Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2009/23
Cour internationale International Court
de Justice of Justice
LAYE THAEGUE
ANNÉE 2009
Audience publique
tenue le vendredi 2 octobre 2009, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Tomka, vice-président,
faisant fonction de président
en l’affaire relative à des Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay
(Argentine c. Uruguay)
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________
YEAR 2009
Public sitting
held on Friday 2 October 2009, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
Vice-President Tomka, Acting President, presiding,
in the case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
(Argentina v. Uruguay)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
Présents : M. Tomka, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l’affaire - 2 -
KoMroMa.
Al-Khasawneh
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Crinçade
Yusuf
Grejugesood,
BeTroresz.
juiesesa, ad hoc
Cgoefferr,
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -
Present: Vice-President Tomka, Acting President
Judges Koroma
Al-Khasawneh
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Judges ad hoc TorresBernárdez
Vinuesa
Registrar Couvreur
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -
Le Gouvernement de la République argentine est représenté par :
S. Exc. Mme Susana Ruiz Cerutti, ambassadeur, conseiller juridique du ministère des relations
extérieures, du commerce international et du culte,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Horacio A. Basabe, ambassadeur, directeur général de l’Institut du service extérieur de
la nation, ancien conseiller juridique du ministère des relations extérieures, du commerce
international et du culte, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
S. Exc. M. Santos Goñi Marenco, ambassadeur de la République argentine auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme coagents ;
M.AlainPellet, professeur à l’Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, membre et ancien
président de la Commission du droit internatio nal, membre associé de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Philippe Sands QC, professeur de droit internatio nal au University College de Londres, avocat,
Matrix Chambers, Londres,
M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit internationa l à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et
du développement, Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
Mme Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, professeur de droit international à l’Université de Genève,
M. Alan Béraud, ministre à l’ambassade de la République argentine auprès de l’Union européenne,
ancien conseiller juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères, du commerce international et du
culte,
M.DanielMüller, chercheur au Centre de droit in ternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. Homero Bibiloni, secrétaire d’Etat à l’environnement et au développement durable,
comme autorité gouvernementale ;
M. Esteban Lyons, directeur national du contrôle environnemental du secrétariat à l’environnement
et au développement durable,
M.HowardWheater, docteur en hydrologie de l’ Université de Bristol, professeur d’hydrologie à
l’Imperial College, directeur de l’Imperial College Environment Forum,
M. Juan Carlos Colombo, docteur en océanographie de l’Université de Québec, professeur à la
faculté des sciences et au musée de l’Université de La Plata, directeur du Laboratoire de chimie
environnementale et de biogéochimie de l’Université de La Plata,
M.NeilMcIntyre, docteur en ingénierie envir onnementale, maître de conférences à l’Imperial
College, Londres, - 5 -
The Government of the Republicof Argentina is represented by:
H.E. Ms Susana Ruiz Cerutti, Ambassador, Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
International Trade and Worship,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Horacio A. Basabe, Ambassador, Director of the Argentine Institute for Foreign Service,
former Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Fore ign Affairs, International Trade and Worship,
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
H.E. Mr. Santos Goñi Marenco, Ambassador of the Argentine Republic to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Co-Agents;
Mr.AlainPellet, Professor at the University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, member and
former Chairman of the International Law Co mmission, associate member of the Institut de
droit international,
Mr. Philippe Sands QC, Professor of International Law at the University College London, Barrister
at Matrix Chambers, London,
Mr.MarceloKohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva, associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Ms Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of International Law at the University of Geneva,
Mr.AlanBéraud, Minister at the Embassy of the Argentine Republic to the European Union,
former Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship,
Mr. Daniel Müller, Researcher at the Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Homero Bibiloni, Federal Secretary of Environment and Sustainable Development,
as Governmental Authority;
Mr.EstebanLyons, National Director of Environm ental Control, Secretariat of Environment and
Sustainable Development,
Mr. Howard Wheater, PhD in Hydrology at Bristol University, Professor of Hydrology at Imperial
College and Director of the Imperial College Environment Forum,
Mr. Juan Carlos Colombo, PhD in Oceanography at the University of Québec, Professor at the
Faculty of Sciences and Museum of the National University of La Plata, Director of the
Laboratory of Environmental Ch emistry and Biogeochemistry at the National University of
La Plata,
Mr.NeilMcIntyre, PhD in Environmental Engineering, Senior Lecturer in Hydrology at Imperial
College London, - 6 -
Mme Inés Camilloni, docteur en sciences atmosphériques, professeur de sciences atmosphériques à
la faculté des sciences de l’Université de Buenos Aires, maître de recherche au conseil national
de recherche (CONICET),
M.GabrielRaggio, docteur en sciences techni ques de l’Ecole polytechnique fédérale de
Zürich (ETHZ) (Suisse), consultant indépendant,
comme conseils et experts scientifiques ;
M.HolgerMartinsen, ministre au bureau du conseiller juridique du ministère des affaires
étrangères, du commerce international et du culte,
M. Mario Oyarzábal, conseiller d’ambassade, bureau du conseiller juridique du ministère des
affaires étrangères, du commerce international et du culte,
M.FernandoMarani, secrétaire d’ambassade, amb assade de la République argentine au Royaume
des Pays-Bas,
M.GabrielHerrera, secrétaire d’ambassade, bureau du conseiller juridique du ministère des
affaires étrangères, du commerce international et du culte,
MmeCynthiaMulville, secrétaire d’ambassade, bureau du conseiller juridique du ministère des
affaires étrangères, du commerce international et du culte,
Mme Kate Cook, avocat, Matrix Chambers, Londres, spécialisée en droit de l’environnement et en
droit du développement,
Mme Mara Tignino, docteur en droit, chercheur à l’Université de Genève,
M.MagnusJeskoLanger, assistant d’enseignement et de recherche, Institut de hautes études
internationales et du développement, Genève,
comme conseillers juridiques.
Le Gouvernement de l’Uruguay est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Carlos Gianelli, ambassadeur de la République orientale de l’Uruguay auprès des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Carlos Mora Medero, ambassadeur de la République orientale de l’Uruguay auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M.AlanBoyle, professeur de droit international à l’Université d’Edimbourg, membre du barreau
d’Angleterre,
M. Luigi Condorelli, professeur à la faculté de droit de l’Université de Florence,
M.LawrenceH.Martin, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau de la Cour suprême des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique, du barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts, - 7 -
MsInésCamilloni, PhD in Atmospheric Sciences, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the
Faculty of Sciences of the University of Bue nos Aires, Senior Researcher at the National
Research Council (CONICET),
Mr.GabrielRaggio, Doctor in Technical Scienc es of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Zurich (ETHZ) (Switzerland), Independent Consultant,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts;
Mr.HolgerMartinsen, Minister at the Office of the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
International Trade and Worship,
Mr.MarioOyarzábal, Embassy Counsellor, Office of the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, International Trade and Worship,
Mr. Fernando Marani, Embassy Secretary, Embassy of the Argentine Republic in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
Mr. Gabriel Herrera, Embassy Secretary, Office of the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
International Trade and Worship,
Ms Cynthia Mulville, Embassy Secretary, Office of the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
International Trade and Worship,
MsKateCook, Barrister at Matrix Chambers, London, specializing in environmental law and law
relating to development,
Ms Mara Tignino, PhD in Law, Researcher at the University of Geneva,
Mr.MagnusJesko Langer, teaching and research assistant, Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva,
as Legal Advisers.
The Government of Uruguay is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos Gianelli, Ambassador of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the United States of
America,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Carlos Mora Medero, Ambassador of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr.AlanBoyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Edinburgh, Member of the
English Bar,
Mr. Luigi Condorelli, Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Florence,
Mr. Lawrence H. Martin, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bars of the United States Supreme
Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, - 8 -
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur à la McGeorge School of Law de l’Université du Pacifique,
Californie, ancien président de la Commission du droit international et rapporteur spécial aux
fins des travaux de la Commission relatifs aux cours d’eau internationaux,
M. Alberto Pérez Pérez, professeur à la faculté de droit de l’Université de la République,
Montevideo,
M.PaulS.Reichler, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau de la Cour suprême des
Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du barreau du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. Marcelo Cousillas, conseiller juridique à la direction nationale de l’environnement, ministère du
logement, de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement de la République orientale de
l’Uruguay,
M. César Rodriguez Zavalla, chef de cabinet au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République
orientale de l’Uruguay,
M.CarlosMata, directeur adjoint des affaires juri diques au ministère des affaires étrangères de la
République orientale de l’Uruguay,
M. Marcelo Gerona, conseiller à l’ambassade de la République orientale de l’Uruguay au Royaume
des Pays-Bas,
M. Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, avocat, admis au barreau de la République orientale de
l’Uruguay et membre du barreau de New York,
MA. damKahn, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
M.AndrewLoewenstein, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
MmeAnaliaGonzalez, LLM, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, admise au barreau de la République
orientale de l’Uruguay,
Mme Clara E. Brillembourg, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux des districts de
Columbia et de New York,
MmeCicelyParseghian, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
M. Pierre Harcourt, doctorant à l’Université d’Edimbourg,
M. Paolo Palchetti, professeur associé à la faculté de droit de l’Université de Macerata,
Mme Maria E. Milanes-Murcia, MA, LLM, JSD Candidate à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique, doctorante à l’Université de Murcia, admise au barreau d’Espagne,
comme conseils adjoints ;
Mme Alicia Torres, directrice nationale de l’environneme nt au ministère du logement, de
l’aménagement du territoire etde l’environnement de la République orientale de l’Uruguay,
M.EugenioLorenzo, conseiller technique à la direction de l’envir onnement du ministère du
logement, de l’aménagement du territoir e et de l’environnement de la Ré publique orientale de
l’Uruguay, - 9 -
Mr.StephenC.McCaffrey, Professor at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific,
California, former Chairman of the Interna tional Law Commission and Special Rapporteur for
the Commission’s work on international watercourses,
Mr.AlbertoPérezPérez, Professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Republic,
Montevideo,
Mr.PaulS.Reichler, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court
and the District of Columbia,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Marcelo Cousillas, Legal Counsel at the Nationa l Directorate for the Environment, Ministry of
Housing, Territorial Planning and Environment of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,
Mr.CésarRodriguezZavalla, Chief of Cabinet, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Eastern
Republic of Uruguay,
Mr.CarlosMata, Deputy Director of Legal Affair s, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Eastern
Republic of Uruguay,
Mr.MarceloGerona, Counsellor of the Embassy of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay in the
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Mr. Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, Attorney at law, admitted to the Bar of the Eastern Republic of
Uruguay and Member of the Bar of New York,
Mr. Adam Kahn, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Mr.AndrewLoewenstein, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,
MsAnaliaGonzalez, LLM, Foley Hoag LLP, adm itted to the Bar of the Eastern Republic of
Uruguay,
MsClaraE. Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and
New York,
MsCicelyParseghian, Foley Hoag LLP, Me mber of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,
Mr. Pierre Harcourt, PhD Candidate, University of Edinburgh,
Mr. Paolo Palchetti, Associate Professor at the School of Law, University of Macerata,
Ms Maria E. Milanes-Murcia, M.A., LLM; JSD Candidate, McGeorge School of Law, University
of the Pacific; PhD Candidate, University of Murcia; admitted to the Bar of Spain,
as Assistant Counsel;
Ms Alicia Torres, National Director for the Environment at the Ministry of Housing, Territorial
Planning and Environment of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,
Mr.EugenioLorenzo, Technical Consultant for the National Directorate for the Environment,
Ministry of Housing, TerritorialPlanning and Environment ofthe Eastern Republic of Uruguay, - 10 -
M.CyroCroce, conseiller technique à la direction de l’environnement du ministère du logement, de
l’aménagement du territoire etde l’environnement de la République orientale de l’Uruguay,
Mme Raquel Piaggio, bureau de la gestion des eaux (O.S.E.), consultante technique à la direction de
l’environnement du ministère du logement, de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement
de la République orientale de l’Uruguay,
M.CharlesA.Menzie, PhD., Principal Scientist et directeur d’EcoSciences Practice chez Exponent,
Inc., à Alexandria, Virginie,
st
M. Neil McCubbin, Eng., Bsc. (Eng), 1 Class Honours, Glasgow, Associate of the Royal College of
Science and Technology, Glasgow,
comme conseillers scientifiques et experts. - 11 -
Mr. Cyro Croce, Technical Consultant for the National Directorate for the Environment, Ministry of
Housing, Territorial Planning and Enviro nment of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,
Ms Raquel Piaggio, Water Management Administration ⎯ O.S.E. ⎯ Technical Cons ultant for the
National Directorate for the Environment, Mini stry of Housing, Territorial Planning and
Environment of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay,
Mr. Charles A. Menzie, PhD., Principal Scientist and Director of the EcoSciences Practice at
Exponent, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia,
Mr. Neil McCubbin, Eng., BSc. (Eng), 1st Class Honours, Glasgow, Associate of the Royal College
of Science and Technology, Glasgow,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts. - 12 -
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Good morning. Please be seated. The sitting is
open and I invite Mr. Reichler to take the floor. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. REICHLER:
THE EVIDENCE
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, good morning. During the second round, Argentina
presented three speakers on the facts relating to their allegations of environmental harm ⎯
Dr.Colombo, Dr.Wheater and ProfessorSands ⎯, and they spoke collectively for close to
140 minutes. Now, it is possible to sow a fair amount of confusion in that much time, and just in
case they did, the Agent of Uruguay has called upon me to try to clear some of it up.
2. Mr. President, I will avoid the small issues and address only the major evidentiary themes
that Argentina emphasized in the second round. Some of these were raised for the first time in the
second round. Some were given new embellishments. The seven issues I will discuss are: first,
nonylphenols; second, dioxins and furans; third, the water quality data repor ted by OSE, which is
the Uruguayan Government’s water and sanitation agency; fourth, wind and odours; fifth, the
algal bloom of 4February2009; sixth, Argentina’s introduction of new evidence through
witnesses appearing as counsel; and seventh, the issue of the IFC’s independence, competence and
credibility.
3. I begin, very respectfully Mr. President, Me mbers of the Court, by asking again for your
indulgence, and your customary patient courtesy , for what will necessarily be another lengthy
speech. I do offer you two consolations, however. Firs t, this speech is definitely my last. And,
second, Uruguay will complete its second round presentation well before 1 o’clock.
I.N ONYLPHENOLS
4. I begin with nonylphenols. Mr.President, the evidence supplied by Uruguay shows that
this is now a non-issue. As you know, Argentina ra ised it for the first time on 30 June of this year,
based on an alleged discovery of elevated levels of nonylphenols in the water near the Botnia - 13 -
plant . How they decided the levels were elevated, wh en they had absolutely no pre-operational
baseline data, as they admitted, and failed to test for nonylphenols in other parts of the river,
including ÑandubaysalBay, as we showed, is onl y the beginning of Argentina’s problem in
advancing this claim 2. Uruguay responded to it promptly, two weeks after receiving Argentina’s
30 June report, with the affidavit of Alicia Torres attesting that Botnia does not use nonylphenols in
any of its processes 3. To which my very close friend ProfessorSands reacted that the affidavit
might have been artfully worded just to avoid me ntion of nonylphenols used by Botnia in cleaning
4
its plant . Uruguay responded by pointing out that when MsTorres said no nonylphenols were
used in “any of [Botnia’s] processes”, it covered them all, including cleaning the plant 5. On behalf
of Uruguay, I explicitly represented, based on an affidavit from Botnia’s chief environmental
manager, which the Court now knows we had in our possession at the time, that Botnia does not
6
use nonylphenols in any of its cleaning processes . But even this was not enough to satisfy my
friend Professor Sands in the second round. “Mr. Reichler said only that Botnia does not use them.
7
He spoke only in the present tense. He’s hiding the fact that they did use them.”
5. Reading through the compte rendu, it is truly impressive how much emphasis Argentina’s
counsel placed on the Botnia plant’s supposed emission of nonylphenols and how stubbornly they
have clung to this issue. They made it one of the centrepieces of their entire case. Since
nonylphenols are banned in European Union pulp mills, they claimed that the emission of these
substances puts the lie to Uruguay’s claim that the plant meets the highest international standards,
8
including those of the European Union . They all harped on this. Even my friend Professor Pellet
got into the act. Apparently stimulated to jo in the fray by his colleagues’ enthusiasm, even
1
New Documents submitted by Argentina, 30June2009, Vol. I, Scientific and Technical Report (hereinafter
“Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report”), p. ES.iii and Chap. 3.1, p. 4.
2
See CR 2009/16, p. 26, para. 25 (Reichler); CR 2009/17, p. 23, para. 25 (Reichler); CR 2009/20, p. 50, para. 21
(Colombo); CR 2009/17, p. 23, para. 25 (Reichler).
3
Affidavit of Agr. Eng. Alicia Torres, Director of DINAMA, 13 July 2009, Uruguay’s Comments on New
Documents submitted by Argentina, 15 July 2009, Ann. C24.
4
CR 2009/12, pp. 49-50, para. 27 (Sands); CR 2009/15, pp. 17-18, para. 13 (Sands).
5CR 2009/17, p. 23, para. 24 (Reichler).
6Ibid.
7CR 2009/21, p. 32, para. 37 (Sands).
8
E.g., CR 2009/21, p. 13, paras. 5-6 (Sands). - 14 -
Professor Pellet condemned what he called Botnia ’s “massive” discharges of “highly toxic”
9
nonylphenols . Imagine, Mr. President, hiring, retain ing, Professor Alain Pellet, whom I truly
consider the greatest legal mind of our generati on, and asking him to talk to the Court about
nonylphenols. It is like hiring Picasso and telling him to go paint your kitchen!
6. Well, Judge Bennouna’s most recent question 10offers us an opportunity to put an end to
all this hyperventilating about nonylphenols. This obsessive parsing of words over whether “any
processes” means all processes, or whether “does not” only covers the present tense. Uruguay has
decided not to wait until 9 October to answer J udge Bennouna’s question, so that we may quickly
bury the remains of Argentina’s claim. To be sure , we reserve our right to provide a fuller, written
response then, but we have offered an initial one t oday, one which we believe is itself sufficient to
terminate this debate. Uruguay today submitted an answer to Judge Bennouna’s question, in the
form of an affidavit of Mr.Gervasio González Seimonoff, the chemist who serves as the
environmental manager at the FrayBentos plant. He attests that Botnia has never used
nonylphenols or any product containing nonylphenols to clean the pulp, clean the plant or for any
other purpose. He identifies the specific cleani ng products used by the plant, describes their
chemical components, and attaches certifications from their manufacturers that they contain no
nonylphenols. Uruguay has adopted Mr. González Se imonoff’s statements as its own. This issue
is settled. No nonylphenols means no nonylphenols.
7. On Tuesday, Professor Sands accused Uruguay of hiding the identity of Botnia’s cleaning
agents 11. Well, we must not be very good at hiding things. All Professor Sands had to do to find
this information was to read the report of AMEC, one of the expert consultants to the IFC, who
were expressly commissioned by the IFC to conduct a pre-conditioning audit of the plant to
determine whether it was in compliance with Europe an Union best available technology, EU BAT.
AMEC’s report, which has only been in the reco rd since July2008, specifically described the
principal cleaning chemical used by the FrayBentos mill, the same one that is also described in
Mr. González Seimonoff’s affidavit, and AMEC review ed its Material Safety Data Sheets prior to
9CR 2009/20, p. 20, para. 13 (Pellet).
10
CR 2009/21, p. 70 (Bennouna).
1CR 2009/21, p. 32, para. 37 (Sands). - 15 -
12
confirming that Botnia’s technology fully complied with the EUBAT . Quite obviously,
ProfessorSands did not read, and was not otherwis e made aware of, the AMEC report before he
accused Uruguay of hiding its contents.
8. Before leaving this subject, I would like to respond briefly to the allegations by
Argentina’s counsel about what they called the “high toxicity” of the nonylphenols they claim to
have found in the river 13. The highest concentration of nonylphenols reported by Argentina’s
scientists, at any of their monitoring stati ons, the worst that Argentina alleges was
14
472nanogrammes per litre . Even this figure is ten times lower than the standard set by the
Canadian Water Quality Guidelines and 60tim es below the United States EPA standards 15. This
should actually be good news to Argentina because , as we showed in the first round, the main
sources of nonylphenols in the Uruguay river include the Gualeguaychú Industrial Park 16.
9. While I am on the subject of products not used by Botnia, let me bury another of
Argentina’s dead claims: lindane. Uruguay has already answered JudgeSimma’s question. The
Botnia plant does not use, and has never used, lindane, in any of its processes. Nor have the
growers of the trees Botnia uses to make the pulp. They do not use lindane either. Lindane has
17
been a banned substance in Uruguay for many years . It is not, however, banned in Argentina.
II D IOXINS AND FURANS
10. I come now to the second of the issues I w ill address today: dioxins and furans. I can
deal with this one rather quickly, because Argen tina has not contradicted Uruguay’s evidence that
18
testing of the Botnia plant’s effluent shows that no dioxins and no furans are discharged . That
should be the end of the matter. Since Botnia does not discharge dioxins or furans, it cannot be
12
AMEC Foresty Industry Consulting, Orion BKP Mill Pr e-Startup Audit (Sep. 2007), RU, Vol.III, Ann.48,
p. 22.
13E.g., CR 2009/20, p. 20, para. 13 (Pellet).
14Biogeochemistry Data tab9leon password-pr otected Argentine website, available at
http://www.mrecic.gov/ar/scientificdata (username: PVA; password: SAyDS).
15Environment Canada, Canadian Sedi ment Quality Guidelines for Dioxins and Furans (2005), available at
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ceqg-rcqe/English/Pdf/GAAG_DioxinFuranSed_e.pdf; U.S. EPA, Region 5, RCRA Ecological
Screening Levels (2003), available http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ca/ESL.pdf.
16CR 2009/17, p. 24, para. 27 (Reichler).
17CR 2009/16, p. 15, para. 16 (Gianelli).
18
CR 2009/16, pp. 30-31, paras. 41-43 (Boyle); CR 2009/20, p. 51, para. 24 (Colombo). - 16 -
blamed for any that may be found in the river or its fish. Dr. Colombo himself admitted they had
no evidence showing any dioxins or furans in the river water. He claimed only a very low level in
fish 19.
11. In the second round, Dr.Colombo attempted to defend his fish study 20. We found his
explanation of his sampling methods, well, fishy, but we need not challenge it. He admitted all that
was necessary to show that the effects on fish he purportedly found cannot be linked to the Botnia
plant. First, there is no evidence that the plant emits dioxins or furans 21. It does not. Second, all
the fish included in his study were caught in Ñandubaysal Bay, which Dr. Colombo acknowledges
is not affected by the Botnia plant or its emissions 22. Third, all the fish were Sabalos, which are
highly migratory ⎯ a fact admitted by Dr.Colombo himself ⎯ so there is no telling where in
ÑandubaysalBay, the Uruguay river, or the Paraná river, or the highly polluted Río de la Plata,
23
they picked up any dioxins or furans . This too is now a non-issue.
III. OSE MONITORING DATA
12. My next subject is OSE’s water quality monitoring data. On Tuesday, during the last day
of its second round, and in the last tenminutes of the final speech on environmental issues,
ProfessorSands made reference for the very first time to data that, according to him, proved that
effluents from the Botnia plant harmed water quality 24. To heighten the Court’s expectation that he
had found something truly dramatic, a smoking gun, he accused Uruguay of trying to keep these
25
data hidden . Heightening the drama is fine, Mr. President, but it is not cricket, as they say in my
friend’s country, to make false accusations. If he were correct, then we certainly picked a bad
1CR 2009/20, p. 51, para. 24 (Colombo).
20
Ibid., p. 43, para. 3 (Colombo).
21
CR 2009/16, pp. 30-31, paras. 41-43 (Boyle).
2CR 2009/17, pp. 26-27, para. 34 (Reichler).
2Argentina’s Scientific and Technica l Report, Chap.5, pp.3, 5-8, 18 and 22; CR2009/14, p.50, para.24
(Colombo) (“The main channel of the Uruguay river is a . . . migration route for several fish species.”); J. C. Colombo, C.
Bilos, M. R. Lenicov, D. Colautii, P. Landoni and C. Brochu, “Detritivorous fish contamination in the Río de la Plata
estuary: a critical accumula tion pathway in the cycle of anthropogenic compounds”, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:
1139-1150, 2000, p.1141 (reporting “major components of organic contaminants and trace meta ls in Río de la Plata”
Sabalo), available at http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&afpf=f00-031.pdf&j…
cjfas&volume=57 .
2CR 2009/21, p. 28, para. 31 (Sands).
25
Ibid. - 17 -
place to hide the data: in the March 2009 EcoMetrix report, which we ourselves submitted to the
Court, and cited many times in these hearings; and on the public website of OSE, Uruguay’s State
26
water agency, to which Argentina ⎯ and everyone else ⎯ obviously had free access . And
finally, as you will see when we review the evidence that was introduced with such great fanfare on
Tuesday (CR2009/21), Uruguay had no reason of any kind to want to hide it. A smoking gun?
Not quite. But if Argentina’s gun is indeed smoking, it is because Argentina has shot itself.
13. In what can only be described as a self-inflicted wound, ProfessorSands has
demonstrated, yet again, that he does not know the evidence. Let us look more closely at the slides
he triumphantly displayed on Tuesday. [Slide.] This is at tab 10 of your judges’ folder. He told
27
us, on the basis of these data, that the Botnia plant was violating CARU’s water quality standards .
Let us start with this first chart, which is cons picuously labelled: “Dissolved Oxygen”. But the
label is as erroneous as it is conspicuous. And so ar e all the data in the chart. In fact, even more
so.
14. Professor Sands did manage to state accurately what “dissolved oxygen” is:
“[D]issolved oxygen is a measure of the amount of oxygen that is dissolved into
the river water. It is one of those para meters in which you are looking for a high
figure: the higher the figure, the more disso lved oxygen in the river, the better 28s
ecological status; the lower the figure the greater the level of harm to the river.”
Because dissolved oxygen is good, not bad, CARU sets a minimum standard for it. Water quality
is considered good when the standard is exceed ed. On this basis, and with great flair,
ProfessorSands exposed for the Court Uruguay’s terri ble crime: dissolved oxygen levels fell
29
below the CARU minimum standards after the Botnia plant began operating . Except for one tiny
little detail. He used the wrong data. The data in his chart are not data for dissolved oxygen. They
have nothing to do with dissolved oxygen. They are labelled erroneously on his chart. They are
OSE’s measurements of an entirely different para meter, and, unlike dissolved oxygen, the lower
26
EcoMetrix 3rd Report, Mar. 2009, Ur uguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, p. 4.10,
ta44; OSE Website for Water Quality M onitoring at Fayntos, available at
http://www.ose.com.uy/a_monitoreo_fray_bentos.html.
27
CR 2009/21, p. 29, para. 32 (Sands).
28Ibid., p. 29, para. 33 (Sands).
29Ibid., p. 29, para. 33 (Sands). - 18 -
the values the better it is for the river. This chart is nothing but a colossal blunder. How could they
get it so wrong? We shall show you.
15. Here is what the evidence really is. OSE does not measure for dissolved oxygen. There
is no measurement for dissolved oxygen listed in the OSE table Argentina included at tab4 of
30
Tuesday’s judges’ folder, and from which it took the data it used in ProfessorSands’s chart .
[Slide.] The yellow highlighting is Argentina’s. The item highlighted is translated from the
original Spanish to English as “oxidizability”. This is actually a poor translation from the Spanish
original, which is “oxidabilidad”, which translat es into English, and appears in the EcoMetrix
reports, as “oxides” 31. But whether you call it oxides or oxidizability, it is not dissolved oxygen,
which is something very different. In Spanis h, dissolved oxygen is “oxígeno disuelto”, not
“oxidabilidad”. And there is an enormous difference between the two parameters. In simple terms,
dissolved oxygen, as ProfessorSands told us, is good, and we want a lot of it in the water. But
oxides, or as ProfessorSands prefers to call it, oxidizability, is the opposite, because it is a
measure, not of oxygen content in the water, but th e level of organic substances. Thus, in contrast
to dissolved oxygen, where you want the amounts to be high, you want the levels of oxides to be
low. They are, in that sense, polar opposites.
16. So what ProfessorSands has done here, with his customary eloquence and
forcefulness ⎯ but also his typical lack of familiarity with the actual evidence ⎯ was to compare
the levels of oxides to the CARU standard fo r dissolved oxygen. His chart is completely
misleading. It misrepresents the evidence.
17. In fact, there is evidence in the record regarding dissolved oxygen. Not the “oxides” data
displayed by ProfessorSands, but the real data on dissolved oxygen. Dissolved oxygen has been
measured at each of the 16 sites monitored six times per year by DINAMA 3. Of those 96 samples
33
taken in 2008, none of them was below the CARU minimum standard for dissolved oxygen . The
30
See OSE Website, available at http://www.ose.com.uy/a_monitoreo_fray_bentos.html.
31EcoMetrix 3rd Report, Mar.2009, Ur uguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, p. 4.10,
table 4.4.
32E.g., DINAMA One Year Report, May 2009, Uruguay’ s Submission of New Do cuments, 30 June 2009,
Ann. S2, p. 11/54 and fig. 3.11.
33EcoMetrix 3rd Report, Mar. 2009, Ur uguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, p. 4.17,
fig. 4.2 (subfigs. (i) and (j)). - 19 -
34
same is true for the 48samples analysed by DINAMA thus far in 2009 . Indeed, at the
FrayBentos water intake, the levels of dissolved oxygen are actually higher ⎯ that is, better ⎯
35
than they were during the pre-opera tional period before Botnia existed . To the contrary of what
ProfessorSands told you on Tuesday, there has been no violation of CARU’s water quality
standards.
18. The other charts he displayed are just as problematic. [Slide.] Professor Sands told the
Court that the CARU water quality standard for ph enolic substances, which is 1 microgramme per
litre, had never been exceeded prior to operation of the Botnia plant: “there were no pre-existing
violations” 36. I am sorry, I have to say it, my good friend got it wrong again. Badly wrong. In
fact, there have been myriads of exceedances of this standard, throughout the river, ever since
CARU started measuring for phenolic substances, year s before the plant started operating. Here is
what the EcoMetrix final Cumulative Impact Study, written in late 2006, stated about the presence
of phenolics in the river; and this is based on CARU’s water quality data covering the years 1997
to 2004: “Of particular interest, phenolics we re found to frequently exceed the water quality
37
criterion of 1 microgram per liter, with the highest values on the Argentine side of the river.”
19. The same pattern of frequent and widespread exceedances of the CARU standard,
throughout the river, not just at OSE’s Fray Bentos monitoring station, continues today. There is
no evidence that it has been affected by the operation of the Botnia plant; to the contrary, the
evidence shows that it has not been affected by the plant. The data show that, contrary to what
ProfessorSands has said, the phenolic concentrati ons at the OSE water intake during the baseline
period ⎯ that is, the pre-operational period ⎯ did, in fact, already exceed the CARU standard.
The data also show, as the final CIS concluded, that phenolic exceedances are routinely seen all up
and down the river. However, the post-operatio nal levels of phenolics, both for 2008 and 2009
after Botnia started operating, are lower than the baseline levels, including in particular at the
location of the FrayBentos water intake. [Slide.] You can see this on the chart now being
34DINAMA July 2009 Water Quality Report, App. A. Translation submitted to the Court on 14 September 2009.
35
DINAMA July 2009 Water Quality Report, p. 7, fig. 4.5.
36CR 2009/21, p. 30, para. 34 (Sands).
37Final CIS, CMU, Vol. VIII, Ann. 173, p. 3.5. - 20 -
displayed. Here are the baseline 2008 and 2009 data on phenolics, as verified by certified
laboratory analysis 38. Monitoring station11 is located directly at the OSE water intake point 39.
The CARU standard is the solid red line runnin g from left to right. The baseline levels of
phenolics is represented by the pink line. Phenolic concentrations in 2008 are in the dashed green
line, below the baseline and below the CARU standard. The concentrations in 2009 are
represented in the solid blue line, also below the baseline level at the OSE water intake and at most
of the stations measured, and also below the CARU standard. Concentrations of phenolic
substances have actually ⎯ as you can see ⎯ gone down across all test stations, since the Botnia
plant began operating. The lowest phenolic con centrations are at points closest to the Botnia
discharge. They are lower at the points closer to Botnia even than they are at the Fray Bentos water
station. If the plant were the source of any increases at that station, as Professor Sands would like
you to believe, there would have been higher concentr ations closer to the plant itself. There are
none.
20. Further proof that Botnia has not imp acted phenolic concentration levels at the
Fray Bentos water intake or anywhere else is that Botnia’s actual discharges of phenolic substances
have been extremely low and on a continual decline, less than 5 per cent of its permit limit in 2008,
less than 1percent of its permit limit in 2009 40. That is why OSE, on whose data
Professor Sands’s argument is built, has concluded:
“During the time since the commencement of operation of the [Botnia] plant,
there have been no significant changes in the characteristics of raw water taken up by
OSE, and the water supplied to the town of Fray Bentos has complied at all times with
41
OSE’s Internal Potable Water Quality Standard.”
Specifically with regard to phenolic substances, EcoMetrix ⎯ consultant to the IFC ⎯ concluded
that no increases were caused by the Botnia plant “since the concentration of phenols in the effluent
was less than that measured in the raw water at the time” 42.
38
DINAMA July 2009 Water Quality Report, p. 21, Sec. 4.1.11.2.
39Ibid., p. 3, table 1.
40DINAMA One Year Report, May 2009, Uruguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S2,
p.19/33, table4; DINAMA July 2009 Botnia Environmental Performance Report, p.14, table4. Translation submitted
to the Court on 14 September 2009.
41OSE Website for Water Quality Monitori ng at Fraeyntos, available at
http://www.ose.com.uy/a_monitoreo_fray_bentos.html.
42EcoMetrix 3rd Report, March 2009, Uruguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, p. 47. - 21 -
21. This brings me to the third and final chart displayed on Tuesd ay [Slide.] for the now
familiar nutrient phosphorus. As we know, there is no CARU standard for phosphorus, so there
cannot be a violation. Phosphorous levels do exceed the Uruguayan water quality standard, as they
do everywhere in the river, but Uruguayan law does not prevent the licensing of new sources of
phosphorus, like Botnia, so long as Uruguay initiates action to offset the new discharges 43.
Professor McCaffrey yesterday (CR 2009/22) explai ned all the actions Uruguay has undertaken to
achieve these offsets 44. There is no violation of Uruguayan law. Of course, Argentina’s standards
on phosphorous emissions have not been violated , because there are none. Argentina does not
regulate phosphorus at all 45.
22. Uruguay could end the story on phosphorus here: no violation of CARU standards, no
violation of Uruguayan law, no harm to the river. But there is one more point to discuss.
ProfessorSands produced this chart to persua de you that, contrary to what Uruguay has
demonstrated, the Botnia plant has had an impact on phosphorous concentrations, and in particular,
that it has caused an increase in phosphorus of one hundredth of a milligramme per litre of water 46.
Now, that is an extremely small amount, and one that would not ⎯ even if it were true ⎯ have any
material impact on water quality. But it is not true. In fact, the evid ence shows that the Botnia
plant has not caused any measurable increase in phosphorous levels, not even as small as one
hundredth of a milligramme per litre. Let us look at the same OSE monitoring data that
Professor Sands claims to have used for his chart. [Slide.] If the Botnia plant caused the increase
in phosphorus at the Fray Bentos water intake th at Argentina now alleges, we would be able to see
that in the data, especially during the first y ear of operations, when phosphorous discharges from
the plant were twice as high as they are today 47.
43
CR2009/22, p.38, para.13 (McCaffrey). See also D ecree 253/79, Art.10 (“In any water body does not
comply with the conditions established for its classification, the Ministof Housing Land Use and Environmental
Affairs, [or MVOTMA per the Spanish initials] shall establ ish recovery programs for the water body with the aim of
achieving the conditions adopted.”).
44
CR 2009/22, p. 38, para. 15 (McCaffrey).
45
E.g., CMU, para. 4.40.
46CR 2009/21, pp. 28-29, paras. 31-32 (Sands).
47See CR 2009/17, p. 41, para. 38 (McCubbin). - 22 -
However, as can be seen in these data, during the first six months of Botnia’s first year of
operation, when phosphorous discharges were still at their highest because the plant had not yet
reached its peak efficiency, the average concentration of phosphorus at the water intake remained
exactly the same: 0.08 mg/L 48. There was no change. [Slide.] When we look at the whole year,
as EcoMetrix did in its March 2009 report, we see th at the average concentration of phosphorus at
the same point in the river, as of the end of 2008, actually declined from 0.08 to 0.072 mg/L 49.
23. Not shown in this chart, which ends w ith 2008, is that in 2009, the average monthly
50
discharge of phosphorus from the Botnia plant fell by 50 per cent as compared to 2008 averages .
That is, Botnia is discharging only half as much phosphorus into the river in 2009 as it did in 2008.
24. So how did ProfessorSands manage to ma ke it appear that phosphorous concentrations
had increased, even if only by one hundredth of a milligramme per litre? By using the data
selectively and ignoring what did not help Argentina’s case. Take a look at the pre-operational
average in his chart. According to the chart, th e only data he used for the pre-operational period
covered April to November 2007 ⎯ April to November 2007. This excluded the summer months
in the southern hemisphere ⎯ January through March ⎯ when phosphorous levels are normally at
their highest. By not including the summer months , the pre-operational average was artificially
depressed, and that made it easier to make it appear as if there was an increase after Botnia began
operating. Now take a look, if you will, at the post-operational average. It covers November 2007
through May2009. It includes two summers, one of which, January to March2009, had, as
Dr. Colombo told us, extraordinarily low water flow s which lead naturally to higher concentrations
51
of phosphorus as well as other substances. And with all that in their favour, all they could
manage to squeeze out of their carefully selected data was one hundredth of a milligramme per litre
at one single, solitary point in the river?
25. This is not a change in the environment. This number tells us nothing. Dr. Colombo’s
own study acknowledges that phosphor ous levels vary widely and naturally throughout the entire
48
EcoMetrix 2nd Report, RU, Vol. IV, Ann. R98, p. 4.9, table 4.3.
49
EcoMetrix 3rd Report, Mar.2009, Ur uguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, p. 4.10,
table 4.4.
50See CR 2009/17, p. 41, para. 38 (McCubbin).
51CR 2009/16, p. 58, para. 50 (Reichler). - 23 -
52
river, at all times, and they also undergo significant seasonal variations . An increase as miniscule
as one hundredth of a milligramme per litre is well within the limits of the river’s natural
variations, and well within the seasonal variation of phosphorous levels. In fact, the increase, if
there theoretically was one, is most easily ⎯ and most scientifically ⎯ explained by the different
seasons reflected in the two sample periods that ProfessorSands compared. Had his
pre-operational data included even as little as a single summer month, there likely would have been
no increase at all. In fact, this is precisely what the data collected by DINAMA, and verified by
independent laboratory analysis, show. DINAMA collected baseline data on phosphorous levels
53
for 15 months before Botnia began operating . When these data are compared to the phosphorous
levels recorded at the Fray Bentos water intake, or at any other point in the river, they show
conclusively that there has been no increase ⎯ no increase at all ⎯ in phosphorous levels since
Botnia began operating. And it is on the basis of these more complete ⎯ not hand-picked ⎯ data
that EcoMetrix and the IFC concluded “[t]ot al phosphorous levels were generally lower
54
post-start-up as compared to the 2005-2006baseline” ⎯ total phosphorous levels according to
the IFC and EcoMetrix were lower post-start-up as compared to the 2005-2006 baseline.
IV. W IND AND ODOURS
26. ProfessorSands and Argentina’s counsel and retained experts have repeatedly asserted:
“Uruguay got wind direction wrong” ⎯ that Uruguay failed to understand that winds frequently
blow from Uruguay to Argentina 55. Mr.President, I am afraid it is my friend and his colleagues
who have got the evidence wrong, again. This is rather easy to demonstrate, and I will not take up
much time to do it. My demonstration consists of two steps. First, there is abundant evidence
annexed to the Counter-Memorial establishing that Uruguay and DINAMA fully analysed the issue
56
of wind direction . Second, not only did Uruguay fully study and analyse this issue, but Uruguay
52
Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap. 3.1, p. 24.
53CR 2009/22, p. 57, para. 41 (Boyle).
54EcoMetrix 3rd Report, Mar. 2009, Uruguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, p. 4.3.
55E.g., CR2009/12, p.52, para.34 (S ands); CR2009/14, p.39, para.5 (Colombo); CR2009/14, p.57, para.7
(Sands).
56
See, e.g., CMU, Vol.V, Ann.141; CMU, Vol.VI, Ann.159; final CI S, pp.4.85-4.86, CMU, Vol.VIII,
Ann. 173. - 24 -
came to exactly the same conclusions as Argentina. [Slide.] The Botnia EI A states that the most
likely wind patterns at the mill location are “from the South, East, Southeast, and Northeast” 57.
This is exactly the same conclusion that Argentin a reached in its Scientific and Technical Study,
58
and it is exactly what Dr. Colombo told us on 16 September . So either Professor Sands is telling
us that Argentina got the wind direction wrong, too, or he does not know the evidence. It is all
right there in the annexes to the written pleadings. But somehow they just keep missing it.
27. The evidence concerning bad odours was presen ted by Argentina’s two retained experts,
Drs.Colombo and Wheater. Uruguay has already explained that allegations of air pollution,
including bad odours, that do not affect the quality of the water in the Uruguay river, fall outside
the 1975 Statute, and outside the Court’s jurisdiction 59. But Argentina persists in raising this issue,
and so we respond without prejudice to our jurisdictional objection.
28. Let us start with Dr. Colombo’s statement that the Botnia mill is to blame for bad odours
in Gualeguaychú, particularly hydrogen sulphide or rotten eggs, because there was “good air
60
quality without odours before Botnia began operating” . I suppose you can say whatever you
want if you are a retained expert appearing as c ounsel. But, unfortunately for Dr.Colombo, the
data from his own study contradict him. Argentina not only detected hydrogen sulphide in its
pre-operational monitoring; it detected a hydr ogen sulphide level of 0.0030ppm, which was
substantially higher than its own detection threshold of 0.0021 ppm 61.
29. While Argentina would like to blame the Botnia plant for all of the bad odours that afflict
Gualeguaychú, it cannot honestly do so. Uruguay recognizes that Botnia, despite having the best
and most modern and most efficient technology and practices, emitted odours that were detectable
at the plant site on six occasions in the year 2008, its first full year of operation, when such events
57Botnia Environmental Assessment Submitted to DINAMA, Chap. 5, 31 Mar. 2009, CMU, Vol.VI, Ann.159,
p. 61; Summary Environmental Report of the Botnia EIA, 2 Dec. 2004, CMU, Vol. VII, Ann. 166, p. 55.
58Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap.1, p.8 (stating “Based on the location of the Botnia pulp
mill, it is possible to identify wind directi ons northeast, east, southeast, and south as those that favour the transport of
pollutants from Botnia towards Argentine territory”); CR 2009/14, p. 39, para. 5 (Colombo).
59CR 2009/22, p. 61, para. 53 (Boyle).
60CR 2009/14, p. 41, para. 8 (Colombo).
61Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap. 1, p. 29, table 5. - 25 -
are most likely to occur . The IFC’s experts agree that, as in all modern pulp mills, the frequency
63
of odour incidents will only decrease as the plant continues to operate . But this is a far cry from
64
the 78 odour events Argentina attempted to attribute to the Botnia mill, in the first round . In the
second round, even Dr.Wheater scaled this outrageous claim back to a total of eight malodorous
65
incidents since the plant began operating that they found they could attribute to Botnia . And even
if Argentina’s claimed hydrogen su lphide levels for these eight incidents are taken at face value,
they all fall well below the most stringent health standards, including those of the World Health
Organization 66.
30. And even these alleged incidents cannot all be attributed to Botnia. For example, smells
attributed to the mill in April2008 arose from a wi despread wildfire in Argentina, during a time
when the mill was not releasing malodorous gases 67; in May 2008, the Chaitén volcano in southern
68
Chile erupted, releasing clouds of sulphur into the region’s atmosphere . However, the most
likely cause of most of the odours comes from a source much closer to home, Argentina’s
municipal sewers, especially in Ñandubaysal Beach and Gualeguaychú.
31. Dr. Wheater told us last week that the smell of a sewer and the smell of a pulp mill are
very “distinct”. He assured the Court there is no possible way the two different smells could be
confused 69. With this in mind, let us look at two affidavits from local residents that Argentina
thought were so compelling it placed them in your judges’ folder 70. The first reports that on
29January2009, “the employees of the business Confitería Balneario Ñandubaysal, notified that
62
3rd EcoMetrix Report, Mar. 2009, Uruguay’s Submission of New Documents, 30 June 2009, Ann. S7, pp. ES.v
and 6.3.
63
Ibid., p.5.1 (“Based on the experience of other modern pulp mills, it is anticipated that performance will
continue to improve during the remainder of the start-up phase as further optimization measures are implemented.”).
64
CR 2009/14, p. 39, para. 6 (Colombo).
65
CR 2009/20, p. 61, para. 15 (Wheater).
6See Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap .1, p.39, fig.30 (establishing that the highest
concentration detected was 0.00675ppm); World Health Organization Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, 2000, WHO
Regional Publications, European Series , No.91, available at http://www.euro.who.int/document/e71922.pdf (where the
guideline is expressed as 150 ug/m3, which converts to 120 ppb).
67
Third EcoMetrix Report (March 2009), Uruguay’s Submi ssion of New Documents, 30June2009, Ann.S7,
p.6.1; DINAMA One Year Report (May 2009), Uruguay’s Submission of New Document s, 30 June 2009, Ann. S2,
p. 3/4.
68
DINAMA One Year Report (May 2009), Uruguay’s Submissi on of New Documents (30June2009), Ann.S2,
p. 3; Third EcoMetrix Report, Uruguay’s Submission of New Documents (30 June 2009), Ann. S7, pp. ES.v and 6.3.
69
CR 2009/20, p. 61, para. 15 (Wheater).
70
See Argentina’s judges’ folders for 15 September 2009, tab 18. - 26 -
they and the tourists sitting on the terrace perceived disagreeable smells... similar to sewer
smells”. The other affiant states that while “working at the kitchen of the café at the Ñandubaysal
resort he perceived a disagreeable smell [like it] cam e from the lavatory”. It was, he said, “similar
to [a] sewer”. In fact, almost all of the hundreds of affidavits collected by Argentina from
protesters in Gualeguaychú describe a bad smell experienced on a single date, 26January2009,
and many of those affiants say that it was a “strong smell like sewage” 71 or simply that it “smelt
72
like sewage” . The following day, on 27January, the press reported, in an article Argentina
placed into evidence, that there was a “nauseating smell of sewe rs,” and in that connection,
reported that the “[r]esidents of Gualeguaychú explained to the press that the number of tourists in
the city means the sewers habitually became overloaded” 73. Now, assuming Dr.Wheater was
right, and that the odours from a pulp mill could never be confused with those from a sewer, what
all of these affiants from Ñandubaysal Beach and Gu aleguaychú smelled could not have been the
pulp mill. What smelled to them like sewage was exactly that.
V. A LGAL BLOOM
32. Mr. President, Members of the Court, we now come to Argentina’s last hope of showing
that the Botnia plant has actually caused harm to th e river. It is the argument to which, after
nonylphenols, Argentina has given maximum emphasis throughout these oral hearings. I refer to
the algal bloom of 4February2009. To put this event in perspective, it lasted for two days, and
then it washed away. There is no evidence that it caused any lasting harm to the river, or to any
aquatic organisms. Argentina has produced no eviden ce of even a single dead fish or even a dead
rotifer. Algal blooms are not uncommon in the Uruguay river. They occur almost every year.
Argentina does not deny this 74.
33. The evidence ⎯ including and especially Argentina’s own evidence ⎯ already
establishes that the bloom was not caused by nut rients, phosphorus and nitrogen, or any other
71
Andres Ricardo Gomez, p. 14/15, available at http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/pulpmills/pdf/en/26-50en.pdf.
72
Marcelo Hernet, p. 13/25, available at http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/pulpmills/pdf/en/50-74en.pdf.
7“Odour episode at Botnia reached Gualeguaychú:No harm to human health or environment,”La República
(27/1/2009), New Documents Submitted by Argentina, 30 June 2009, Vol. II: Other Documents ⎯ Press Articles.
7CR 2009/14, p. 44, para. 14 (Colombo). - 27 -
substance emitted by Botnia. We showed in th e first round that Dr. Colombo’s own study proved
that there were no changes in phosphorous or nitrogen concentrations in areas of the river that he
claimed were influenced by th e Botnia plant, and especially that there were no increases in
75
phosphorous or nitrogen concentrations at any time leading up to 4February2009 . We also
showed that levels of chlorophyll, which mark the presence of algae, were always low near the
76
Botnia plant, and that they were particular ly low in the period leading up to 4February . By
contrast, again according to Dr.Colombo’s study, both phosphorous and ch lorophyll levels were
elevated in ÑandubaysalBay preceding the algal bloom ⎯ in fact, several times higher than the
levels in the part of the river allegedly influenced by Botnia 77. In his second round speech,
Dr. Colombo made no attempt to dispute any of these points 78. It was all there before him, just as
Uruguay laid it out in the first round. He had his chance to dispute it. He did not even try.
34. With this water quality evidence in mind ⎯ this now undisputed water quality
evidence ⎯ let us look at some new satellite photographs: new in the sense that they have not been
displayed before, although they certainly have been in the record. As a point of departure, let us
start with one you were shown by Argentina in the second round, a satellite photo of the algal
79
bloom of 4February (this is at tab16). [Slide.] And this is as Argentina presented it, with the
algal bloom circled in green. As the Court will recall, the white areas of the river depict the algal
bloom. But Argentina did not show you the full picture. If we look at a more complete photo from
the same day, not previously displayed to the Court, we can see a much larger portion of the river
upstream from the Botnia plant, where we can fi nd more white streaks representing algal blooms
far beyond any place that even Argentina claims could be affected by emissions from the Botnia
plant (this is at tab 17). [Slide.] Here we are looking at a part of the river that is 55 km upstream
from the plant. Argentina has not argued that Bo tnia’s effluents are carried more than 25km
upstream.
75CR 2009/16, pp. 48 et. seq., paras. 26 et. seq. (Reichler);
76
Ibid., pp. 60-63, paras. 56-62 (Reichler).
77
CR 2009/20, pp. 56 and 62, paras. 44 and 59 (Reichler).
78CR 2009/20, pp. 44-50, paras. 5-20 (Colombo).
79CR 2009/20, p. 45, para. 8 (Colombo). - 28 -
35. The algal blooms are easier to discern on this next satellite photo, which shows the
blooms in red extending upstream from the Botnia pl ant more than 55km (this is at tab18).
[Slide.] Like the similar photo I displayed in the first round, what this one actually depicts is the
chlorophyll that gives the algae its pigment. The areas of highest chlorophyll, and algae, are shown
in red, next highest in yellow, lowest in blue. By comparing this photo with the previous ones, we
can see that the red areas on this photo match almost exactly the white ones on the other (at tab 19).
[Slide.] This leaves no doubt that the red areas in the photo on the right correspond to significant
algal abundances or blooms.
36. These photos show that the area in front of the Botnia plant was not the only one
experiencing an algal bloom on 4February. There were numerous other algal blooms upstream,
starting at least 55 km upstream from the plant. Since Argentina has not argued that the river flows
in reverse that far upstream, we can assume from this photo that on 4February algal blooms
originating far upriver were headed downstream with the normal current toward the Botnia plant.
37. [Slide.] Let us now take a very quick look at the satellite photo we showed you before
(which is at tab 20), which our Argentine friends, quite understandably, were not too happy with in
their second round. This, again, was taken on 2 February. Now, the reason Argentina does not like
this photo is quite obvious: because it shows wh ere the algal abundances were two days before
they showed up and bloomed near the Botnia plant.
38. As we saw before, there are very high leve ls of algae in ÑandubaysalBay, transported
there by the Gualeguaychú river, then through the Bay and along the Argentine coast. In the
80
second round, Argentina struggled to discredit this rather incriminating photo ⎯ incriminating in
the sense that it identifies the most likely source of the algal bloom that took place two days later in
an area, in front of the Botnia plant, that, as you can see, showed no signs of algae on 2 February.
If Argentina is right that the river flowed in reverse consistently between 31Januaryand
5February, as they repeatedly insisted and em phasized in the second round, even by playing the
same animated simulation video that they had already played in the first round, showing,
purportedly, that the river flowed in reverse betw een 31 January and 5 February, then there can be
80
CR 2009/20, p. 46, para. 11 (Sands). - 29 -
little doubt that the algae from the Bay were transpor ted a few kilometres upriver to the site of the
plant. But wait, Dr. Colombo told us, the red in this photo does not depict chlorophyll or algae in
81
the Bay; it depicts only sediments, which are abundant in the turbid conditions of the Bay . Well,
if that is true, then how is it that there is no red in Inés Lagoon, right next door, just adjacent to the
top of Ñandubaysal Bay and to the right on the photo? When Dr. Colombo showed us on Monday,
in four separate satellite photos, that Inés Lagoon was always as turbid and full of sediments as the
Bay, if not more so? As you can see on this photo, there is bright red in Ñandubaysal Bay, and no
red at all in Inés Lagoon. The red does not repre sent sediments or turbidity. This is further
confirmed by the red streaks upstream from the plant, in the main channel of the river, where there
are only minimal sediments. And how is it that the previous pair of photos that we displayed, from
4February, showed red streaks matching almost perfectly with the locations of known algal
blooms and abundances? Red equals a lot of algae. There is no denying it, try as Argentina might.
In fact, according to the scientific literature on the subject, at a readily available internet site, the
82
presence of high levels of sediments masks a portion of the algae in turbid waters . If anything,
the satellite photo from 2February under-represents the amount of algae that were present in the
Bay on that date.
39. Let us now put this information together with what we learned a few minutes ago about
the terrible smells ⎯ just before this photo was taken ⎯ which emanated from the overflowing
sewers in Gualeguaychú on 26January, and at Ña ndubaysal Beach on 29January. Sewers that
were overwhelmed by the enormous throngs of tourists who attended the most successful and
widely attended carnival in the region’s history 83. Where does that tremendous and unprecedented
mass of human waste, heavily laden with phosphorus and bacteria, go from the sewers of
Gualeguaychú and Ñandubaysal Beach? It goes to ÑandubaysalBay, and then into the Uruguay
river. You will recall how red the Gualeguaychú river was on 2February, while the sewers were
81CR 2009/20, p. 46, para. 11 (Colombo).
82Artigas and Pechmann, “Chlorophyll Detection and Mapping of Shallow Water Impoundments Using Image
Spectrometry”, Research Letters in Ecology (2008), p.4 et seq. (“Although these spectral indices are developed for use
with reflectance measurements, in turbiwaters, optical signals correlated wiChlorophyll-a are often masked by
signals from detritus or total suspended solids.”); Lee and Rast, “Light Attenuation in a Shallow, Turbid Reservoir: Lake
Houston, Texas”, U.S. Geological Su rvey Water-Resources Investigations Report (1997): 4064 (“The presence of
suspended sediment in water reduces the amount of light that enters the water and reduces transparency”, which limits the
ability of sensors to see algae and cyanobacteria deeper in the water.).
83CR 2009/17, p. 56, para. 27 (McCaffrey). - 30 -
still working overtime, as reported in the press ⎯ a report, as I said, that Argentina introduced into
84
evidence . Look at how much red is in the Bay. We know now that it was sewage, in massive
quantities, that produced these algal abundances.
40. Now let us consider Argentina’s other evidence regarding the algal bloom, which
consists of a sample of blue-green algae taken from the river. What they found in it were bacteria
known as faecal coliforms, in concentrations mo re than a thousand times higher than those
normally found in the river 85. Faecal coliforms are, faecal. They come from human waste, not
pulp mills. And we know where that waste came from. They found a lot of bacteria called
klebsiella 86. They come from everywhere, and are plentiful throughout the river, including areas
unaffected by Botnia 87. They too thrive in municipal sewer systems 88. They found microscopic
89
cellulose fibres ⎯ cellulose fibres , could they be linked to the Botnia plant? Actually, cellulose
90
fibres are just as likely to come from decomposed toilet paper . I actually have a footnote to a
readily available internet site on this very point.
41. This was indisputably a dense concentrati on of algae; although it was not quite as dense
as Argentina claims. When Argentina says that the algae concentration in the bloom was thousands
of time higher than in past blooms 91, it is playing a little loose with the data. In the case of prior
blooms, samples of the water with algae in it ⎯ samples of the water with algae in it ⎯ were
84
“Odour episode at Botnia reached Gualeguaychú: No harm to human hea lth or environment”, La República
(27/1/2009), New Documents Submitted by Argentina, 30 June 2009, Vol. II: Other Documents ⎯ Press Articles.
85
Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap.3.1, p.4 (noting that the scum sample involved “very high
abundances of fecal coliforms 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than normal values”).
86
CR 2009/14, p. 45, para. 17 (Colombo).
87
See, for example, Wong, Cullimore and Bruce, “Selective Medium for the Isolation and Enumeration of
Klebsiella spp”, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Apr. 1985, Vol. 49, No. 4: 1022-1024 (Klebsiella is “widely
distributed in nature”); Bagley, “Habitat association of Klebsiella species”PMID-PubMed, indexed for MEDLINE:
3882590 (Klebsiella is “seemingly ubiquitous in terms of its habitat asso ciations”); “Klebsiella pneumoniae,” Wikipedia
Online, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klebsiella_pneumoniae#cite_ref-Sherris_0-0 (establishing that
Klebsiella exists naturally in the human mouth, skin, and intestines).
8Wu, Saratale, Lo, Chen, Tsneg, Chang, Chang, Tsai, Su and Chang, “S imultaneous production of
2,3-butanediol, ethanol and hydrogen with a Klebsi ella sp.strain isolaed from sewage sludge”, Bioresource
Technology ⎯ ISSN0960-8524, Vol.99, No. 17 (2008): 7966-7970; S.R. Andersen, “Effects of waste water treatment
on the species composition and Antibiotic resistance of coliform bacteria”, Current Microbiology , Vol.26, No. 2,
Feb. 1993.
89
CR 2009/14, p. 45, para. 16 (Colombo).
90
See Website of Aracruz, a Brazilian company dedicated to the production of bleached eucalyptus pulp, arguing
that “no pulp can beat eucalyptus” for the softness that is “undisputably the most wa nted characteristic” of toilet paper),
available at http://www.aracruz.com.br/show_prd.do?act=stcNews&menu=true&lastRoot=23….
91
See, for example, CR 2009/15, p. 24, para. 7 (Sands). - 31 -
92
measured . In February 2009, Argentina just scooped up the algal scum off the top, and it found
that there is more algae in a handful of pure algae than there is in a beaker of water with some algae
93
in it . That hardly proves the unprecedented nature of this year’s algal bloom. But, to be sure, the
algae were thick enough so that many of the subs tances that were in the river at the time got
trapped in it. This does not mean that they caused it. Argentina does not claim that the bloom was
caused by klebsiella, faecal coliforms, or eucalyptus fibres. They do not cause algal blooms.
42. Nutrients, under the right climatic conditions, are what cause algal blooms, as
94
ProfessorSands himself acknowledged . And there is no evidence ⎯ no evidence ⎯ that
nutrients from the Botnia plant had anything at all to do with the February bloom. In fact,
Argentina’s own evidence, which shows that phosp horous and nitrogen levels near the plant were
low and unchanged prior to the bloom, proves that it was not caused by any nutrients emitted by
the plant 95. By contrast, Argentina’s own evidence s hows that nutrients, especially phosphorus,
were abnormally high in ÑandubaysalBay, as were chlorophyll and algae, just prior to the
bloom 96. The evidence points its finger firmly in Ar gentina’s direction as the source of the bloom,
not at Botnia. Unless they are wrong about reverse flow. Unless the river was not flowing in
reverse. In which case the satellite photography show s that it could just as well have originated far
upstream and travelled down with the normal current to the Botnia site. Either way, the evidence
eliminates the plant as a potential source of the bloom.
VI. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EVIDENCE THROUGH WITNESSES APPEARING AS COUNSEL
43. Mr. President, Uruguay is troubled by Argentina’s use of its retained experts in this case
to introduce new evidence into th e record during the oral hearings. This has been a persistent
problem in this case: the propensity of Argentina’ s experts, both Dr. Wheater and Dr. Colombo, to
step outside their role as counsel, and introduce f acts that are not anywhere to be found in the
written record of this case, as well as their personal opinions never before expressed in, or even
92
Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap. 4, p. 117.
93
Ibid., pp. 117 and 131 (establishing that “the scum” of the 4 Februarybloom was what was sampled).
94CR2009/17, p.15, para.10 (Sands) (“That algal bloom wa s caused by nutrients, and it is an indicator of
ecological change.”).
95CR 2009/16, p. 46 et seq., Sec. II (Reichler).
96Ibid. - 32 -
pertaining to matters in, their own written reports. Uruguay objected to this practice during the first
round 97, but there were even more egregious violations of what we perceive as the Court’s Rules
during Argentina’s second round, in the case of both Dr. Wheater and Dr. Colombo.
44. Take Dr. Colombo, for example. His opini ons have bloomed faster and farther than the
algae we have just been talking about. As I poi nted out last week, in his study, submitted on
30 June, which is evidence in this case, he never once as serted that effluents from the Botnia plant
caused the algal bloom of 4February2009. As I quoted last week, he attributed the algal bloom
not to an excess of nutrients emitted from the plant ⎯ as Professor Sands has argued 98 ⎯ but to the
low level of nitrates at the time of the bloom, indicating that abundances of algae were consuming
the nitrates. He was categorical in regard to where this was occurring: in Ñandubaysal Bay, which
he said repeatedly ⎯ in his study ⎯ was not influenced by the effluent from the Botnia plant 99.
That is what he said in his study, and that is what is in evidence.
45. But it is not what he said to the Court. In the first round, Dr.Colombo expressed a
different opinion than the one he wrote in his study. He said there was “clear evidence that the mill
100
effluents have contributed to this bloom of unprecedented intensity” . And he did not stop there.
No! He grew even bolder in the second round, te lling us that “[t]he presence of effluent products
in the scum unambiguously demonstrates that Botnia’s discharges played a central role in the
eutrophication of the Uruguay river” 101. It is a good thing there is not a third round. There is no
telling how much farther Dr. Colombo would go then.
46. There are important lessons here. First, Dr.Colombo’s oral opinions are not evidence.
He is here as counsel, not as a witness. He ca nnot create new evidence during these oral hearings.
Nor can he change the evidence that he himself produced in writing. As counsel, he is supposed to
be limited to commenting on or explaining evidence that is already in the record. Argentina’s team
know the rules. Yet they allowed him to repeatedly violate them.
97
CR 2009/19, pp. 33 et seq. (Reichler).
98CR 2009/12, p. 42, para. 14 (Sands).
99Argentina’s Scientific and Technical Report, Chap.3.1, p.24 (noting tat nitrogen nutrients had “somehow
lower values in the Bay than in the Uruguay River during th e summer due to its biological consumption”) and Chap. 3.2,
paras. 1, 4.1.2 and 4.3.1.2. See also, for example, CR 2009/16, p. 49, fn. 95 (Reichler).
100CR 2009/14, p. 45, para. 15 (Colombo).
101CR 2009/20, p. 49, para. 18 (Colombo). - 33 -
47. Second, in his zeal to embellish, and embe llish again, on his written report in support of
positions taken by the Party that hired him and to which he is counsel, Dr. Colombo has proven that
he can hardly be considered an “independent” expert. And the same goes for Dr.Wheater. It is
rather remarkable that Professor Sands stood up here and told you ⎯ with a straight face ⎯ that
102
Dr. Colombo and Dr. Wheater are “independent” experts , notwithstanding that they are retained
and paid by Argentina, notwithstanding that they appeared here as counsel for Argentina,
because ⎯ and I hope you will pause on these words ⎯ ProfessorSands tells us, they “have no
103
interest in the outcome of this case” . Dr.Colombo and Dr.Wheater have “no interest in the
outcome of this case”? I simply cannot believe he had the audacity to make such an implausible
statement: Dr.Colombo, who was hired by Argentina, his own Government, for purposes of this
litigation, in order to produce evidence that Argentina could use to prove that the Botnia plant
harms the Uruguay river, has no interest in the outcome? Dr.Wheater, also paid by Argentina,
who has been one of their most zealous and aggressive advocates, has no interest in the outcome?
48. My good friend Professor Pellet says that emolument alone is not sufficient to deprive an
104
expert of his independence. He says it depends on the expert’s state of mind . Assuming, quod
non, that he is right about this, my response to him, in regard to the state of mind of Dr. Colombo
and Dr. Wheater, in a language we all know my good friend speaks fluently, is: res ipsa loquitur.
And then: quod erat demonstrandum.
49. While, in this case, the state of mind of Argentina’s retained experts is splashed all over
the compte rendu, the Court might wish to adopt a more objective standard for differentiating
between experts who are truly independent and those who are not. Uruguay has already presented
105
its views on this issue in response to an earlier question from Judge Bennouna , and will not take
up the Court’s time with elaboration. Simply put , Uruguay believes that any expert retained and
paid by a party is by definition not independent. His or her views may be admissible as evidence,
but, under the Court’s consistent jurisprudence, they must be treated with caution, and they are not
10CR 2009/21, p. 23, para. 21 (Sands).
103
Ibid.
10CR 2009/20, p. 22, para. 19 (Pellet).
10CR 2009/19, pp. 33 et seq. (Reichler). - 34 -
entitled to the same weight as reports and opinions rendered by experts unaffiliated with the parties,
especially when they emanate fro m respected international organizations expert in the subject
matter.
VII. T HE IFC
50. Mr.President, Members of the Court, this brings me to my seventh and final point,
regarding the competence, independence and credibility of the IFC and the expert consultants that
it retained.
51. As he must, since Argentina’s case ulti mately depends on it, ProfessorSands did
everything he could to impugn the credibility of the expert reports on the Botnia plant produced by
the IFC and its independent consultants. No surprise there. What was surprising, however, was the
tack he took in attempting to accomplish this result. He did not attack the expertise, independence
or credibility of the IFC itself, or of the IFC’s consultants, especially EcoMetrix, Hatfield and
AMEC.
52. Instead, he employed an entirely different approach. He acknowledged the good faith,
independence, expertise, and even the commitment of the IFC and its consultants to environmental
protection. What went wrong, and what deprives their well-intentioned reports of credibility,
ProfessorSands said, is that they were all deceived by Uruguay. Uruguay intentionally misled
them, he said, and it was based on Uruguay’s delib erate deception that they all concluded the
Botnia plant was a good one, and would not cause any harm to the Uruguay river or its ecosystem,
106
and they gave it their approval .
53. What was the nature of the fraud, the hoax, perpetrated by Uruguay on this respected
international institution and its expert consultants? Acco rding to ProfessorSands, Uruguay knew
that the river frequently flows in reverse, but withheld this information from the IFC and its
consultants, and worse, convinced them that flow reversals were rare occurrences, in order to get
them to approve and finance the Botnia project 10. And well-meaning naifs that they were, the IFC
and its experts swallowed Uruguay’s story hook, line and sinker. They approved the project solely
106
CR 2009/21, p. 22 et seq., Sec. III (Sands).
10CR 2009/21. p. 21, para. 18 (Sands). - 35 -
because of Uruguay’s deception. As a result, none of the reports is entitled to any credibility
whatsoever 10.
54. It is a plot juicy enough to turn into a major motion picture.
55. But does Professor Sands’s theory survive scrutiny?
56. Let us look more closely at what he actually said in his truly spellbinding closing speech
on Tuesday, and then, as we have done repeatedly w ith his oratorical masterpieces in this case, let
us compare it to the evidence.
57. On Tuesday, ProfessorSands told us that Uruguay knew that the river flows in reverse
with great frequency, that it assumed a flow reversal rate of 29 per cent, that it built on this basis a
modelled reverse flow simulation, and even–– even–– that it may have presented all this to
109
Argentina during the GTAN negotiations in 2005 . Wait a minute! Is this the same
Professor Sands who, together with his colleagues, told us no less than 13 times in the first round
that Uruguay had no clue about reverse flow, had developed no model, had said nothing to
Argentina, and had never even thought about th e subject until after it authorized the Botnia
project? 110 What a turnabout! What a reversal of flow!
58. What is going on here? It is not that ha rd to figure out. ProfessorSands’s target is no
longer Uruguay and its alleged incompetence, or ser vitude to Botnia. He has his eyes set now on
undermining the credibility of the IFC, and its expert reports on the Botnia plant, the only reports in
this case by truly independent experts, and the only reports that the Court’s jurisprudence requires
be given special attention. These reports are dev astating to Argentina’s claims of environmental
harm, and Professor Sands and Argentina cannot risk allowing the Court to rely on them.
59. So he came up with an inventive theory, between the end of the first round and the
beginning of the second, that required him to change course on whether Uruguay was fully aware
of the extent and frequency of reverse flow, a nd, instead of accusing it of not knowing enough
about the phenomenon, he decided to accuse it of knowing too much about it, and hiding its
108
CR 2009/21. p. 21, para. 18 (Sands).
109
CR 2009/21, p. 19, para. 12 (Sands).
11For a partial list of citations, see CR 2009/16, p. 41, fn. 74 (Reichler). - 36 -
knowledge from the IFC, and worse yet, feeding th e IFC false information that reverse flows are
111
rare events, in order to gain approval and financing for the project .
60. It is very instructive to me, because as a professional advocate myself, I always enjoy
watching a skilled British barrister, a QC no less, perform his craft, and ProfessorSands’s
performance on Tuesday ⎯ I am sure everyone would agree ⎯ was masterful indeed. To mask his
own about-face on Uruguay’s knowledge of reverse flow, Professor Sands accused Uruguay ⎯ he
112
accused Uruguay ⎯ of a 180° change in its position on this subject . Nicely done, my friend! Or
at least, nice try.
61. What is Uruguay’s alleged 180° change in position? According to Professor Sands, it is
a contradiction between what he now acknow ledges was Uruguay’s assumption of a worst-case
scenario of 29percent flow reversal, and Urugua y’s insistence in the written pleadings that, in
reality, in real life, reverse flows occur less freque ntly, and that full flow reversals, when the entire
113
river flows in reverse, are rare events . We did say it in our written pleadings, many times, that in
real life flow reversals are infrequent, and that full flow reversals are rare 114. But there is no
contradiction. None at all.
62. As we explained in the first round, citing directly to the evidence in the record, Uruguay
deliberately decided to assume an extreme, worst- case scenario of low and reverse flows, with the
latter assumed to occur 29 per cent of the time, in considering and ultimately approving the Botnia
115
project . But that is a far cry from holding the view that the 29percent figure represents what
happens in real life. It was, as the eviden ce shows, a worst-case hypothesis used to provide
assurance to Uruguay among others that, even if su ch an unrealistically high frequency of reverse
flow were to become the reality, the river would still be able to quickly dilute, disperse and wash
away all of Botnia’s effluents, leaving water quality unharmed 116.
111
CR 2009/21, p. 22 et seq., Sec. III (Sands).
112
CR 2009/21, p. 15, para. 7 (Sands).
113
CR 2009/12, p. 16, para. 8 (Sands).
11E.g., CMU, paras. 4.43, 4.56, 5.58 and 5.71-5.72.
11CR 2009/16, pp. 42-46, paras. 14-22 (Reichler).
116
Ibid. - 37 -
63. ProfessorSands should not be surprised that Uruguay held the view, at the time it
employed this worst-case assumption, and at all times since, that in reality, in reality flow reversals,
and especially full flow reversals, occur with far less frequency. Assuming he were aware of the
evidence, in this case, Argentina’s own evidence, he would know that Argentina’s own expert
consultants on hydrodynamics reported that the Uruguay river experiences full flow reversals only
1percent of the time–– 1percent of the time. Both Latinoconsult and Dr.Rabinovich, two
117
separate hydrodynamic consultants retained by Argentina, reached the same conclusion . Here
for example, is what Latinoconsult concluded:
“Hydrodynamic modeling of the Rio Uruguay near the Botnia site indicates that
the river flows downstream 82% of the time [downstream 82% of the time]...
During 1% of the days, that is approximately 3-4 days per year, strong southeasterly
118
winds in the Rio de la Plata . . . cause what we refer to as pure flow reversals.”
This is from Argentina’s experts. The Court may al so be interested to note that one of the experts
behind this analysis, that full flow reversals occu r only 1percent of the time, and that the river
flows downstream 82percent of the time, was Dr .Gabriel Raggio, who is Argentina’s current
119
hydrodynamics expert, and a member of its delegation here in The Hague .
64. Well, Mr.President, we are coming to the end of this great mystery, and we shall soon
solve it. We need only ask: What information did Uruguay give the IFC and its independent
experts about reverse flow? And, what were th e reverse flow assumptions employed by the IFC
and its consultants when they approved the Botnia project?
65. The answers to these two questions are perfectly clear from the evidence. First, Uruguay
gave the IFC and its consultants everything it had on reverse flow, including the documentation
that demonstrated a 29percent reverse flow rate, and including the hydrodynamic model
simulation, which reflects that assumption. In other words, Uruguay gave the IFC the same
information and documentation that ProfessorSa nds now admits it may have given Argentina
11Latinoconsult Report, MA, Vol.V, Ann. 3, p. 14/57, para. 2.1; Rabinovich Report, RA, Vol.III, Ann.43,
p. 74.
11Latinoconsult Report, MA, Vol. V, Ann. 3, p. 14/57, para. 2.1.
11Ibid., p.55/57, App.A (noting that Raggio was responsible for “modeling of river”); see also Ann.A to
Latinoconsult Report, p. 1 (entitled “Flow Reversal Conditions of the Rio Uruguay, By Gabriel Raggio”). - 38 -
120
during the GTAN negotiations . The footnotes to this statement will show exactly where in the
record this can be found. As for the second qu estion, the evidence shows that the IFC and its
consultants, especially EcoMetrix, used the same model and the same assumptions as
Uruguay 121⎯ that there would be, in the worst of cas es, a 29 per cent rate of flow reversal ⎯ and
that it was on this basis that EcoMetrix recomme nded approval of the project, that Hatfield
endorsed the recommendation, and that the IFC, and the World Bank’s Board of Directors,
approved it.
66. How could Professor Sands tell us that Uruguay misled the IFC about reverse flow, and
that the IFC approved the Botnia project based on Uruguay’s false assurances that reverse flows
122
were rare events? There is only one explanation for his statements. He does not know the
evidence. I can imagine, Mr. President, that it is probably getting a little tiresome for the Court to
keep hearing that refrain from me. But I can assure you, Mr.President, that it is not pleasant for
us ⎯ although we are obliged to do so ⎯ to have to get up and show , time after time, exactly
where in the record facts completely contrary to those Professor Sands so eloquently and forcefully
asserts are established indisputably and without co ntradiction. He may have all the oratorical
skills. But we have all the evidence.
67. Argentina makes one more run at undermining the credibility of the IFC and its reports.
Not only by my friend ProfessorSands, but also his colleague ProfessorBoisson de Chazournes,
raised the spectre of a conflict of interest–– conflict of interest––, because the IFC indicated to
EcoMetrix that it should include on its team, as one of its two hydrodynamic experts,
120
IFC, Cumulative Impact Study, Uruguay Pulp Mills, Ann. H: Terms of Reference, Sep. 2006, CMU, Vol. VIII,
Ann. 177, p. H3.9 (establishing that EcoMetrix used “Botnia’s existing RMA2 hydrodynamic model and input files” and
obtained “information on the hydrodynamic model and Orion [i.e., Botnia] efflue nt discharges . . . from documentation
prepared by Botnia”, which was what Uruguay presented to GTAN); IFC, Cumulative Impact Study, Uruguay Pulp
Mills, Ann.D: Water Quality, Sep.2006, CMU, Vol.VIII , Ann.176, p.D1.4 (“An understanding of the project was
gained through a visit to Uruguay and m eetings with representatives from Botnia [and . . .] DINAMA . . .These
meetings provided updated information about water quality, an understanding of the regulatory context, and an accurate
and up-to-date description of the projects. Various sources of information were utilized to support the assessment. The
[EIAs] for the mills provided background information regarding the existing hydrological and aquatic environment.
Additional information was provide d by DINAMA.”) and p.D3.1 et seq. See CR 2009/16, pp. 42-45, paras. 14-18 and
related footnotes (Reichler) for a discussion of the documents provided to Argentina during the GTAN process.
12Ibid.
12CR 2009/21, p. 19, paras. 13 et seq. (Sands). - 39 -
123
Dr. Ismail Piedra Cueva . Argentina’s counsel complain th at the same Dr.Piedra Cueva had
been retained by Botnia and had developed the reverse flow model used by Botnia, which, the
record shows, involved a reverse flow rate of 29 per cent. The evidence shows that the IFC wanted
Dr. Piedra Cueva on its team precisely because his modelling of river flow was so conservative and
precautionary, and that it was based on the conservative assumption that “the phenomena of reverse
124
flow [were] frequent in the area” near the Botnia plant . Not only Botnia, but also Uruguay and
eventually the IFC used Dr. Piedra Cueva’s mode l, and his precautionary 29 per cent flow reversal
rate, in approving the plant 125.
68. Argentina did, in fact, write to the IFC obj ecting to its decision that Dr. Piedra Cueva be
included on EcoMetrix’s team 126. But what is most significant about Argentina’s posture vis-à-vis
Dr. Piedra Cueva, however, is not Argentina’s protest, but its reaction after the IFC considered the
protest and decided that Dr.Piedra Cueva should remain engaged. Argentina’s reaction to the
IFC’s decision, written on 13November 2006 by its then Secretary of the Environment,
Dr.Romina Picolotti, was that Dr.Piedra Cueva and the rest of the IFC’s team are “extremely
127
qualified scientists [whose] merits have not been questioned” .
69. Mr.President, Argentina’s attempts to impugn the credibility of the IFC have been
exposed as unsustainable. The a pplicant State’s shots at it–– delivered by its most eloquent
counsel –– have missed their target. The IFC em erges from Argentina’s assault with its credibility
fully intact. In any event, Argentina’s attacks on the IFC and its independent consultants go only to
the Final Cumulative Impact Study, and the period leading up to it, and especially to the manner in
123See, e.g., CR2009/20, p.39, para.31 (Boisson de Ch azournes); CR2009/20, p.57, para.8 (Wheater). See
also IFC, Cumulative Impact Study, Uruguay Pulp Mills, Ann. D: Water Quality, Sep. 2006, CMU, Vol. VIII, Ann. 176,
p.D1.3 (establishing that Piedra Cueva was not the only person on the Final CIS team focused on hydrodynamic and
water quality modeling).
124I. Piedra Cueva, Additional Report 5 of the Botnia E nvironmental Impact Assessment, Ann.VIII, “Studies of
Plume Dispersion and Sediment Studies”, 12 Nov. 2004, CMU, Vol. VII, Ann. 164, p. 56.
125DINAMA Environmental Impact Asse ssment Report for the Botnia Plant, 11Feb2005), CMU, Vol.II,
Ann. 20, para. 4.1 (demonstrating that DINAMA based its findings on the river’s cap acity to dilute Botnia’s effluents on
“[t]he results obtained when applying the hydrodynamic m odel”); IFC, Cumulative Impact Study, Uruguay Pulp Mills,
Ann. H: Terms of Reference, Sep. 2006, CMU, Vol. VIII, Ann. 177, p. H3.9 (establishing that EcoMetrix used “Botnia’s
existing RMA2 hydrodynamic model and input files” and obtained “informatio n on the hydrodynamic model and Orion
[i.e., Botnia] effluent discharges. .. from documentation prepared by Botnia”). See also Remarks on the Argentine
Government Report on the Problem of Phosphorus, RU, Vol. II, Ann. R11, p. 2.
126Note of the Secretary of the Environment and Sust ainable Development of the Republic of Argentina,
13 Oct. 2006, MA, Vol. II, Ann. 17, para. 5.
127
Note of the Secretary of the Environment and Sust ainable Development of the Republic of Argentina,
13 Nov. 2006, MA, Vol. II, Ann. 18, para. 14. - 40 -
which the issue of reverse flow was handled, prior to and during the project approval process,
which ended in November 2006. As the Court will recall, the plant did not start operating until a
year later, in November 2007. In other word s, the only fault with the IFC’s reporting that
Argentina could manage to allege ⎯ and we have seen that there really is no fault at all ⎯
concerns the pre-approval, pre-operational period. It is significant, therefore, that Argentina has
not offered any basis for doubting the IFC, or its experts, or their credibility, or the reliability of
their reports, subsequent to the commencement of operations, addressing the issue of the Botnia
plant’s actual performance between November 2007 and December 2008, which is the last month
covered by the IFC’s reports thus far. Of cour se, Argentina disagrees with their conclusions, that
the Botnia plant has had no impact on water quality, no impact on the Uruguay river or its
ecosystem, no impact on ambient air quality, no impact on concentration levels of phosphorus,
nitrogen or any of the other effluents discharged by the plant, no violations of CARU water quality
standards, no violations of Uruguayan water quality standards, no violati ons of Botnia’s permit
requirements, no exceedances of effluent discharge limits, no harm to the environment
128
whatsoever . Argentina may disagree with the IFC and its independent experts about all of these
findings, but it has introduced no evidence ⎯ no evidence at all ⎯ other than the unsupported
opinions of its own paid consultants, to put any of the IFC’s conclusions into dispute. Argentina
may disagree with the IFC, but it has failed to suggest any reason why the Court should not give
that international organization and its specially-sel ected, expert consultant s, the special deference
they are due as experienced, knowledgeable and independent finders of fact.
70. Mr. President, Members of the Court, you all know the Court’s jurisprudence better than
I: “[E]vidence obtained [by independent persons] experienced in assessing large amounts of
factual information, some of it of a technical nature, merits special attention” (case concerning
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005 , p.201, para.61, but see generally paras.60-62). Reports of
specialized international organizations are entitled to “considerable authority” based on the “care
taken in preparing the report, its comprehensive sources and the independence of those responsible
12See, for example, EcoMetrix 3rd Report, March 2009, Uruguay’s Submission of New Documents,
30 June 2009, Ann. S7. See also CR 2009/16, pp. 17 et seq. (Boyle). - 41 -
for its preparation” (case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention And
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),
Judgment, I.C.J.Reports 2007 , pp.135-137, paras.228-230). And “evidence of a disinterested
witness ⎯ one who is not a party to the proceedings and stands to gain... nothing from its
outcome” is “regarded as prima facie of superior credibility” (case concerning Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 43, para 69).
71. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the reports of the IFC and its experts meet all of
these criteria. And they demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that there is no merit whatsoever to any of
Argentina’s claims regarding harm to the Uruguay river or its ecosystems. If you choose to believe
what the IFC and its independent consultants have concluded, then Argentina has no case. No case
at all. But even if, for the sake of argument, yo u were to choose to completely ignore the IFC and
its experts, Argentina would still have no case. As we have shown, Argentina has failed to produce
any credible evidence that the Botnia plant has harmed the Uruguay river or its water quality. The
evidence, including, as we have shown, Argentin a’s own evidence, proves that it has not. And,
therefore, all of Argentina’s claims based on allege d violations of the substantive provisions of the
1975 Statute must be rejected.
72. That concludes my speech this morning. I take this opportunity to thank you
Mr. President, and Members of the Court, for allowing me to enjoy the great honour of appearing
before you in these proceedings, not once, but several times. It has been a great privilege, and I
thank you all for your patience, courtesy and kind attention. And I want to personally thank, as
well, the world’s best interpreters.
73. I ask that you now call Uruguay’s next sp eaker, ProfessorLuigiCondorelli, who will
respond to Argentina’s second round presentation on remedies, perhaps after the coffee break.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank Mr.Reichler for his presentation and I
suspend the hearing for a 15-minute coffee break.
The Court adjourned from 11.30 to 11.45 a.m. - 42 -
Le VICE-PRESIDENT, faisant fonction de président : Veuillez vous asseoir. L’audience est
reprise et je donne la parole à M. le professeur Lu igi Condorelli. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur le
professeur.
M. CONDORELLI :
R ETOUR SUR LES REMEDES
I. NTRODUCTION
1. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président. Monsieur le président, Messieurs les juges, je
vous remercie d’avance d’avoir la patience de m’écouter une dernière fois avant les conclusions
que prononcera tout à l’heure l’agent de l’Ur uguay, l’ambassadeurGianelli, en clôture des
plaidoiries. Je suis chargé de répondre aux propos de la Partie adverse en matière de remèdes. Je
pourrai être bref puisque, lors du second tour de pl aidoiries, l’Argentine n’a introduit en substance
aucune vraie nouveauté dans le débat. L’Argentine ne bouge p as d’un iota de la position prise
auparavant (ou faut-il parler de par ti pris ?). Elle répète, elle répète , elle répète encore et toujours,
sans la moindre retenue, que, l’Uruguay ayant viol é d’après elle ses obligations prévues par le
statut, l’Argentine serait en droit d’obtenir pour l’essentiel une seule et unique chose: le
129
démantèlement de l’usine au titre de la restitutio in integrum . Aucun autre remède, y compris la
cessation et l’indemnisation, ne saurait prendre la place de l’ordre que la Cour devrait impartir à
l’Uruguay de démanteler Botnia. Il ne faut p as se leurrer, en effet: en aucun cas de figure il ne
pourrait revenir à la Cour de décider que l’usine doit être transférée ou réaffectée, comme semblent
130
le suggérer nos contradicteurs . En somme, pour l’Argentine, la seule issue possible de la
présente procédure est le démantèlement et rien de moins : ceci tant en cas de violation des seules
obligations procédurales, que des seules obligations substantielles, que des deux ensemble ; quelle
que puisse être leur gravité ; et même si de telles violations n’avaient pas le moindre effet nocif sur
l’écosystème fluvial.
129
CR2009/12, p.24, par. 27 (Ruiz Cerutti); CR2009/14,p. 21, par. 28 (Kohen) ; CR 2009/15, p. 42, par. 16
(Müller) ; CR 2009/21, p. 35, par. 42 (Sands), p. 55 et suiv., par. 5 et suiv. (Pellet).
13CR 2009/21, p. 55, par. 8 (Pellet). - 43 -
2. Monsieur le président, l’Uruguay ne peut pas ne pas remarquer à nouveau avec tristesse et
étonnement ce leitmotiv obsessif, cet acharnement à répéter inlassablement : «Delenda Carthago !»,
«Delenda Carthago !», «Carthage doit être détruite !» Il faut l’avouer, Messieurs de la Cour : un tel
acharnement apparaît à la Partie uruguayenne diffi cilement conciliable avec l’esprit d’amitié entre
les deux pays qu’a invoqué, lors de ses conclusions de mardi dernier, l’agent de l’Argentine,
131
Mme l’ambassadeur Ruiz Cerutti . Heureusement la décision de votre Cour est imminente: la
sagesse de la Cour pourra, il faut l’espérer vivement , aider à faire revenir au beau fixe les relations
entre les deux pays, actuellement troublées par cette affaire.
3. Monsieur le président, il n’est certainement pas le cas de reprendre en détail à ce stade
tardif la démonstration que j’ai eu l’honneur de présenter à la Cour au premier tour de plaidoiries
concernant les remèdes demandés par l’Argentine, qui resteraient inappropriés, inéquitables,
excessifs et radicalement disproportionnés même si , par impossible, votre Cour devait décider de
faire droit à telle ou telle conclusion de la Partie adverse concernant les violations du statut dont
l’Uruguay serait prétendument responsable. Ainsi, dans les minutes qui suivent je vais d’abord me
borner à trois remarques rapides afin de réfuter certains arguments proposés dernièrement par nos
contradicteurs, au sujet justement des remèdes dema ndés par l’Argentine. Ensuite je reviendrai un
peu plus longuement sur la demande présentée par le défendeur visant à ce que votre Cour
reconnaisse explicitement que l’Uruguay a le droit de faire poursuivre le fonctionnement de l’usine
de pâte à papier et que l’Argentine a l’obligation de respecter un tel droit.
A. Quelques commentaires au sujet des remèdes demandés par l’Argentine
4. Quant aux remarques relatives aux remèdes demandés par l’Argentine, la première est
celle-ci. La Cour se souvient certainement des propos présentés par l’Uruguay faisant valoir que la
présence dans le statut des articles42 et 43 confirme que le remède ordinaire, en cas de violation
132
des obligations substantielles du statut, est l’indemnisation et pas la restitution . Le
professeur Pellet s’inscrit en faux contre cet argument. Pour lui, ces dispositions n’auraient rien à
voir avec la responsabilité internationale des Etats pour fait illicite. L’article 43 ⎯ affirme-t-il ⎯
131
CR 2009/21, p. 67, par. 24 (Ruiz Cerutti).
132CR 2009/19, p. 53, par. 22 (Condorelli). - 44 -
«concerne clairement non pas les relations entre les deux Etats, mais les conséquences des
133
infractions commises par les utilisateurs et rele vant de la juridiction respective des parties» .
Cependant, ce propos n’est pas du tout convaincant. Il suffit de lire avec attention l’article cité
pour se rendre compte qu’il en va tout autrement. Certes, il est indéniable qu’il y est question des
infractions commises par les utilisateurs, mais pas seulement: il y est écrit en toutes lettres que
l’exercice de la juridiction de la part de l’un des deux Etats à l’égard de «toute infraction en matière
de pollution» ne préjuge d’aucune façon le droit de l’autre partie «à être indemnisée des dommages
qu’elle a également subis par suite de cette infractio n». Ce droit de chaque Etat à être indemnisé
lors de comportements illicites attribuables à l’au tre partie doit naturellement être entendu à la
lumière du principe inscrit à l’article 42, qui envisage clairement une responsabilité d’Etat à Etat.
5. J’en viens à ma deuxième remarque. Elle concerne l’usage abusif que tente de faire le
demandeur de l’ordonnance de votre Cour du 13 juillet 2006 relative à la demande de l’Argentine
en indication de mesures provisoires, s’agissant de di scuter la question de savoir si le remède de la
restitution est en l’espèce disproportionné ou pas. Mardi dernier, en effet, le professeur Pellet a
repris encore la thèse inédite qu’il avait déjà exposée lors du premier tour de plaidoiries, d’après
laquelle l’évaluation du caractère proportionné ou non de la restitution ne devrait pas se faire au
présent, mais en se rapportant à une sorte de «dat e critique» qui serait, au plus tard, celle de
l’ordonnance de votre Cour que je viens de citer. Pour essayer de rendre plus crédible une thèse
qu’il n’a appuyée sur aucun élément de la pratique internationale (sans doute parce qu’il n’en existe
pas), le professeurPellet fait valoir maintenant que l’Uruguay se trouverait soumis à une sorte
d’estoppel qui découlerait de la position qu’il avait prise lors de la procédure relative aux mesures
provisoires. D’après mon éminent contradicteur et cher ami, l’Uruguay «s’est engagé alors à se
134
conformer à un ordre de démantèlement ou de cessation d’activité» . Il s’ensuivrait alors que «de
bonne foi, l’Uruguay ne peut aujourd’hui se dédire et soumettre la Cour (et le demandeur) au
135
chantage du «dommage colossal»» : l’idée est que le prix de la restitutio in integrum peut être
devenu colossal aujourd’hui, alors qu’il ne l’était sans doute pas en 2006.
133CR 2009/21, p. 52, par. 4 (Pellet).
134
CR 2009/21, p. 55, par. 7 (Pellet).
135CR 2009/21, p. 55, par. 7 (Pellet). - 45 -
6. Cette théorie est très imaginative, mais elle n’a aucun fondement. Il est vrai, en effet, que
dans l’ordonnance du 13juillet2006 la Cour a dit qu’elle ne pouvait pas exclure d’avance la
136
possibilité d’un jugement final ordonnant que l’usine doit être éliminée ou modifiée . Il est vrai
aussi que l’Uruguay a reconnu à la Cour le pouvo ir de prescrire de telles mesures, en acceptant
l’idée que le démantèlement de l’usine pourrait repr ésenter dans certains cas extrêmes le remède
approprié, mais ceci seulement face à d’éventuels faits illicites d’une exceptionnelle gravité: à
savoir, si par impossible la Cour devait constater qu’il s’agit là de la seule option envisageable aux
fins de la protection de l’environnement du fleuve Uruguay, la construction et le fonctionnement de
l’ouvrage en question étant radicalement incompatibles avec les obligations substantielles
prescrites par le statut. L’Uruguay, cependant, n’a jamais accepté de considérer le démantèlement
de l’ouvrage comme un remède approprié et proportionné qui serait applicable dans tous les cas de
violations du statut, en particulier face à la violation d’obligations procédurales.
7. La troisième remarque, elle concerne le rapport qui devrait subsister, d’après l’Argentine,
entre le remède de la restitution et l’indemnisation. On sait que le demandeur accorde la primauté
absolue, sinon l’exclusivité, à la restitution, ce lle-ci devant comporter nécessairement, à son avis,
l’annulation des autorisations de construire les usines et toutes les installations c
onnexes, ainsi que
leur démantèlement 137. L’Argentine fait cependant valoir qu’elle aurait droit aussi à
l’indemnisation, mais elle accorde à celle-ci un rô le pouvant être qualifié d’ancillaire: en effet,
l’indemnisation n’est pas envisagée en tant qu’alternative possible à la restitution, mais elle est
demandée exclusivement en tant qu’accessoire, afin de compléter la réparation due. Lors des
plaidoiries le professeur Pellet a indiqué que le demandeur maintient cette thèse qui figure dans les
138
conclusions de la République argentine présentées par son agent mardi dernier .
8. Une telle manière de concevoir les remède s auxquels l’Argentine soutient d’avoir droit
mérite d’être prise attentivement en considéra tion par votre Cour. L’Uruguay demande à la Cour
de noter que le demandeur refuse ouvertement l’idée que l’indemnisation puisse lui être accordée à
la place et en substitution de la restitution, puisque d’après lui « [s]eul le démantèlement de l’usine
136
Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance
du 13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 133, par. 78.
137
Mémoire de l’Argentine (MA), par. 8.23-8.24 ; réplique de l’Argentine (RA), par. 5.3.
138CR 2009/15, p. 53, par. 20 (Pellet) ; CR 2009/21, p. 55, par. 9 (Pellet). - 46 -
139
et de ses installations connexes…est de nature à rétablir le statu quo ante» . Il s’ensuit alors,
dans cette logique, que si par impossible la Cour devait décider que l’Uruguay a violé ses
engagements internationaux prévus par le statut, mais elle devait refuser d’accorder à l’Argentine le
remède principal qu’elle dema nde, du même coup le remède an cillaire de l’indemnisation
tomberait avec, puisque d’après le demandeur l’ indemnisation ne saurait avoir un but autre que
celui de servir en tant que complément de la restitution.
9. Monsieur le président, j’en ai terminé avec les commentaires portant sur les remèdes
demandés par l’Argentine. Des commentaires à qualifier encore une fois ⎯vous l’avez bien
compris ⎯ comme purement académiques et subsidiaires, puisque l’Uruguay est convaincu que la
Cour ne pourra que rejeter toutes les demandes dont la Partie adverse l’a saisie.
B. La reconnaissance par la Cour des droits de l’Uruguay
10. J’en viens donc tout à fait logiquement à la requête présentée par le défendeur visant à ce
que votre Cour ne se borne pas à rejeter les demandes présentées par l’Argentine, mais qu’en sus
elle déclare explicitement que l’Uruguay a le droit, conformément au statut de1975, de maintenir
en fonctionnement l’usine Botnia et que l’Argentine a l’obligation de ne pas entraver la jouissance
d’un tel droit. L’Uruguay est convaincu, en effet, qu’en tirant au clair de façon absolument nette
quels sont les droits de l’Uruguay et les obliga tions de l’Argentine, la Cour pourrait contribuer
remarquablement au règlement du différend en él iminant tout doute risquant de le prolonger à
l’avenir. L’importance que l’Uruguay accorde à un e telle déclaration a été abondamment illustrée
dans la duplique du défendeur ainsi que dans l’une des plaidoiries de M eReichler de la semaine
140
dernière . S’il apparaît nécessaire de revenir maintenant sur ce thème, c’est surtout pour répondre
à l’objection formulée par le professeurPellet, qui a allégué que la demande de l’Uruguay serait
«irrecevable aux termes de l’article80 du Rè glement», puisqu’elle constituerait en fait une
«demande reconventionnelle déguisée» 14.
11. Dans l’ordonnance du 17décembre1997 en l’affaire relative à l’ Application de la
convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide, votre Cour a dit
139
MA, par. 8.24 ; les italiques sont de moi.
140
Duplique de l’Uruguay (DU), p. 401-406, par. 7.30-7.40 et CR 2009/19, p. 42, par. 23 (Reichler).
141CR 2009/21, p. 57, par. 12 (Pellet). - 47 -
«qu’une demande reconventionnelle présente, au regard de la demande de la partie
adverse, un double caractère; qu’elle en est indépendante dans la mesure où elle
constitue une «demande» distincte, c’est-à-dire un acte juridique autonome ayant pour
objet de soumettre une prétention nouvelle au juge, et, qu’en même temps, elle s’y
rattache, dans la mesure où, formulée à titre «reconventionnel», elle riposte à la
demande principale; que le propre d’ une demande reconventionnelle est ainsi
d’élargir l’objet initial du litige en poursuivant des avantages autres que le simple rejet
de la prétention du demandeur» (Application de la convention pour la prévention et la
répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie- Herzégovine c.Yougoslavie), demandes
reconventionnelles, ordonnance du 17 décembre 1997, C.I.J. Recueil 1997, p.256,
par. 27).
12. Grâce à cet enseignement de votre haute juridiction, il est aisé de mettre en évidence que
la demande de l’Uruguay n’a nullement le caractère d’une demande reconventionnelle : il est clair,
en effet, qu’en priant la Cour de déclarer que l’Uruguay a le droit de continuer l’exploitation de
l’usine Botnia le défendeur n’introduit aucune demande «distincte» par rapport à la demande
introduite par l’Argentine, par laquelle le demande ur conteste justement le droit de l’Uruguay, en
arguant que la construction et le maintien en f onction de Botnia constitueraient des violations du
statut. Encore moins par sa demande l’Uruguay tente «d’élargir l’objet initial du litige» en
présentant une «prétention nouvelle» et «autonome». Bien au contraire, le droit dont l’Uruguay
demande la reconnaissance est déjà soumis à la Cour dans la présente affaire : il est même au cŒur
du différend que votre Cour est appelée à régler suite à la requête de l’Argentine.
13. Il convient de rappeler encore une fois ce que votre Cour a souligné avec une clarté
exemplaire dans son ordonnance du 23janvier20 07 relative à la demande de l’Uruguay en
indication de mesures provisoires. La Cour y a reconnu que «tout droit que peut avoir l’Uruguay
de poursuivre la construction de l’usine Botnia et de mettre celle-ci en service, conformément aux
dispositions du statut de1975, en attendant une décision définitive de la Cour, constitue
effectivement un droit invoqué en l’espèce» ( Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay
(Argentine Uc.ruguay), mesures conser vatoires, ordonnance du 2 j3nvie007,
C.I.J. Recueil 2007, p.10-11, par.29); et la Cour d’ajouter:«les droits que l’Uruguay invoque
dans sa demande, et qu’il cherche à protéger aux termes de celle-ci … possèdent un lien suffisant,
aux fins de la présente procédur e, avec le fond de l’affaire» ( ibid., p.11, par.30). En somme,
contrairement à ce que prétendent nos contradicteurs, l’Uruguay ne présente pas une demande
«nouvelle» et «distincte» par rapport à celle de l’Ar gentine, il ne joue aucunement le jeu de
l’élargissement de l’objet du différend: br ef, il n’y a en l’espèce aucune demande - 48 -
reconventionnelle, déguisée ou pas déguisée. L’obj ection avancée par la Partie adverse ne saurait
donc être retenue par la Cour.
14. Monsieur le président, l’Uruguay est bi en conscient que, depuis le dépôt de sa duplique,
votre Cour a eu l’occasion de se pencher sur une demande similaire présentée par le défendeur dans
une autre affaire ; et l’on sait que la Cour a rejeté une telle demande en considérant, en particulier,
que les motifs de l’arrêt par lequel les prétentions du demandeur avaient été repoussées suffisaient
en principe pour identifier avec précision les oblig ations de celui-ci et les droits du défendeur,
s’agissant de questions qui avaient été «soulevées … et débattues entre les Parties tout au long de la
procédure» ( Différend relatif à des droits de navigatio n et des droits connexes (CostaRica
c. Nicaragua), arrêt du 13juillet2009, par.154). La sag esse dont cet enseignement est empreint
est évidente. Toutefois, le cas présent se caractérise à ce sujet par des particularités qui suggèrent
⎯ de l’avis de l’Uruguay ⎯ une approche sensiblement différente.
15. Dans notre cas, en effet, les dangers de prolongement de la controverse au-delà de
l’imminente décision de la Cour risquent de dépendre spécialement d’attitudes argentines que le
défendeur n’a pas cessé de dénoncer, y compris devant votrehaute juridiction. Votre Cour ne
saurait ignorer ce qui est notoire, à savoir qu’en Argentine certains milieux manifestent une attitude
ouvertement hostile à l’égard de la grande initia tive industrielle relative à l’exploitation des
ressources naturelles de l’Uruguay qui est au cŒur du présent différend. Et on sait bien aussi qu’il
existe, du côté argentin, une attitude de soutien, ou tout au moins de tolérance bien évidente, en
faveur du segment de l’opinion publique arge ntine manifestant davantage d’opposition active à
l’encontre de l’initiative uruguayenne en question, y compris par des moyens manifestement
illégaux, tel le blocage de ponts internationaux enja mbant le fleuve Uruguay et reliant le territoire
uruguayen au territoire argentin. Le risque que les attitudes dénoncées survivent après le règlement
du différend par votre Cour est sérieux et ne saurait être sous-évalué: nombreux sont d’ailleurs,
malheureusement, les indices présageant de cette persistance : ainsi, par exemple, les manifestants
qui bloquent depuis des années, et encore mainte nant, le pont GeneralSan Martín proclament
142
publiquement qu’ils continueront leur «lu tte» contre Botnia quel que sera votre arrêt . Dans ces
142«Argentine Pulp Mill Protestors Promise to «Fight on» Whatever the Hague Ruling», Merco Press,
7 septembre 2009 (http://en.mercopress.com/2009/09/07). - 49 -
conditions, il serait précieux ⎯ si la demande introduite par l’Argentine est rejetée ⎯ que la Cour
indique au demandeur de façon explicite qu’il a l’ obligation de ne pas entraver la jouissance du
droit que votre Cour aura reconnu à l’Uruguay et que, dans ce but, le demandeur doit prendre
toutes les mesures nécessaires pour éviter qu’une telle jouissance ne soit gênée par des obstacles
qu’il est dans son pouvoir d’éliminer.
16. Monsieur le président, du déroulement de la phase orale de la présente procédure
l’Uruguay n’a malheureusement pas pu dégager des i ndications lui permettant de se sentir rassuré
par rapport à la préoccupation que le différend que votre Cour est appelée à régler puisse se
prolonger au-delà de votre imminente décision. D’une part, du côté du demandeur n’est venu le
moindre mot assurant à la Cour et à l’Uruguay que, si la demande de l’Argentine est rejetée et le
droit de l’Uruguay de continuer à maintenir en activité Botnia est reconnu, l’Argentine respectera
scrupuleusement ce droit et prendra toutes les dispositions en son pouvoir afin d’éviter des entraves
à son exercice.
D’autre part, votre Cour a pu entendre l’agent de l’Argentine déclarer mardi dernier que ce qu’elle
appelle la «réaction» des manifestants auteurs des blocages de ponts internationaux «n’est que la
143
conséquence de l’installation de l’usine sur la rive gauche du fleuve Uruguay» ; ce qui semble
justifier la prévision que, si votre Cour refu se d’ordonner le démantèlement de Botnia, la
«réaction» continuera comme les manifestants le pr omettent haut et fort, et, avec elle, continuera
aussi le refus bienveillant des autorités argentin es de prendre des mesures adéquates pour y mettre
un terme. Ne s’agit-il pas de raisons supplémentair es qui devraient amener votre Cour à faire droit
à la demande de l’Uruguay à ce sujet, telle qu’elle sera articulée dans un instant par l’agent de
l’Uruguay ?
C. Conclusion
17. Mais il est grand temps maintenant que l’ag ent de la République orientale de l’Uruguay,
l’ambassadeurGianelli, vienne présenter à la Cour les conclusions du défendeur. Il ne me reste
quant à moi qu’à dire combien je me sens honoré d’ avoir pu comparaître encore une fois dans ce
143
CR 2009/21, p. 67, par. 25 (Ruiz Cerutti). - 50 -
prétoire, et combien je suis reconnaissant del’attention que vous avez bien voulu me réserver.
Monsieur le président, Messieurs les juges, je vous remercie beaucoup.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Je remercie Monsieur le professeurCondorelli,
and I give the floor to His Excellency Ambassador Carlos Gianelli for his concluding remarks and
final submissions. You have the floor, Sir.
GMIr.NELLI:
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND SUBMISSIONS
1. Mr.President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honour and a privilege to
address you once again, this time to close not only Uruguay’s second round, but also the oral
proceedings in this case.
2. We are a long way from the early days of June 2006 when we all first appeared before you
on Argentina’s request for the indication of provisi onal measures. Then, and at all times since,
Uruguay has been truly overwhelmed by the commitm ent to justice the Court has displayed. I
know I speak for all our delegation when I express my gratitude to you, Mr.President, to the
Members of the Court, to the Registrar and Madam Deputy-Registrar including their remarkable
staff, to the interpreters, and to each and every one who works here.
3. Mr. President, when I first stood before you ten days ago, I spoke of the sadness that I and
all Uruguayans felt at finding ourselves here onfronting a neighbour with whom we share an
unbreakable bond, which is not based only in economic and commercial ties but also in a strong
historical, social and cultural relationship. Alt hough that sadness remains palpable, our dominant
emotions today are relief and pride. We are relieved that this terrible knot our relationship with
Argentina is now, finally, after three years, on th e verge of being cut. We have confidence that
when the Court issues its judgment, it will be a just and equitable one.
4. We are proud of our team, Uruguayans and non-Uruguayans, great advocates and experts,
which has demonstrated its unflagging commitment not only to this case, but also to the Court and
the rules by which proceedings before it are conducted. - 51 -
5. We are also proud to have had this opportunity to prove to the Court, and to the world, our
commitment to sustainable development, both of the Uruguay river and our country as a whole.
6. Mr. President, it is a remarkable thing that a small developing country like ours has made
the protection of the environment such a high priori ty, and that it has insist ed that Botnia employ
only the most modern methods and technologies in it s plant. Uruguay has permanently insisted on
it. It could not be otherwise. The protection of the environment has constitutional status in
Uruguay and the principle of sustainable development is also incorporated in our law, which states
that it is the fundamental duty of the State, and public entities in general, to promote a model of
environmentally sustainable development, protect the environment, and were it to be damaged,
recover it or demand that it be repaired.
7. Mr.President, Members of the Court, the manner in which Uruguay has managed the
implementation of the Botnia plant not only compor ts with our domestic laws, it is also entirely
consistent with our obligations under the 1975Stat ute of the River Uruguay. As I promised they
would in my opening speech, Uruguay’s counsel ha ve now presented the Court with a substantial
volume of evidence, much of it from Argentine official sources, that proves, beyond the shadow of
a doubt, that Uruguay has met all of its obligations under the Statute.
8. With respect to the environmental i ssues you have just heard about again from
Mr.Reichler, it is absolutely clear that the Botnia plant has caused no pollution of the Uruguay
river, nor has it caused any effects on the ecosystem of the river as a whole. Even with the partial
reverse flows we all have now heard so much a bout, the assimilative capacity of the Uruguay river
is considerable. It can easily handle the modest amount of effluents Botnia discharges. We are
talking about the twenty-fifth largest river in the world, not the babbling stream Argentina has
portrayed.
9. These conclusions are not Uruguay’s alone . They are shared by the one and only
independent voice to be heard in these proceedings , that is the IFC and the independent experts
retained at its direction. This report has been endorsed by the Board of Executive Directors of the
World Bank in November 2006, when it approved the lo an to finance the Botnia project by all its
members, with the sole exception of Argentina’s Executive Director. - 52 -
10. Argentina’s entire environmental case is built around the alleged contribution of the
Botnia plant to a single, one-day algal bloom, in Fe bruary 2009, that apparently did not even cause
any measurable harm. Yet, as Uruguay has now c onclusively shown, there is absolutely no
scientific basis on which to conclude that Botnia cau sed, or even contributed to the bloom. As this
claim falls, so too does the entirety of Argentina’s environmental case.
11. With respect to the procedural issues, th e evidence is equally clear. Even setting aside
the very real and substantial evidence showing that Argentina long ago agreed that the Botnia plant
could and would be built, the indisputable fact remains that Argentina was consulted at great length
and provided a tremendous amount of information about the plant before construction activities
were begun. Uruguay’s negotiations in the GTAN process show its willingness to participate in the
resolution of the dispute, and Argentina’s refu sal to articulate clearly its environmental and
technical concerns suggests that other considerations motivated its actions.
12. Neither Uruguay nor Argentina is obligated to achieve agreement prior to authorizing
constructions of a project on the river. The no tice and consultation mechanism in the Statute does
not require prior approval for a project to go forward. Actually, this would be giving a veto right to
the other party which would give them an easy opportunity to obtain benefits as the price of
consent.
13. Mr.President, Uruguay’s main conclusion in these hearings is that Argentina may not
have a case, but it does have a target. That target is the Botnia plant. It will not have escaped the
Court’s notice that all of Argentina’s arguments are designed to support just a single contention:
the plant must be dismantled. Nothing else w ill be sufficient as ProfessorCondorelli has just
explained very clearly.
14. In 2006 Argentina requested His Majesty the King of Spain to lead a facilitation process,
which of course Uruguay accepted. But this proce ss did not succeed for the very same reason:
Argentina’s only concern was the plant’s relocation, even though there were other important issues
to consider.
15. Mr.President, Members of the Court, by itself, this extreme position shows that
Argentina’s agenda is less about protecting the environment, or ensuring the integrity of the
Statute, than it is about to deny Uruguay’s right to make an equitable use of the river. We know - 53 -
that Argentina has over 100 industrial enterpri ses on or near the Uruguay river, pouring thousands
of tons of phosphorus each year to the river, so contrary to what Argentina stated, pollution is
linked not to the size of the plant, but to the technology used.
16. In the spirit of rekindling the co-operati on that always characterized our relationship
before 2006, Uruguay reiterates the offer it has now made too many times to count to resume the
joint monitoring of the Uruguay river with Argentina. Although perhaps it is true that co-operation
between our two countries is generally close, the monitoring of the river remains a glaring and
wholly unnecessary exception.
17. Argentina’s persistent refusal to participate in joint monitoring is inexplicable, not to
mention inconsistent with its commitments in CARU . It is even harder to understand given that,
for a tiny fraction of the resources it has devoted to this case, it could easily have supported its
share of a comprehensive monitoring programme a nd at the same time taken concrete steps to
address its own nutrient discharges into the river. This is exactly what Uruguay has done, even as
it has been saddled with the entirely counterpr oductive costs associated with defending this
senseless case.
18. Besides, it is obvious that the existence of a pending dispute before this Court does not
release the Parties from complying with the obl igation to protect and conserve the aquatic
environment and to provide comprehensive protections to the river, established in the Uruguay
River Statute.
19. The resumption of joint monitoring would not only be a powerful demonstration of our
countries’ respect for the principle of good neighbourliness and international co-operation, it would
also directly help to ensure that the river rema ins a vital and viable resource for the sustainable
development of both our countries. In addition to these obvious virtues, the results of the joint
monitoring Uruguay proposes would also, by definition, be undisputed and would assist the Parties
in addressing whatever real issues, if any, there might be that require addressing.
20. Mr.President, Members of the Court, Uruguay confidently places itself in the hands of
this very distinguished institution. Of all count ries in the world, Uruguay has the oldest optional
clause declaration still in force, first submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice in
1921. We have never wavered in our trust in, and respect for, th is Court’s judgment. As our - 54 -
distinguished first Agent, ProfessorGrosEspiell, assured the Court at our very first session in
June 2006, Uruguay will fully comply with whatever judgment the Court may, in its great wisdom,
render. On behalf of the Government of Uruguay, I reiterate that commitment today.
SUBMISSIONS OF URUGUAY
21. Finally, Mr.President, on the basis of the facts and arguments set out in Uruguay’s
Counter-Memorial, Rejoinder and during the oral proceedings, Uruguay requests that the Court
adjudge and declare that the claims of Argentin a are rejected, and Uruguay’s right to continue
operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute is affirmed.
22. Mr.President, Members of the Court, thank you for your kind and patient attention.
Uruguay’s oral pleadings are now ended.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Th ank you, AmbassadorGianelli. The Court
takes note of the final submissions which you have just read on behalf of the Eastern Republic of
Uruguay, as it took note of the final submissions of the Republic of Argentina on Tuesday
29 September 2009.
This brings us to the end of the three weeks of hearings devoted to the oral arguments in this
case. I should like to thank the Agents, coun sel and advocates of the two Parties for their
statements during these past three weeks. In accordance with the usual practice I shall request both
Agents to remain at the Court’s disposal to provide any additional information the Court may
require.
With this proviso, I now declare closed the oral proceedings in the case concerning Pulp
Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay). The Court will now retire for deliberation.
The Agents of the Parties will be advised in due course as to the date on which the Court will
deliver its judgment.
As the Court has no other business before it today, the sitting is now closed.
The Court rose at 12.25 p.m.
___________
Audience publique tenue le vendredi 2 octobre 2009, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l'affaire relative à des Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay)