372 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
7 July 1988
I h;ivc th< hunour to rcfcr to the qur.stioiis put to the Pnrtics hv hlcmbcr, of
the (:o~rt durin2 thc i~ral hearings in the ciise ccinccrning Ilordt,r <i!z,l
?iior\l>orLlrrAr>>inl,tcrron~ l.V!ci!rdwiiiiv. I/<,lz,lriruv,.:ind Io rccliil t31ithc
hearing held on 13Junc 1988, YOU; Excellency staled that written replies of
the Government of Honduras to these questions would be dcposited with the
Registrar (supra, p. 148).
~-~~~~~~61 of the Rules of Court orovides that when auestions are out to the
agents, counsel or advocatcs of the parties during the hearings, they "may
either answer immediately or within a time-limit fixed by the President". No
such lime-limit was set during the hearings; in view however of the facl that
the Court has now to deliberaie on the case in accordance with Article 54;
paragraph 2; of the Statute, and therefore requires to be fully informed, the
Vice-President of the Court. Actine Pr"sident. has decided Io fix 15Julv 1988
as the time-limit for replies to the questions put during the hearings.
A similar letter is today being addressed to the Agent of Nicaragua.
97. THE AGENT OF NICARAGUA TO THE REGISTRAR
8 July 1988.
1have the honour to refcr to the questionsput to the parties by Membcrs of the
Court during the oral hearings in the case conceming Border and Transborder
Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. tlonditras).
The answers Io the questions in reference are included herein. Please note,
that the answer to Judge Guillaume's questions includes as an annex a State-
ment made by the Contadora Group and the Support Group on 27 June 1988.
1would like 10bring to the Court's attention the fact that, nt present, Prof.
C-av~s.~~.Counsel for Nicaraeua is in the hosoital undereoine s'.eer., Pro.. .
<:h31.e\h:id hccn :h:irgcd in$articular nilh i~vc\tig~ting full! the :insu,ers IO
the tirsi oucsiions posed hs Judre, Cuill;iumc :ind Sh:ihahuddeeii Thercfore.
at oreseni. the answers to ihoseauestions do not have the full benefit of Prof.
ciayes' investigations. If Prof. chayes has any further comments to the ques-
tions after his recovery, 1 will forward them to the Court if they are made
within a time-limit acceptable Io the Court.
QUESTION POSED BY JUDGE NI '
Distineuished Aeents and counsel and advocates. 1think it miehl be - con-
scnicnt timc IC:iddrcss ;Iquestion I~Ihoth I'.irtir~s.I'hcpoint on uh~cliI nish tu
h;ii.;t~~l;irifi~~iitrn\\,hcthcr .in? \tep <Ir\tep.*h:ivc becn inken ns a niatier of
rczordzd fact within the frdmewurk uf the Contadora Proctis ioii,ard\ the solu-
tion<ifthe horder disputes bctween tlondurai and iïiair;igu;i This is the ques-
lion I an? no1referring IO the eff<~rtsfur tlic solution of thc inntters of gener:il
'See alsop. 70,supro. [Nole by the Regrstry.1 CORRESPONDENCE 373
interest to the States of the American continent. 1 do not expect an instant
reply or replies so that there will be time for reflection.
REPLY
The answer to this question is very firmly in the negative. The Croup of
Contadora has not played a role in the solution of the bilateral disputes
between Nicaragua and Honduras.
In a general manner, it is convenient to point out that the Declaration of
Contadora of January 1983 that originated this process, does not include
among ils aims the solution of hilatcral disputes (see Annex 9 of thç Honduran
Memorial).
Furthermore, as was clearly evinced in the oral hearings, Honduras has
never accepted the creation of mechanisms that could have permitted the
reaching of solutions to the bilateral problems.
As a point of comparison, we note that in the case of the bilateral relations
between Nicaragua and Costa Rica - mentioned by the Honduran Govern-
ment at the oral hearings - the situation was different. A solution to the bi-
lateral problems was sought by different means including, at one point, the
friendly CO-operationof the French Government in 1984.
QUESTIONS POSED BY JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN '
First Question:
1gather that neither side adopts what 1may refer to as a third view, to the
effect that Article XXXl of the Pact by itself constitutes a self-sufficient decla-
ration by each member of the Pact of acceptance of the Court's compulsory
jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2,of the Statute. According Io Nicara-
gua, Article XXXI of the Pact is indeed a self-sufficient acceptance of the
Court's jurisdiction, but this is a conventional jurisdiction under Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, and not a compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36,
made unde; the latter ta complete a grant of jurisdiction.
However, from the material presented by the Parties, il appears that there is
a body of opinion supportive of what 1have referred to asthe third 17ew: Sec in
particular the Honduran Memorial (1)at pages 14, 49, 66, 68,69 and 75.
My question then is this, can the Court competently consider this third
view? And, if it can, and if it accepts this third view, how, if at all, would this
affect the arguments?
Second Question:
Are there any ratifying members of the Pact who have not had auy declara-
lions in force under Article 36, paragraph 2' of the Statute? 1 really do not
know myself the answer to that, but, if il is su, has tliiabiiuatçvcr been criti-
cized by other memhers, or by qualified commentators, as constituting a breach
of an understanding given in Article XXXl of the Pact to deposit
declarations under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute?
See alsopp. 70-71,supra./Note bytheKegistry.] BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
374
REPLY TO THE T!VO QUESTIONS QUOTED ABOVE
Nicaragua considers that these quesiions were answered in the public
sittings held on June 9 and 10 of 1988and in particular that of Wednesday
15June 1988in the intervention of Professor Chayes (sirpro,pp. 205-212).
R$.PONSFS AUX AUTRES QUESTIONS PoseEs PAR LE JUGE SHAHABUDDEEN'
LORS DE L'AUDIENCE DU MARDI 7 JUIN 1988
Troi.siè~~rqeuestion:
Mêmes'il oeut êtreétabli au'un Eiat entendait en fait aue sa déclaration
soit irrévocable, peut-ilencor; y mettre fin unilatéraleme~t dans l'exercice
d'un pouvoir souverain absolu de définir les termes sur la base desquels il
admei de se soumettre à la juridiction de la Cour?
~Éro~sf:
La République du Nicaragua est passionnément attachée au principe de la
souveraineté de I'Etat, dont la violation par le Honduras constitue précisé-
ment I'un des fondements de la requête.Toutefois. loin d'êtreincompatible
avec celui du respect dû aux obligations internationales, le principe de la
souveraineté l'implique au contraire. el il est significatif que la résolu-
tion 2625 (XXV) de l'Assembléegénéraledes Nations Unies, portant déclara-
tion relative aux principes du droit internaiional touchant les relations
amicales et la coopération entre Etats. conformément 3 la Charte des Nations
Unies. fasse du devoir qu'a chaque Eiai *de s'aquitter pleinement et de bonne
foi de ses obligations internationales,> I'un des uéléments» du principe de
l'égalitésouveraine des Etats.
En application de ce principe, la Cour permanente de Justice internationale
s'est refusée
«à voir dans la conclusion d'un traité quclconquc, par lequel un Etat
s'engage à faire ou à ne pas faire quelque chose, un abandon de sa
souveraineté.Sansdoute, toute convention engendrant une obligation de
ce genre apporte une restriction à I'exercice des droits souverains de
I'Etat, en ce sens qu'elle imprime à cet exercice une direction détermi-
née. Mais la faculté de contracter des engagements internationaux est
précisémentun attribut de la souveraineté de I'Etat.,, (Vopeirr Wimble-
don, arrêts ,923,C.P.J.I. sérieA II" 1p. 25).
C'est que, comme l'a rappelé Anzilotti,
eles limitations de la liberté d'un Eiai. qu'elles dérivent dudroit interna-
tional commun. ou d'engagements contractés. n'affectent. aucunement.
en tant que telles, son indépendance.» (Régime doironie, entre
/'A//e,,rogneet /'Ailtrichopinion individuelle.1931, C.P.J.I. série1 MB
n" 41,p. 58).
Ce qui vaut pour les traités vaut tout autant pour les déclarations facul-
tatives faites en application de l'article 36, paragraphe 2, du Statut. Quelle que
puisse êtrela nature exacte de ces instruments, il ne fait aucun doute qu'elles
constituent des engagements internationaux et créent des obligations
juridiques à la charge de leurs auteurs, «I'Etat intéresséétant désormais tenu
en droit de suivre une ligne de conduite conforme à sa déclaration,,(E,s,soi,s
-
Voir aussi ci-dessus p. 71.[Nole di' Greffe., CORRESPONDENCE 375
nucléairer,C.I.J.Recueil 1974,p. 267 et 472), sans que cela soit, d'une manière
quelconque, incompatible avec sa souveraineté.
La Cour elle-mêmea du reste considéré,de la manière la plus claire, que:
<<Lesdéclarations d'acceptation de la juridiction obligatoire de la
Cour sont des engagements facultatifs, de caractère unilatéral, que les
Etats ont toute libertéde souscrire ou de ne oas souscrire. L'Etat est libre
en outre soit dc faire une déclaration sans'condition et sans limite de
durée,soit de l'assortir de conditions ou de réserves.IIpeut en particulier
en limiter l'effet aux différends survenant après une-certaine date, ou
spécifierla duréepour laquelle la déclaration elle-même resteen vigueur
ou le préavis qu'il faudra éventuellement donner pour y mettre fin. Le
caractère unilatéral des déclarations n'implique pourtant pas que I'Etat
déclarant soit libre de modifier à son gré l'étendueet la teneur de ses en-
gagements solennels.» (Activitésmilitaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragira
et contre celui-ci (Nicaraglia c. Etats-Unis d'Amériqire),compétenceet
recevabilité, arrêt,.I.J.Recueil1984,p. 418).
Dès lors, c'est en vertu de son pouvoir souverain que I'Etat s'engage mais,
ayant ainsi librement accepté certaines obligations à l'égardd'autres Etats, il
ne peut y mettre fin unilatéralement à son gré;il ne lui est possible de s'en
dégager que de deux manières: soit en application des limites dont il a lui-
même assorti sa déclaration soit en vertu des règles du droit international
général applicables.
Qriatrièmequestion:
11me semble ressortir du contre-mémoire de Nicaragua, à la page 33, que,
dans sa protestation de 1974, le Honduras avait dit que la notification de
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ion~ ~mmédiate d'El Salvador aétait totalement dénuée de validité».
En employant ces termes, le Honduras adoptait-il une position au sujet de la
auestion de savoir si la notification de dénonciation d'El Salvador étaitou non
totalement contraire au droit et, en conséquence, si cette notification pourrait
ou non devenir effective après un certain délai?
KÉPONSE
Ic tcxie .iiigI.,i\ int6~ral dc[ilettre du illin~strc~lcrr<f(..~irc6çtr.1n&i.rc\<III
Hi,niliir;,\ cn d:ii~.du 2juin lv7-Iiigurc &in>Sh~ht~iRo~criric.L)o~rrrrrc~ ~IIr.s
III?I>ti,,r,t,t11((',111101 JIOIII<>1,\Inhdn ;,.indtn Riin 1979, IN>.,301-,3661.
II résulte clairement 'des termes 'mêmesde cette lettre q;é le ond duras
estime, pour des raisons généralesde principe, qu'il n'est possible ni de
dénoncer ni de modifier une déclaration facultative d'acceptation de la juri-
diction obligatoire dc la Cour faite sans liniitation de durée. Cela résulte
en particulier des passages suivants, reproduits également dans le contre-
mémoiredu Nicaragua (1,p. 303):
"Leading authorities on international law take the position that a
declaration not containing a time-limit cannot be denounced, modified or
broadened unless the right to do so is expressly reserved in the original
declaration and that, accordingly, ncw resewations cannot be made
unless this requirement has been fulfilled.
To say otherwise would mean accepting the notion that a state can
unilaterally terminate its obligation to submit to the jurisdiction of the
Court whenever that suits ils interests, thus denying other states the rigbt376 BORDER ANDTRANSBORDER ARMEDACTIONS
to summon it before the Court to seek a settlement of disputes to which
they are parties. This could well undermine the universally appli-
cable principle of respect for treaties and for the principles of inter-
national law ...
For the reasons stated above, my Government challenges the declara-
tion by which El Salvador seeks to revoke and replace its original decla-
ration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court since the new declaration is
improperly made, hence completely lacking in validity, and would set a
precedent prejudicial to the stability of the legal institutions established
by the international community and to the effective exercise of the right
of States to settle their disputes under the guarantee provided by the
highest judicial body so far conceived by man."
Et le Honduras d'ajouter que l'invocation d'une modification du droit
constitutionnel de I'Etat auteur de la déclaration pour justifier une modifica-
tion de celle-ci
"is contrary to the universally accepted principle that the sacred treaty
obligation will continue to be the basic rule of international law".
Les termes particulièrement catégoriques ou absolus utiliséspar le Hondu-
ras montrent bien que cet Etat considère que, non seulement la notification de
dénonciation d'El ~alvador. mais encoreioute dénonciation ou modification
d'une déclaration faite sans limitations de durée,est totalement contraire au
droit et ne peut devenir effective mêmeaprès un certain délai.
Comme le Nicaragua l'a montré dans son contre-mémoire (1,pp. 297-304),
cette position n'est pas dénuéede fondement. Toutefois, il n'est sansdoute pas
utile de prendre une position tranchée sur ce point en l'espèce; il suffit bien
plutôt de constater que, de toutes manières, la «nouvelle déclaration» du Hon-
duras n'était pasopposable au Nicaragua au moment ou celui-ci a introduit sa
requête.
La position de principe très ferme adoptée en 1974 par Ic Honduras n'est
oas sans nertinence en la orésente esoè,e: ce na.s ne veut faire auiourd'hui ce
qu'il c~~nir~st;i;iii.g<iriq.iernr.nin;igui.rr..C.>miI;('ciur I'ni:ippc,li1.111iin
,/ii:iroin\oquL: i pluiicurs repriscç eii plaiJùire p.ir Ic Hi,iiJiir;i\:
«II est reconnu que des déclarations revêtantla forme d'actes uni-
latéraux et concernant des situations de droit ou de fait oeuv.nt avoir
pour citct dc crter dc, ubligiiiiuns juridiq.ics.. Ou.ind I'Ft.it .iut~.uJe
Ici1L:cl;lr:irtnnt~.nd:trc 112~oiiioriii6riici1t>cc icrnics. cetic inicniiiiii
confère à sa prise de position le caractère d'un engagement juridique,
I'Etat intéresséétant désormais tenu en droit de suivre une ligne de
conduite conforme à sa déclaration.» (Essais nucléaires(Australie c.
France), arrêt , .I.JRecueil 1974,p. 267).
Quel que puisse êtrelebien-fondéde l'interprétation donnéepar le Hondu-
ras au regard des règlesgénérales applicables,celui-ci est «désormais tenu en
droit de cuivreune ligne de conduite conforme àsa déclaration»
Cinquièmeqlrestion :
Je crois savoir que le Honduras prétend qu'une relation consensuelle ne
prend naissance en vertu de l'article 36,paragraphe 2, du Statut qu'à la date du
dépôt d'une requête.L'opinion selon laquelle une requêteest introduite sur la
base d'une relation consensuelle est-elle fondée? Si oui, la requêtepeut-elle
faire naître la relation et reposer sur elle? CORRESPONDENCE 377
RÉPONSE
De l'avis de la République du Nicaragua, il n'est pas exact qu'une relation
consensuelle ne prenne naissance en vertu de l'article 36, paragraphe 2, du
Statut qu'à la date du dépôtde la requête.C'est au jour de la notification elle-
mêmeque cette relation s'établit entre I'Etat déclarant et les autres parties au
système de la clause facultative:
<<C'esten effet ce jour-là que Ic lien consensuel qui constitue la base
de la disposition facultative prend naissance entre les Etats intéressés.»
(Droit de pussuge sur territoire indien, exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.I.J.Recueil 1957, p. 146.)
Dès lors, il apparaît que c'est bien sur la base d'une relation consensuelle
qu'une requête est introduite, mais cette relation est fondéenon par la requête
elle-même, maisbien par la déclaration, qui acontractualisen le système de la
clause facultative entre les Etats parties.
II serait d'ailleurs totalement illogi:u. d'admettre aue. comme le orétend le
I-londur:ir, I,ircquiic f;sin.iirrc :clic.rc.l.1iiicoii~r'nsucllc3. cn m;nic Icmpb.
rc.p<i\csur ,.clIr.-ri clic oc pcut cil 2trc:ifiis\,ln propre f<inJc.mc.iicii \3 pr,il>rr'
conséquence.
QUESTIONS POSED BY JUDGE GUILLAUME'
1. Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota
First Qirestion:At the signature, the ratification or the coming into force of
the Pact of Bonoti, or at the time of accession to the Pact - did the Contracting
States whicb had oreviouslv made the declaration recoenizine the iurisdiction of
Ihe Court as com~ulsory inder Article 36 of the ~tatite ofihe kourt (with or
without reservations), notify the Pan-American Union or the Organization of
American States of that declaration? And, at the same time of signature, ratifi-
cation or coming into force, or at the same of accession, did the Contracting
States which had not previously made the declaration recognizing the jurisdic-
tion of the Court as compulsory under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court,
make a special declaration in pursuance of Article XXXI of the Pact of
Bogoti?
REPLY
The answer is negative for both parts of the question
Second Qrrestion:When certain States to the Pact of Bogoti
withdrew their acceptance of the declaration recognizing the jurisdiction
of the Court as compulsory under Article 36 of the Statute. did they
notity the Organization of American States of that withdrawal? Did
they state clearly at the time what their situation would be in relation to
Article XXXI?
-~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ~,~
Sec alsop. 137, supra. [Nore hy rheRegirrry.]378 BORDER ANDTRANSBORDERARMEDACTIONS
REPLY
The answer to this question is also negative. The only exarnples were those
considered by Nicaragua in the public sitting held 15June 1988(supra, pp. 205-
212). There have been no notifications of withdrawal of acceptance. The only
country to notify a "modification" of its declaration has been Honduras. No
mention has been made as to their relation to Article XXXI.
Third Qrrestion: Was El Salvador's withdrawal from the Pact of Bogoti
accompanied by a declaration concerning Article XXXI?
REP1.Y
This question was addressed at the public sitting held 15 June 1988 (supra,
pp. 205-212).
Foirrth Question: Were the notifications effected by the States for these
various purposes communicated in turn by the Organization of American
States to the States parties to the Pact of BogotA? Did they provoke reactions
such as acknowledgements, acquiescences or protests?
REPLY
The answer to the first part of the question is no, because no such notifica-
tions were effected by the States, with the exception of the "modification"
notified by Honduras and the denunciation of the Pact made by El Salvador.
The answer to the second part of the question is that only Nicaragua has
entered a protest for Honduras's attempt to enter reservations to the Pact,
40 years after it was ratified. This point was addressed also in the public
sitting on 9 June 1988 (supra, p. 88).
2. Article XXXll of the Puct of Bugoth
C)fie"rini.The iin.1cni~mcc ~,i,\rtlclc XXXII rc;~J.: "The (:ourt >h.illh.iw
conipulri9r) ]urisJi:ii~)iin accorJaiicc uiih I\rti:lc?h. par3erapli 1. ,>tlic raid
Si;iiutc." I nould like ICI knoiv hoiv the I'.irtie\ iiiiernr:t [hi\ tcxi. hc;iriiic in
mind al the same lime how il is dralted in French aniin the other langua&s.
REPLI
The reply to this point was made in the public sitting held on 15June 1988
(supra, pp. 209-212).
3. Contadora and Esquipulas II Process
First Question: Has the Contadora process been definitely abandoned? 1sit
merely suspended? 1sit continuing in any form?
REPLI
The Contadora process has not been abandoned or suspended at any
moment. When the Esquipulas 11Agreement was signed by the CentralAmeri-
can nations. the Grouo of Contadora toeether with the Grouo of Sunnort of
(:ontaJura rciiia~ncJ in cxi~tciicc .,[id 11srcIatioii\\\il1thc (.cr~tiaI ,\nwri:.in
pr..icc pri,c~.Jurc\\:a\rcco$ni/cJ in thc .r.iineli~quip.~l;i>II i\~rc.cinc.hy $IV-
iiigtlic(:oiit.iJors <ir,iup ry~ciiii: rr~li,iii~il~iliiic~. CORRESPONDENCE 379
The permanence of the Contadora process has bccn ratified in the meeting
held in Tlateloco, Mexico, by the countries members of the Contadora Group
and the Group of Support. When this meeting ended on 27 June 1988, the
members made public a statement which is attached to this answer.
On the other hand, it must be pointed out that the faculties of mediation of
Contadora in the region rcst on the political will of the five Central American
nations. When this willis lacking, even ilit be in one of the countries, the work
ofContadora is hindered - if not frustrated- as was the case cited by Nicara-
gua atthe public sitting held on 9June 1988(supra,pp. 73-74) and in the public
hearing on 15June 1988(supra,pp. 177-178).
Second Qiiestion: What role did the Contadora Group play and what role
does it still play in the implementation of the Guatemala Declaration (Esqui-
pulas II)?
REPLY
In the Guatemala Declaration, the Group of Contadora was given two main
functions:
1. The first one is contained in point 7 of the Guatemala Agreement and it
refers to the continuation of "negotiations in matters of security, verification,
control and limitation of armaments".
2. The second role that the Guatemala Agreement gave to Contadora is in
point 10of the Accord in which the Commission of Verification was created. In
accordance with the Agreement, this Commission would be composed of the
Contadora Group and the Support Group together with the Secretary-Gencral
of the United Nations and the Secretary General of the OAS. The way this sec-
ond role of Contadora was frustrated by Honduras was recounted atthe public
sittings (suprrr,pp. 73-74 and 177-178).
Finally, it must be said that the recent Statement of the Contadora Group
and the Contadora Support Group, annexed hereto, indicates precisely what
the Group itself thinks its role to bel.
ThirilQiiesrion:According to the 7th paragraph of the declaration adopted
on 16January 1988bythe five Presidents of Central Amenca at SanJosé an
"Executive Committee. made up of the Ministers of External Relations
of the Central American States. is to exercise the ~rinci~al function of
The SanJosé declaration adds that to that effect, it will promote the co-op-
cration of certain outside bodies. Lastly, the same Commiitee will be respon-
sible for examinine the eeneral reDort of the International Verification and
operation has been sought and obtained, and, more generally, what progress
has the Executive Committee made in its work?
'In pasring.noticeshauld betaken thatthisstatement ofContadora - vrry complete
in itssubject-matter- does not mention or evrn hint at anyrecommendation on the
present case. Itmust be recalled thatHonduras has suggestedthat the withdrawal of
these procedures was part of the Esquipulas Agreement.Also, and quite ohviously,
Contadoradoesno1cansidertheseprocedures incompatible with ilcontinuedexistence
and role.380 BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
REPLY
Duriri,: thr'I'ifih \lcciind 6,itlic Ilhesutiic C<,mmiit~.c.hcIJ III(;u3tr'niaIb
on 7 ,\pril I'J8S. II ii;ii:igrcc.J rhat ;,fornial pctiiion <hi,uld hc ;iJJrc\\cJ 10
th: Scîr~.i.irv-(ieiicrd <IIthe I'niitil S;iti<rii\II<>rdîrto rcuuest the "cull.ihai-
ration of ai auxiliary technical group comprised of speCializcd personnel
from the Governments of Canada, Spain and the Federal Republic of
Germany". This group would integrate the mechanism of verification,
control and follow up. This formal petition was to be made in writing by
means of a letter signed by the five Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Central
America.
Nonetheless, Honduras refused to sign that letter in both the meeting in
Guatemala and the following meeting held in Honduras on 22 June 1988.
The result has been that up to the moment no formal request has been
made in order to obtain the external CO-operationfor the Esquipulas pro-
cedure.
The Honduran refusal to sign the request to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations - on both occasions - has been attempted to be justified by
saying that if Nicaragua did not withdraw the present case against Honduras
before this Court, it was not possible to proceed. This position was upheld by
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras in the meeting held in Teguci-
ealna. notwithstandine the fact that the President of Honduras himself. at a
u . ~ ~
nicetinl: ivith ihc Fhccutivc (:oiiiniittr'c, ,aiJ th.11ihc c.i~ hcforc the (:duri \r.d>
;ihil;iter.il rn.it1c.rtli\%as niit rcldied ICIthc F\quipul;i> pr<~ccJurr';tnJ rh:ithc
\%asinstructing hi. hIini\lcr Fore1211Ait:~irs -!hi, W:I\ ~IJ in fronf oi the
oihcr hlini.ic,rs of I-orïi~n ~\fl;iir\uf C~.iiir;il,\mr,ric.i - ti> Jisarsiiii.itc ilic
cühc hciurr I~L. Court ironi the prsccss iifnr'quii;iii<in..lhe Prc\iJsnt ut I-I.)ii-
dur:îr :il,o haid that the documrni hc h.,J ieiirJ uith the I'r:\idr.ni i~fNic:ir:a-
gua agreeing to a postponement of the o;al hearings, had no bearing with
Esquipulas Il.
In any case Honduras continued to refuse to sign any petition to the Secre-
tary-General of the United Nations. Therefore, up to the moment, the Execu-
tive Committee is de facto not in operation.
STATEMENTBY THE CONTADORA GROUP
AND CONTADORA SUPPORT GROUP
Tlatelolco, d.f.,
Mexico.
27 June 1988.
(Translation)
The foreign ministers of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela who
constitute the Contadora Group-and the foreign ministers of Argentina,
Peru, Uruguay and Brazil who compose the Contadora Support Group-
meeting in Mexico City today, expresscd concern regarding the impasse in the
peace process and sharpened tensions in Central America. They pointed out
that this concern arises from fraternal solidarity with the Central American CORRESPONDENCE 381
peoples, as well as the possible adverse effects on legitimate national interests
of their countries.
Esa. .ulas II o~ened an era of sienificant advances in the Central American
cri\i.. Ur.g.itii.r.siSn5noir.suri,i.ing;h~iuld mbr:.illi>\isto shscurc th;i1,121
The rc;ility i>th;it ihr. p.i,t )c:lr. ,incc rlie ]>encc.i\id,rri2ncd bv thc Ccn-
tr.11.Anicric:innrr,.idcnt.hdh riroicrithai nc-i,ii;xtiuiiinni>iftircc.or tlircdtii
force is the oniy road to peace.
The ministers stressed the importance of establishing a mechanism to verify
compliance with security accords, in keeping with agreements made in
the Vth Meeting of the Executive Commission held in Guatemala City on
7 April 1988. There, the Central American foreign ministers stated iheir
desire to request assistance £rom three extra-regional governments to carry
out the task of verification. with suD..rt from the United Nations and other
specialized organizations.
The freezing of talks on implementing the Sapoa Accords has added a new
element of tension not onlv for Nicaraeua. but for the entire re-ion.
In general, the impleméntation of Ge of the most important commitments
of Esquipulas II, the national political dialogue for reconciliation and peace,
was interrupted in the maioritv of countries shortlv after itsstart, and there are
no clear indications of auick rënewal
The foreign ministeri repeated the urgency of implementing the agreement
contained in numeral (7) of the Guatemala Procedure. This was an aaree-
ment to continue negotiation of security issues pending from the peace-pro-
nosal.
On other matters, political instability and a sharp economic crisis has
arrravated the alreadv dramatic situation of thousands of Central American
rëfueees and oersons~disolaced bv the war. Meanwhile. actions and mecha-
nismi established to prote'ct them~have liad liltle rffect.
In this situation, governments that are members of the Contadora Group
and Contadora ~u~iort Group, urgently cal1on the governments of Central
American countriesto establish a political dialogue for peace, suspend al1form
of support to irregular forces. not allow use of their territory for threats
or attacks against neighbouring countries, and form appropriate verification
mechanisms in keeping with the accords signed on 7 August.
In addition, the foreign ministers repeated their cal1to governments with an
interest in or ties to the region to contribute to the pressing cause of peace. To-
day, it is obvious that the;se of force, support foi confro~tation, a climate of
threats of military intervention in the region, and the arms race only hamper the
logic of ncgotiation and the effort for péace.
They stated their willingness to broaden, as much as possible, CO-operation
of each one of their countries with Central America. They also stated their
desire to CO-ordinateaction within the framework of the special plan for eco-
nomic CO-operation with the region, recently approved by the General As-
sembly of the United Nations. The ministers said they would support projects
carried out by the Action Committee in Support of Economic and Social
Development of Central America (CADESCA), a Committee of the Latin
American Economic System (SELA). They renewed their invitation to the
international community to deepen its assistance in Central American eco-
nomic and social development.
Finally, they reaffirmed their ongoing willingness ta support and contribute
to the Central American peace process and they called on the five Govern-
ments of the region to give peace efforts undertaken in Esquipulas II another
push.
Réponses écrites du Nicaragua aux questions posées par les juges