2

NOTE FRORl THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT
OF NOVEMBER 2, 1953

No. 00207/3/1953.

Dear &Ir. Chargé d'Affaires,
1 have the honour to refer to Note No. 115 of March 17, 1953.
addressed by Rlr. Abbott then Chargé d'Affairesad interim to my

predecessor, raising again the matter of the four flyers concluded
by a final sentence almost two years ago.
The Govemment of the Hungarian People's Republic established
that this latest Note of the Government of the United States does
not contain any new element whatsoever which could induce the
resiimption iii merit of this matter concluded by a final sentence.
As it had been stated in Notes No. 21231953of January 23, 1953.
aiid No. ~07/1/1gj3 of February 9, 1953. of my predecessor, the
crime committed by the four American flyers on the territory of
Hungary is a case l~elongingesclusively to the sphere of matters
which are within the domestic jurisdiction of the Hungarian
judicial aiithorities. The competent Hungarian court had in this
matter passed a sentence which according to the provisions of the
Huiigarian Criminal Ida\\8in force ordered the confiscation of the
objects serviiig as iiistrumeiits of the crime that is of the airplane,
its cargo and equipment. This sentence of the court, the American
flyers having not appealed, became final.

Concerning the judicial settlement of international disputes itis
generally kiiown that the jurisdiction of the Intemational Court
of Justice, according to Article 36 of its Statute is recognized in
procedures concerning the interpretation of treaties and other legal
disputes of international law; a criminal procedure falling exclusi-
vely within the jurisdictioii of a sovereign State is, however, not
subject to international jurisdiction. SOTE FROhI THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (2 XI 53) 41

On the grounds of the aforesaid 1 reject on behalf of my Govern-
ment the allegations of the Note relating to the procedure of the
Hungarian Govemment and authorities and the commenting, in
the intercourse of sovereign States uncustoma~ statements and
wish to emphasize that the Huugarian Govemment considers the
case of the four Amencan flyers as closed.
1 avail myself of this opportunity to express to you the renewed
assurances of my high consideration.

Budapest, November 2, 1953,