---------
CORRESPONDANCE
CORRESPONDENCE ;'
' . -,-_.
STATE OF BAHRAIN
His Exccllency Stephen M. Schwebel 25 Septembcr 1997
President
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Mr President,
l have the honour to convey to you, and through you to the members of the
Court for urgent consideration, certain surprising and deeply conceming developments,
which are unprecedented in the history of the Court and of which it is approprîate that
the Court should be aware at the earliest possible opportunity.
The Facts
1. When examining Qatar's Memorial, Bahrain was puzzled by the appearance in
its Annexes of 81 documents of which Bahrain bad no prior knowledge. The 81
documents play an essential role in Qatar's Memorial, serving as almost the only basis
for Qatar'sclairn to the Hawar Islands as weil as, toa lesser degree, the Zubarah region.
They are cîted in no Iess than 100 footnotes in Qatar's Memorial.
2. Qatar has never before invoked any of these documents, whether in the course of
the arbitration conducted by Britain in 1938-39, in the half century following Britain's
award in favour of Bahrain, during the Saudi mediation in the 1980s, or in any
discussion or negotiation between the two States. Not a single one was known to the
historians or other experts consulted by Bahrain prier to their emergence on
30 September 1996. None has apparently ever before been reproduced or discussed în
scholarly writings. None is located in a public archive where itwou!d norrnally be
expected to be found. The whole set of 81 Annexes is said to be reproduced from
originals in the Qatar Diwan Amiri Archives.l
3. Bahrain soon noted a number of anomalies in these documents, sufficiently
g!aring to raise doubts regarding their authenticity. However, Bahrain could not
responsibly have expressed these initial doubts until they were thoroughly investigated
and positively confirmed. Bahrain bas therefore had to conduct an extensive
investigation of public historical archives and academie sources, and to consult with
qualified historians, archivists and forensic document exami.ners in severa! countries.
For example, one single document submitted by Qatar (111.46)required research by
different specialists în Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Bonn, fstanbul, London, Paris and
Washington. This expert scrutiny of so many documents has necessarily taken several
months.
4. Bahrain's investigation has led to the compelling conclusion that ali of the 81
documents are forgeries -- a conclusion which Bahrain brings to the Court's attention
for such action as the Court may deem appropriate.
5. This conclusion is based on concrete and comprehensive evidence provided by
12 experts in the relevant areas of historical scholarship and forensic analysis of
documents as well as on thorough and extensive research in eight countries on four
1
continents.
6. The falsity of the documents is manifested, inter alia, in glaring historical
inaccuracies and anachronisms. For example: in several instances the alleged author or
recipient of a letter was dead on the date the document was allegedly sent; supposedly
official seals on documents have no connection with the document they purport to
authenticate; severa! seals bear dates more than a decade removed from·the putative date
of the document; the same seals appear on documents from entire!y unrelated sources;
certain categories of documents (e.g. correspondence between Ottoman officiais) are in
the wrong language; and letters have been written to officiais who never existed or who
did not occupy the position attributed to them at the relevant time. Expert handwriting
analysis and an examination of the ink and paper on which the Qatari documents have
1
been prepàred add further confirmation of their fraudulent nature. Moreover, the 81
1 It is particularly striking that the facts Bahrain is now puttîng before the Court should
have been anticipatedincomments made as long ago as 1980 by Dr, J.B. Kelly, an expert
on whom Qatar itself relies at paragraph 5.20 of its Memorial with respect to the region's
history, atpage 192 of his book Arabia. the Gulf and the West:
"... the Qataris have of Iate been equipping themse1ves wîth a history and an
indigenous culture, bath of noble proportions. The showpîece of this particular
enterprise isa 'nationalmuseum',housed inthe former (c.1920) palace of therulerin
Dauhah [Doba]. Large!y an inspiration of a public relations firin London, the
museum bas been equipped and adomed at a cost of severa! millions, despite - or
-2-documents in question are aU claimed by Qatar to have their source in its own Diwan
Arniri Archives, notwithstanding that in most cases neither the purported author nor the
purported addressee was ever located in Qatar. They are the type of correspondence that
one would expect to be part of public records in London, India, Istanbul or Abu Dhabi,
but no trace of them can be found there.
7. Given the results of its preliminary investigations, Bahrain sought to examine the
so-called originals. But this required that they be produccd by Qatar. By request filed
with the Court on 29 May 1997, Bahrain asked thal the documents be delivered to The
Hague by 1 July 1997 so as to cause the least disruption to the progress of the case.
However, Qatar delayed that deiivery by a series of letters in which it purported to lay
down conditions for the production of the documents; suggcsted that the Registry
convene a meeting with the Parties; and indced asked Bahrain to clarify what it meant by
asking to ''examine" the documents (although Bahrain had already written that it
accepted controls by the Court's personnel to ensure that its inspection be
non-destructive). On 17 July 1997, the Reglstrar of the Court wrote to the Parties,
expressing the view of the Vice-President to the effect thal the documents should be
made available at Qatar's earliest convenience. Even so, it was not until29 August 1997
(i.e• three months after Bahrain's request) that a first instalrnent of the documents was
delivered to the Court. Even then, Qatar withheld without explanation seven documents
2
which it promised to deliver later. Bahrain's experts immediately (beginning on
Monday 1 September 1997) proceeded to examine the documents provided.
8. The examination conducted at the Peace Palace has allowed Bahrain's conviction
about the 81 forgeries to grow into absolute certainty.
perhaps because of - the fundamentallimitationof having very little to put into it ...
ITJhemuseum bas had to attach profoundsignificanceto fishing nets, Bedouin tents.
camelhaltersand saddles in ilsre-creation of tbeQatari past. lt is not the fault of the
Qataristhat they have no history. nor can itbe held against themthat they would like
to inventone ... Whatisobjectionableaboutthesepub!içrelatlonsexercises on behalf
of the Qatari regimeisthat they involvethe falsificationof the historical record over
the vast two centuries. notably conceming the nature and length of Bahrain's
connectionwith Qatar. the relatlonshipbetweenthe AI-Thani and the Onoman Turks
..."(emphasis added)
2 One furtherdocumentwas madeavailableforBahrainto examineon 12 September1997.
but at thedateof this letterthe remainderhavenotbeen delivered.
-3- 1
~
)
Scale and Scope of the Forgeries
1
9. In its attempt to fashion a case against Bahrain's long-established title to the
' Hawar Islands and to legitimise Qatar's anned invasion of the Zubarah region, Qatar's
' Memorial relîcs almost exclusively on the 81 Annexes said to have been reproduced
~ from documents in Qatar's own Diwan Amiri Archives.
~
10. In informing the Court of the scale and scope of the forgeries, Bahrain does not
i invite the Court to anticipa te or enter into a consideration of the merits of the case. The
~ grave matter of the forgeries is distinct and severable However, theits.
~ forged documents are designed to distort each of the three aspects of the case: the
question of sovereignty over the Hawar Islands; the question of sovereignty over the
y
Zubarah region; and the delimitationaritime boundary between the two States.
~ The 81 documents relied on by Qatar were direcicd to the first two of these issues. But
~ since key parts of the maritime delimitation are dependent on the outcome of the first
two issues, the third issue is also profoundly affected.
~
~ 11. The specifie propositions in support of which the fraululent documents have been
invokedareafollows:
~
~ (1) Sir Charles Belgrave, acting in the interestas the Adviser to the Emir,
engaged in a criminal conspiracy with British officiais to tamper wîth evidence
., relatlngo the Hawar Islands and to Zubarah, leading to Britain's 1939 award in
., Bahrain's favour;
.,
(2) prior to that conspîracy, Qatar had engaged in actsnthe disputed
~ territories; and,
~ (3) prior to the 1939 award, a number of Rulers and officials, as well as Britain and
~ the Ottoman Empire, had recognised that the Hawar Islands and the Zubarah
region were partatar.
!;
!; 12. The documents may be listede following categories:
!;
• Seventeen letters purportedly from Sir Charles Belgrave, Adviser to the
Bahrain Govemrnent, and ether Adviserate staff, cited to establish, inter aHa:
~
~ that Belgrave recognised that the Hawar Islands belonged to Qatar; that
Belgrave tried in vain to secure regional support for Bahrain's daims to the
~
Hawar Islands; that Belgrave engaged in Iengthy machinations to fabricate
~ false evidence to establish ato the Hawar Islands, using bribery,
~ coercion and threats; that Belgrave was the ringleader of a widespread
~
-4-
~) .
)
)
conspiracy, which învolved Hugh Weightman, the British Politîca! Agent in
Bahrain; and that Belgrave and other Adviserate staff were involved in a
scheme to manufacture evidence establishing a Bahraini daim to the Zubarah
region;
• Nineteen lctters and maps purportedly from Ottoman officiais, cited by Qatar
to establish, inter alia: that the Ottomans recognised that the Hawar Islands,
Janan and Zubarah belonged to Qatar; and that this was acknowledged by
Britain, ether Great Powcrs and Sheikh Zayed bin Khalifa, the Ruler of Abu
Dhabi;
• Fourteen Ietters from regional Rulers, including 11 from the Ru1ers of Abu
Dhabi or persons ac6ng for them, one from the Ruler of Dubai and one from
the King of Saudî Arabia, cited to establish, inter a!ia: that regional Rulers
consistently recognîsed that the Hawar Islands (lncluding Janan) and Zubarah
all belonged to Qatar and that they continued to do so at the time of the British
decision awarding the Hawar Islands to Bahrain in 1939; acts of sovereignty
by Qatar in connection with the Hawar Islands; and that Bahrain stole
evidence from Qatar relevant to establishing Qatar's sovereignty over the
Hawar Islands;
• Eleven letters from various Qatari sheikhs and officiais, cited to establish,
inter alia: that Qatar was ·a well-established state with a defined territory,
borders and people before the arrivai of the Al-Khaiifa in Zubarah in the
1760s; that Qatar engaged in acts of sovereignty in the Hawar Islands and
Zubarah; that the Hawar Islands were not permanent! y popuiated by anyone,
let alone Bahraini subjects; and that Bahrain was involved in the theft of
evidence supporting Qatar's sovereignty over the Hawar Islands;
• Four Ietters from the Rulers of Bahrain, cited to show that they recognised
Qatar'ssovereignty over the Hawar Islands;
• Five letters from Salim bin Nasser al-Muzaire, allegedly a spy for Bahrain
and Belgrave, cited to prove Belgrave's wide conspiracy ring and efforts to
manufacture evidence through deceit and fraud;
• Two judgments purportediy issued by Bahraini judges, cited to establish, inter
aiia, Oatar'ssovereignty over the Hawar Islands;
• Two Ietters from Rashid bln Mohammed binJabor, headman of the Naim tribe
in Zubarah, cited as proof of Belgrave's attempts to manufacture a false daim
to Zubarah;
-5- -------~ ---
J
• Seven other letters and documents, cited by Qatar to establish, inter al@: that
the Hawar Islands belonged to Qatar; that Belgrave used deceit and coercion
in his efforts to obtain evidence establishing Bahrain's sovereignty over the
Hawar Islands; that Qatar engaged in acts of sovereignty in connection with
the Hawar Islands; and that the evidence submitted by Bahrain and relied upon
by Britain in the 1939 award was fraudulent.
Bahrain's Verification Efforts: Methods and Results to Date
13. Given the gravity of its apprehensions, Bahrain bas scrupulously checked the
suspect Qatari documents in the most comprehensive, methodical, technologically
advanced and, above ali, objective manncr possible. Bahrain's experts:
searched for the originals or copies of the documents (or collateral
references to them) in public archives and private document collections;
anaiysed the documents for intrinsic historical, substantive and other
inaccuracies and anachronisms; and
conducted handwriting and forensic examinations of the documents.
14. A document-by-document summary of the evidence Bahrain bas collected to
date is given in 81 concise Document Research Summaries. They are set out in
Appendix 1. In arder to provide an overview of the scope and impilcatîons of Bahrain's
findings, a synthesis of the resu!ts of each of the three types of verification mentioned
above is provided in the paragraphs that follow.
- searches for the Qatari documents
15. Of the 81 spurious documents from the Diwan Amiri Archives, the vast majority
consists of correspondence sent neither to nor by a person located in Qatar at the time
the letter was allegedly written or of documents that purport to be official Bahraini
documents. 4 Because the orlginals of these documents in the normal course of events
would not have been located in Qatar, Bahrain searched for the originals in all possible
locations where one might more plausibly expect to find them. Simultaneous searches
3 E.g., letterfrom Sir Charles Belgrave to the British Political AgeninSharjah; letters
from the Rulers of Abu Dhabi to the Rulers of Bahrain; and letters between Ottoman
officiaiin Hasàand Baghdad.
4 E.g.•Bahraini courtjudgments.
-6- •
t
~
were conduc(ed for copies of the suspect documents that might have been created
~
contemporaneously for administrative purposes (e.g.• carbon or handwritten copies) or
~ for other facsimiles (e.g., microfilm, photocopies) that might have been made of the
~
documentsbyone or more of the archives. Searches were made for any references to the
documents in correspondence ledgers and archivai bibliographies. In addition, a search
• was made for any reference to the suspect doth:r documenwhich might
• haveeen expectcd to corroborate their existence.
~
16. The searches were conducted over the course of almost nine months by qualified
~ researchers and archivists at twelve different public and govemment archives in seven
• countrieBahrain, England, France, Germany, Turkcy. the United Arab Emirates and
~ the United Stateits effortexhausaUpossiblsourceand means for verifying
the authenticity of the documents, Bahrain also contacted the alleged writer or addressee,
~
or surviving family members of the alleged authors, to asccrtain whether the documents
~ might perchance be found in private collections.
~ 17. Not a single trace was found of any one of the Qatari A tablets.
,
showing ali of the locations searched for the documents is included in Appendix I.
, Detailed research reports describing the search procedures, protocols and results are
provided in Appendix II.
~
~ - historical and other inconsistendes and anachronisms
~ 18. Historians specialising in Gulf and Ottoman history, as weil as other qualified
6
~ persons consulted by Bahrain, have confirmed that the documents from Qatar's Diwan
,
~ 5 They are:
~ University of Oxford and Tutorial Fellow, St Hugh's College, Oxford. Dr. Wilkinson
is a speciaînArab Gulf history and human geography and has published four
~ books and forty articles on these subjects;
~
Dr. Idris Bostan, Associateinthe Department of Modem History at
~ Marmar.a Unîve(Istanband Professor-elect in the ofHistory at
Istanbul UniveDrBostan is a specOttomannaval history and Ottoman
~ activities in Arabia innd half of the 19th Century and has published a book
and sorne 40 articles on these subjects;
~ DrCaroline Finkel, Ottoman Historian and author of two books and fifteen papers on
OttomaHistory;
~ Dr..Morsy Abdullah, Director of the Centre for Documentation and Research, the
~ Cultural Centre Abu DDr. Abdullah is a specialist in ArainGulf history,
particular the history of the Trucial States. He has published a number of books and
~ articles on the subject;
..
, -7- •
~
' Amiri Archives cannat be authentic historical documents. When first asked to examine
• the documents, none of these persons was·made aware of Bahrain's suspicions that the
~ documents were forgeries. Aftcr studying them and conducting the standard research
~
requiredy their respective disciplines, each indepconc7uded that the
~ documents he or she bad been shown could not be considerSorne of the.
more glaring substantive errors and anachronisms found in the documents are described
~ below. Further details are available in the Suspect Document Research Reports provided
~ in Appcndix I and the expert reports and statements referenced therein, whlch are
~ presented in Appendix II.
•
~
~ Dr. Henry Mattox, Adjunct Assistant Professer of History at the North Carolina State
UniversitA fonner.S. diplomat in Arabia, Dr. MaHox is a specialist in U.S.
diplomatie history in the late 191hCentury and bas published extensively on the
~ subject, including a book on the U.S. diplomatie and consular services during the
1890s.
~ Dr. Richard SchofDeputy Director of the Geopoand lntematlonal
~ thechool of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London. at
Mr. Schofield is a specialist in the geography and history of Arab Gulf boundary
j matters and bas published four books, six compendia of archiva! source materials, and
nwnerous articles on the subject;
if DrJean-Marc Thouvenin,Maitre des Conférencesat the University of Maine (Paris)
and the Instltute of Polïtical lnaddition to his academDr.duties,
• Thouvepin has extensive experience in the archives of the French Foreign Ministry in
relation to his professional activities in the field of public international law;
• Dr. Peter Grupp, archivist in the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
~ Germany.
9
6 The following persons have provided additional evidence relevant to estab!ishing the
~ historicai inauthenticity of the Qatari documents:
9 Mr.Sayed Abdel Aziz Sayed Yousuf, the Head of the Records and Documents
Section, Bahrain Ministrynet Affairs and Information, who for 46 years has
governmental archives;anaging. sortlng and studyiinBahrain'ss
•
9 Mr. Yousuf Al-Shirawi, the purported author of one of the suspect documents;
9 Mr. RashAR. Al-Zayani, who was employed as a typist and office administrator in
the Bahrain Govemment Adviserate during the period when 11 of the 19 suspect
letters were allegedly sent from the Adviserate.
• Mr. Adil Algosaibi. a son of the purported author of two of the suspect documents .
•
, 7 Memorial, Ors. Bostan,, Schofield and Wilkinson aiso came to the Peace Palace toar's
examine theginais of the 74 documents that Qatar deposited on 29 August 1997.
•
•
-8-
'•
•
•
• Five of the discredlted Qatari documents consist of correspondence either sent
• byorto a person who was long-dead at the purported date of the Ietter.
•
• A 1937 letter purportedly from one of the staff members of the Babrain
• Govemment Adviserate wasliegedly written when the author would have
~ been only 10 years oid. The aUeged author is still alive and has declared that
i he did not write the letter in 1937 (or at any other time) and that he did not
9
.. join the Adviserate until 1955, a fact confirmed by Adviserate records.
• Fourteen documents allcgedly wbyhigh-ranking Ottoman officiais and
•
.. intcnded for the use of other high-ranking Ottoman officiais, which should
have been written in Osmanlica (Ottoman Turkish), are ail written in Arabie .
•
• Five of the aHeged Ottoman documents purport to record highly important
• agreementsithrepresentatives of Western powers, or territorial descriptions
and boundary delimitatonnmaps assentetoby them,0but not one of
• these purported "internatagreements" displays any of the expected
• fom1al characteristicsnuine Ottoman treaties and agreAlthough
• historical records abundantlynn that the Ottoman Empire's official
.. diplomatie language French, the documents presented by Qatar are ali in
~ Arabie.Sorne documents use the wrong term to designate the Ottoman
Empire;sorne use the wrong term to designate the WesternMoster.
ii importantly, nonethem appears ever to have been mentioned in historical
..
recordsrto have Jeft a trace in the relevant Ottoman or Western diplomatie
ii archives.
.. • Twelve of the discredited Qatari documents are purportbylor totten
ii theOttoman "Vali of Hasa.No such official ever existed in the Ottoman
~
~ 8 See Suspect Document Research Reports III.71, III.167,III.194, III.201, and 111.215.
9 See Suspect Document Research Report Ill.117. A second Iet!er refers to the alleged
ii authorf 111.117directlyby name and is cited in support of the same set of facts as those
ii describednIII.117This Ietter, therefore, must also beSee Suspect.
Document Research ReportIll.122.
~ 10 See SuspectDocument Research ReportsH.21/III.7/IVII.22/l11.8JIV.6;
ii 11.23/111.9; 1.24/1!1.10/IV.8;Ili.46/IV.J7.
~ 11 ~ Suspect Document ResearcReports IL30/IV.II.32/III.IL33/III.25;
11.34/1!1.26;111.13;lll.l7; llll.21; 1![.31/IV.l5N.9.!One of the
• Suspectocument ResearchReport and HI.4611V.l7.and VilayHasa.See ·
~
~
! -9- ••
•
•
political or administrative structure. A Vali was a govemor of a Vilayet (an
• Ottoman province); there were only about thirty throughout the Ottoman
• Empire. The British occasionally misnamed the Ottoman official in Hasa as
~ the Vali, and this may have misled the But arnong Ottomans,
~ particularly in official documents such as these purpon to be, the error is quitc
inconceivable, as though a modem-day American offiç.ia!would write to "the
~
Governor of San Francisco" -or worse, descr:ibe himself as such.
•
• One Qatari document allegedly cxchanged bctween two high Ottoman
~ officialis addressed to the Vali of Basrah in 1870, five years before Basrah
~ was upgraded to the status of a province ruled by a govcrnor. Nor was the
persan to whom the letter is addressed, Hafidh Basha, even the highest official
~
~ (Mutasarrif) of Basrah in 1870; that position waSheld by Suîeyman Bey.
~ • Ottoman officials were punctilious about their seals. The documents produced
~ by Qatar contain a profusion of totally inappropriate seals, including sorne that
the forger may have found among souvenirs at a bazaar staiL This could
~ explain the repeated use of the "seal" of the municipal celebration of a village
13
~ in northem Anatoli11uee of the documents on which this seal appears
purport to be formai agreements between the Ottoman Empire and Great
~ 14
Britain.On occasion, one finds the seal of the accounting department of a
Vilayet in AnatoIn ten ether documents, the date of the seal- unnoticed
~ or not understood by the forger - is between 10 and 30 years later than the
document.6
~
~
~
~
~
12 See Suspect Document ResearchReportII.31/III.l4/IV.l3.
~
13 See Suspect Document Rescarch Reports Il.21/III.7/IV.5; 11.35/III.29/IV.14; III.37;
~ lll.46/!V.17.
~ 14 See Suspect Document Research Reportsll.21/Ill.7/IV.5; 111.37. Document III.46/1V.17
wasa!sopurportedlyapbFrance,Germanythe USA.
~
15 Seeuspect Document ResearchReports11.21/III.7/IV.5;HI.37.
~
16 See SuspectDocument ResearcReportsII.221111.8/IV.6; 11.23/III.9/!V.7;
~ II.24/III.10II.31/III.14/II.32/IIIIL35/111.2,4;II1.15; III.!?;
III.19/IV.10; and III.27.
~
t
-10-
~ ,_,_,--·-
•·
~
•
~ • Among the Qatar documents are two judgments supposedl y issued by named
Bahraini judges regarding land transaBahrain's judicial records do
~
notshowanysuchpersansas everhavingbeenjudges in Bahrain. Inaddition,
~ no record of the judgments themselves could be found in official archives
~ where ali such judgmentsd nonnally be filed. Nor could any reference to
the purported land transactions be found in the records of the Bahrain Land
~ Department.8
~
• Among the Qatari collection are 26 documents containing a signature stamp
~ forSirCharles Belgrave rather than a hand-written signature. Sixteen of thcse
il documents consistletters sent by Belgrave from the Bahrain Govemment
Adviserate. Although much correspondcnce from Belgrave is a matter of
il
public record in London, Bombay and Bahrain, there is no case known to
il
Bahrain where Belgrave used a signature stamp to sign the original of
~ outgoing correspondence. Furthennore, a thorough reviewiserate's
il records shows that over the course of his 30-year career in Bahrain, Belgrave
used three dîfferent signature stamps: the 1926 to 1948; the second
il
from 1948 to 1955; and the third from 1955 to 1957. The signature stamp
~ impression appearing on the Qatari documents attributed to Belgrave,
;;! ostensibly dating fromto 1940, bears no resemblance to the impression
appearing on hundredsdocuments authorised by Belgrave in this period.
~ Nor doesitresemble the impressions created by the other two signature
~ stamps used by Belgrave in later periods. Additionally, three of the alleged
Belgrave !cuers are arnongst those whose purported addressees were a!ready
~
deceased when the letters were supposed to have been written. If one accepts
~ (as seems unavoidable) that Belgrave's three letters to these dead
~ forgeries, one would also doubtless condemn ther documents on
which the same aberrant signature stamp impression appears and
~
neither trace nor reference exists in any national archives or other collection
~
(apart from Oatar's).
!!
19. In varying degrees, the 81 documents said to come from Qatar's Diwan Amiri
~
collection recite facts that squarely contradîct the well-documented historical record.
~
~
~
17 SeeSuspectDocumentResearchReportsIII.186andIII.202.
~ 18 This is also the case with respect to a third aUegedland transaction. See Suspect
DocumentResearchReportIII.96.
~
~
-11-
~ )·
1
l
Tribal relations and history are grossly distorted and miPurported poHtical
l relations between Britain and the Ottoman Empire and between the Rulers of Bahrain,
• Abu Dhabi and Qatar are just invented. Many of the documents conjure up fictitious
personalities and officiais and ascribe to them equally fictitious titles, positions and
•
~ functions.evera! of the documents involve the appointment of persans to positions
weil before they occupied those positSorne of the do~ume ue laguage and
~
terrnlnology that were not part of contemporary official or coi!oquSornearlance.
~ refer to events that could not have taken place in the time period in which they are
1
~ describeds having laken placeMany refer to issues that would not have been of
conccm to the correspondcnts identified in the dSorne documents purport to
~
becorrespondence between persans who would have had no reason to correspond with
~ each other directly and in ali likelihood wouid not have donc so as tcaltter of poli
23
, or diplomatie protocoIn none of the documents do the style, format, opening and
ending greetingssalutations bear any rescmblance to that found in genuine documents
, fromthe purported authors.
~
- forensicocument examination
~
~ 20. Bahrain retained thrcc forensic document examiners of international standing to
examine the handwriting, seals, stamps, signatures, format and other markings and
~ 24
physlcal characteristicse Qatari documents.
;o
~
~ 19 See Suspect Document Research Reports Il.l2/III.l; 1113/III.Z.
;;. 20 SeeSuspect Document Research R11.30/IV.ll; 11.33I;IJJ13.
~ 21 See e.g. Suspect Document Researc11.18.rts
~ 22 Seee.g. SuspDocumentResearch RepofV.67.
~ 23 See e.g. Suspect Document Research Reports 111.101;IIL167; IH.140; IIL145; I11.179;
~ 11!.180;I!I.201; 111.241;IV.59;JV.66;111.242.
~ 24 They are:
Mr. Mokhtar Amin, a forensic document examiner with over 38 yearse
in the fielFormerly the Head of the Department of Forgery and Falsification
!t Identification, Medico-Legal Administration, Egyptian MinisAminof Justice, Mr.
is the author of numerous books and articles on tapies conceming counterfeiting and
~ forgery,ndu ding a IeadingArabie treatise on these subjects.
~ Dr. Mohammed Ezz-el-DinSobhy, a forensic chemist speciainsforensic
document examination, with over 47 years oincounterfeîting and forgery
j identîfication. His past positionsief Expert for the Department of Forgery
J
-12-
, --------------- --- ------- ------------
1 .
~
~
21. App!ying well-estabHshedprinciplesof document examination and
• 25
identification, the experts issued the following opinion:
~
• "Having examined the originals of 75 of the 81 documents and
photocopies of the remaining six, it is our expert determination that the
•
entire Qatari Diwan Amiri Archives collection of 81 documents
submitted for cxamination is not genuine."
•
• 22. The expert forcnsîc findings that led to this categorical determination are
~ described in detail in Appendix 11.8? The most signîficant of thcse findings are
~ summarised below.
~ • It can easily be shown that many of the Qatari.documents were prepared on
~ reused paper, scavcnged from var:ious sources to create an appcarancc of
age.8These recycled paper sources include old Ottoman documents, old
+
+
~ and Falsification Identification, Assiut Regional Division, Egyptian Ministry of
Justice and Chief Document Examiner. Department of Criminai Investigation and
~ Public Security. Ministry of Interior, Saudi Arabia. He îs the author of severa! books
and numerous artîcles on counterfeiting and forgery identification.
o)
Mr.Peter Tytell, an American forensic document examiner with over 26 years'
~ experience in document examinMr. Tytell is a diplomate of the Forensic
Science Society, and has served as an expert in hundreds of civil and criminal cases in
~ the United States and abroad.
~ 25 Although the experts examined the originalsof the 81 documents -- due ta
Qatar's failureiîver the remaining documents by the date of this Ietter -- they were
~ able to gather suffiidence from the photocopies of these six documents to arrive at
conclusive fmdings regaiinauthenticity.
~
26 Forensic Document Examination Report at pp.2 and 146.
~
27 Appendix1.8(Forensic Document Examinatîon Report) consists of a Main Report and
~ four appendices, the last is divided intofour parts. These appendices, which are
severa! hundred pages long and documenterable detail the main findings made
~ by the experts, will follow.
~
28 A. Grafton in Forgers and Critics: Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship
~ (Princetoniversity Press 1990), pp. 49-50, explains the forger's problem as follows:
~ "After ail, the forger has to carry out a limited range of lasks, one that has not altered
greatly over time. He must give his text the appearance - the Iinguistic appearance as a
~ text and the physical appearance as a documentething from a period
dramatîcallylîer than and different from his own. He must, in other words, imagine
~ two things: what a text would have looitwas written and what it should
look like now that he it.''ound
~
~
-13-
! 1
l
l
1 Ottoman forms, and blank Ieaves eut or ripped from old books. Several
documents, even though they are dated years - even decades - apart, or were
1 purportedly written different individuals, have been prepared on paper
1 from the same book or from a larger piece of paFor example, the
iHustratîon that follows shows the reverse of two documents from Qatar's
~ Ottoman collection. They are dated 1870 and 1873 respectWheny.
1
they are sîmply put side-tan observer can clearl(i)that the torn
1 cdges of the two document(iithat the two halves of the faint image of a
~ large tughra - an Ottoman calligraphie emblem -jo in pcrfcctly; and (iii) that
the !ines the Osmanlica text running across the two documents are in fact
~ two baives of a single line of writing. This simple exercise shows bcyond
~ doubt that the two forged documents were written on two scrapst
were tom from a iarger piece of paper. The Osmanlica text reveals that this
' largcr piece paper was a certîficatc of promotion for an official in the
~ telegraph officehe Commander-in-Chieof the Imperial Ottoman Army
J in Constantinople (having absolutel_yno relevance to the forged letters on the
other side}. Since it appears that the forger did not know Osmanlica (the
~
forged letters between Ottoman officials are înexplicably in Arabie)
' to assume that he did not realise, when he obtained the original document and
~ set out to uses his "raw material ", what the line of Osman!ica text meant.
i
~
i
i
,
i
'
,
29 SeeForensicDocumentExaminationReport,SectionV.A.2,pp.29-43.
~ Theyare:
, 30
Document11.30/IV.ll Letterfrom Barakahbin Era'ar, Ruler of Hassa and incomplete
~ mapofthebordersof Qatar,dated26 February1870,and
,
Basha,Valiof Baghdad,dated27 Novernber1873.Era'ar,Turkish Vali of Hassa,to Hafidh
,
,
- 14-
' --------------·--- -----~----·~
i.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
ô)
ô)
~
Figure 1: Close-np of the back side of Documents II.33/l11.2S (left)
ô) and 11.30/IV.ll {right), showing fracture fit, dark Osmanlica text and
ô) tughra (light ovai pattern behind text).
ô) • In the sarne way, the following documents were also found to have been
ô) fabricated from a single larger sheet of paper:
ô) An 1867letter from an Ottoman naval captain to the purported "Vali" of
Hassa (IV.9) and an 1872 letter from the "Vali" to Jassim bin Thani, the
ô)
Sheikh of Doba (II.32/1!!.20);
~
~ Two letters dated în 1926 and 1935 from Sheikh Hamad bin [ssa, the
Ru!er of Bahrain (Documents !!!.69 and Ill.lOO);
~
A 1935 statement by a Hawar Island resident regarding the sale of
~
property (!ll.96), two 1939 Bahrain court judgments (lll.l86 and Jll.202)
j by Bahraini judges who never existed, and an undated letter joint!y from
j Sheikh Hamad and Sir Charles (l!L214);
19
j
t
-15-
j ----~--
~'
~
• A 1939 letter from Sharq bin Ahmed (who had died 17 years earlier) to
~
Issa bin Abdul Lateef al-Sarkal (who had died 4 years earlier in 1935)
(III.215) and a 1939letter from Sir Charles Belgrave (III.201).
li
In other words, to believe that the Qatari documents were genuine one would
~ have to accept not only that ali of these persans reused old paper for their
~ corrcspondence, but also thal such unlikcly combinations as Sir Charles
Belgrave and the deceased bîn Ahmed; or the Emir of Bahrain, two
~ Bahraîni judgcs and a Hawar resident, somehow found the way to share the
~
same used paper.
~
• Where verifiable genuine documents of the purported author of the Qatari
~ documents could be located, forensic comparisonsicant features
oi) (c.g., signatures, handwriting, stylistics, format, seals and stamps) confirmed
~ that the Qatari documents are not gcnuine. More than half of the 81 Qatari
documentsere discredited in this manner.
! ~
• The vast majority of the Qatari documents bear seals or stamp impressions
~
;;J purporting to, authenticate their text or jndicate their provenance. Amidst the
profusion of seals, there are a numbcr of instances where impressions of the
oi) same seal are inappropriately attributed to more than one individual,
sometirnes on documents that are dated more than 60 yAnrs apart.
;;J
example of such seal recycling is illusIn impressions of this
;;J seal, the names Mohamed!Abdu!Rida can be read, yet impressions from this
;;J seal (or another seal made from the same master) are attributed to individuals
~ with completely different names and also appear on unrelated documents that
are dated decades apart.
~
;;J
;;J
.,
~
~
~
.,
., 31 See Forensic Document Examination Report,Section V.B., pp.48-105.
32 See Forensic Document Examination Report,Section V.A.l, pp.l0-28.
•
• -16-
~,------------~----------------
16~~ ~:..:1:~:
ri!
Seal impression Sealimpression Sealimpression Seal impression Seal impression
from Document from Document from Document from Document from Document
11.35: Ottoman 1IJ.46:Survey III.77:Written Ill.lOO: U:tter lll.128:Letter
Map, daled 10 MapofQatar, testimony o( from Sheikh from Sbcikh
October1874 dated May 1898 Ahmed bin Ali al- Hamad bîn Issa Shakhboot bin
Gltatam,Yousuf binAli A1- Sultan to
bin Ahmed and Khalifa to Sheikh Belgrave, date10
lrhama bin Rashid Shakhboot bin May 1937
al-Dosari, dated Suitan, datcd 18
November 1930 sll935
Au
Figure 2: One seal impressed on five unrelated documents spanning a
period of more than 60 years.
• Meticulous examination of the Arabie handwriting of each of the 81
documents revealed characteristics typically found in instances where a
writer wishes to conceal his true identity. This finding, in itself completely
inconsistent with the genuineness of the documents, coupled with the ether
findings made by the document examiners ied them to conclude that,
although the documents are purportedly from different sources, widely
separated by time, place, and persan, it is highly likely that every one of them
cornes from a single, non-genuine source. 33
Conclusion
23. The Court has the power to take such measures as it considers appropriate under
these extraordinary circumstances. 34
24. For its part, Bahrain takes the present opportunity to indîcate to the Court, and
through the Court to Qatar, that Bahrain will disregard the content of the 81 discredited
documents and will prepare its Counter-Memorial accordingly.
33 See Forensic Document Examination Report, Section V.C and V.D, pp.l06-I35 and
pp.136-144.
34 E.g. the power to caUfor explanations, to put in motion an enquiry, or ta suspend the
proceedingson themeritstodealwiththe81 documentsas apreliminarymatter.
-17- -----------~---------~-------···----
•
•
25. Finally, Bahrain respectfully requests the Court to retain custody of the original
• documents n1tspossess10n.
•
• Yours truly,
•
•
• ~-
• )AWAD SAALARAYED
• M!NISOFSTATE
AGENTOFTHESTATNEFORfCJEJB
•
•
•
•
•
;\
•
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ 35 was allowedonly to examinedocuments.and those without removing theme fact that Bahrain
~ from protective plastic coexper!h~ugh satisfied with this
examinationeach the categoricalconclusionthat the documents are forged. conskl.er
~ documentsthemselves.orativetests could be carriedout if experts were able to handle the
~
t
-18-
t' . 1t nok reprodvce &
APPENDICES
APPENDIX !: SUSPECT DOCUMENT RESEARCH SUMMARIES
APPENDIX Il: EXPERTS' REPORTS, DOCUMENT SEARCH REPORTS AND
WITNESS STATEMENTS
!!.1 Expert Historical Reporby Dr, J.C. Wilkinson dated5September
1997 (Historical Report)
1!.2 Expert Ottoman Report by Dr. Idris Bostan and Dr. Caroline Finke!
dated 4 Septcmber 1997 (Ottoman Report)
1!.3 Research Report from the Centre for Documentation and Research,
the Cultural Centre Abu Dhabi dated 25 April 1997Abu Dhabi
Report)
Expert Research Report by Dr. Richard Schofield dated
!lA
5 September 1997 (British Archives Report)
11.5 Expert Research Report by Dr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin dated
8 September 1997 (French Archives Report)
!!.6 Expert Research Report by Dr. Peter Grupp dated 20 June 1997
(German Archives Report)
11.7 Expert Research Report by Dr. Henry E. Matlox dated 30 June 1997
(American Archives Report)
II.S Expert Forensic Document Examination Report by Dr. Mokhtar
Amin, Dr. Mohammed Ezz-el-Din Sobhi,and Mr. PeterTytell
dated 20 September 1997 (Document Examination Report)
II.9 Document Search Report from the Bahraîn Ministry of Infonnation
and Cabinet Affairs (Records and Documents Section) dated
17 June 1997(Bahrain Archives Report)
II.lO Document Search Sumrnary Report from the Bahrain Historical
Documents Centre dated 12 May 1997 (Historical Documents
Centre Report)
II.ll Report from the Bahrain Ministry of Justice and Islamic Affairs
dated 17 September 1997 (Bahrain Courts Report)
II.12 Document Search Report from the Archives of the Bahrain Arniri
Court dated 13 July 1997Amiri Archives Report)
11.13 Statement of Mr. Adil Algosaibi dated 22 April1997 (Aigosaibi
Statement)
-19- lh
~
'
~
l!.14StatemenMr.YousufAl-Shirawi dated 21 May 1997
~ (A!-Shirawi Staternent)
;, II.15Statement of Mr.Sayed Abdel Aziz Sayed Yusuf dated 3 August
;, 1997 (Babrain Archivist Statement)
~ !!.16StatcmcnMr.Rashid binA.R.Al-Zayani dated 26 July 1997
(A!-Zayaniatement)
ill
~
ill
ill
ill
ill
ill
ill
~
-~
ill
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
•
~
, -20- 1
..RE. Dr. Abdullah bin Abdulafif Af-Muslem:mi
Agéntofthe Stateof Qsw
lx:iore the International Court ofjust;cc
' '\'
Eduardo Valencia-Osplna, Esq.
Registrar
1ntemation.al Court of Justice
Pcacc Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Nethcrlunds
~üctober 1997
Re. Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions b<:tweenQatar
and Bahnûn (Q:itar v. Bahrain)
s~ J
jf'y,ç{ .-rÎJcc}iXJ"(-
With rel'erence ta your lctter No. 97840 dated 26 Septcmbcr'Î997 transmîtting a copy of a
lettee datcd 25 Sepl.emher 1997 adJressed to the Prt!Sident of the C:ourt by the Agent of the
St<uc uf Bahrain in the case conceming Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions
hetv.'eenQatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Hahrain) togt:thcr w1th anachrnents. l have the honour
to presenth.followîngcumm~nts:
1. Qatar cannot fai! to point out that, on<:e again, Bahrain bas presented an irregular
communication to the Court. Had Bahrairl proceeded in aecon.l.ancthe pattern ofwritten
pleildings lixed by the President of the Court, it would have pitsobservations on the
authenticity of the Qatar documents within tlw framework of its Counter-Memorial which ls
due to be presented simultancomdy with the Qalar Counter-Mcmoria! on 31 Deccmber 1997.
Bahrain's communication is rcmlnîscent of its past conduct fOllowing the filing of Qatar's
Application in July 199 J, and of lrs cxtraordinary reaction a.tthe timc of the delivery of the
Judgment of the Court Febru~ 199;.
2. Even mon: scrious are tl1eallegations made by Bahrain with respect to the authcnticity
of 81 of the documents appcnded to the Memorial of Qatar. These must be considered as a
direct challenge to Qatar's good faith. Of course, bcfore submitting these documents to the ·
Court as AnnexestoitsMemorial, Qatar satisfit:d îtselfthat thcre was no l'eason to doubt thcîr
auth.enticity. Morcover, the content cl"sorne of the disputed documents îsconsistent with ether
evidence on the rŒorJ.
":\ Qata.r has takcn note of the întcnt cxpressed in Bahrain's letter to disrcgard the content
~f the 8idocuments and to prepare it C~unter·Memoriai accordîng!y. The objections now
raised by Hahrain conco:..Tlthese Qatari t!ocuments are in fact intimatcly linked to the
ç/o Embassyof the Statc oQ:z!A 1rSouth AudleyStr<; W rfdon W 1) •5D(,_)
Td (44.IT/) 493 2200- Rix (44.171) 4.932661
_, ..··.•_,. -·-
- 2-
substance or the disputed mattcrs submiHed to the Court in the present case. Thcrefore. itis
Qatar's vicw lhat they are to be considcrcd and dctcrmined wiihTnthe framcwork of the merlts
of thecase.
4. The Court \Villhard(y cxpt:cl.Qatar, at the present stage of the preparation of its own
Counter-Mcmurial, to comment on the detailcd Bahraini allegations. This win he done by
Qatar at the next stage of the proceedings. fo!lowing the fiiing of the Countcr-Memorials.
5. Qatar does not objccl to the challengcd· documents remaining in the custody of the
Court, alleast untllthe dosure of the wriHenpleadings.
i
Qathr remains at the disposai of the Courl and. as the Agent of the Statc of Qatar. I am ready
to rhect the President of the Court at his earliest convcnience.
i\cJept, Sir, the assurance or my highcst consideration.
,
gent of the Sune of Qatar ·.STATE OFBAHRAIN
/
. . OFFICEOFTHEMINISTER OFSTATE
P.O. Box 2088
MANAMA,BAHRAIN
Phone : 217721 Fax: 215508
No. : ICJ-QvBI~TLQ A_ ~f' c(·''~ :J.~)'
' ~\:JI
Date: 170ctober, 1997
His Excellency Stephen M. Schwebel
President
lntematlonal Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS
Re: Case Conceming Maritime Dellmitatlon and Territorial Questions between Qatar
• 1 and Bahrain (Qalar v. Bahrain)
Dear Mr. President,
i
1hhve been sent by the Registrar a copy of a letter of 8 October 1997 addressed to hlm by
th'Agent of Qatar.lshould like to be permlUed to make certain comments on that letter
and the situation which has given rit. tO
First, may l refer to the concluding paragraph of Qatar's letter which indicates the Agent's
readiness toeet you at your ear!iest convenlencl venture to believe that such a
méeting, in which 1hope th!as Agent of Bahrain, would be lnvited to participate, could
be:helpful in !etting you how the Parties themselves consider that the procedural
aspectsof the present situation cou!d best be handled.
'
For its part, Bahrain submlts thal the use by Qatar of forged mate rial on a massive scale
gi~e rse to procedural difficulties that strike at the fundamentals of the order!y
development of the case.
1
This ls not a situation in which Bahrain questions the authenticity of one or two isolated
items in a much larger body of evidenSuch an incident could readily be hand!ed within
the normal procedural frameworkln this case, Bahraln has been compelled to investigate
the genuineness of virtua!ly the who!e body of evidence presented by Qatar in support of
•
its territorial c!The examination of so many documents, one by one, has already
obllged Bahraino dlvert considerable effort from the preparation of its Counter-Memorial,
which should have been limited to the substantive issues of which the Court is already
aware, and has occasioned huge expense. But what ls even more important is that Qatar
has thereby added a whole new dimension to the casethe need to examine the
authenticity of documents on a large scale.
Whatever may be the connection of this matertal to the true merits of the case, the question
of lts genuineness is logically preliminary to, and severable from, the determination of its
substantive effectThis observation should, in Bahrain's submisslon, detennine the
procedural approach to be taken at this stage.
If Qatar were to insist on the authenticity of the documents, the question of forgery would
play such a prominent and extensive part in the pleadings thal it would en!arge and
significantly distort the main proceedings and add to their Iength and expense, for both the
Parties and the CourtFor example, Qatar's Counter-Memorial wiseems, continue to
rely on the material in questBahrain's Counter-Memorial will not address the Page2
substance of the 81 forged documents. Oatar's Reply ~oul dventually respond to
Bahrain's challenge, most likely at sorne length, and Bahra!n's Rejoinder would then
respond to Qatar's Reply on this point, also at lengtlnstead of the Parties grappling
with the same substantive issues, their pleadings would be vastly more ditflcult to follow
because of the complicating feature of the forgery issuAt each stage, large quantities of
technical arguments and evidence would have to be presented to the Court. As the very
bulk of the evldence already submitteby Bahrain shows, this would, in itself, add
considerably to the length of the case and to the cost of translating the mate rial.
Moreover, ifthe matter is not resolved before the oral proceedings, the same problems will
recur, especially with the need to examine expert witnesses.
These additional complications (which, it must be emphasized, are not of Bahrain's making
but stem entirely from Qatars conduct) could be significantly reducif the question of the
fo(geries is investigated without delaSorne of the modalities of such an investigation are
su~Jges itArtcles 49 and 50 of the Statute and Articles 62 and 79 of the RuleIf, as
Bcihrain confidenUy expects, the investigation con!irms the fraudulent character of the
dqcuments, then that major comp!lcation would dlsappear and the case would continue
within the substantive and procedural framework ortginally contemplated.
T~ alternative to this possibility is that Qatar may prefer to indicate now that it will place no
fuhher reliance on the forged material or the arguments to which they relate.
Fdr the record, 1would like to add three comments on the Ietter from Qatar of 8 October:
1. Qatar states that "once again, Bahrain has presented an irregular communication to the
Court" This is inaccurate and objectionableThere is nothing "irregular" in a party
j promptly brlnging to the attention of the Court the use by the other side of massive
j forgeries as a substantial element of the case.
2.' Qatar asserts that Bahrain's allegations regardfng the documents ln question "mbet
considered as a direct challengtodatar's go6d faith."This is incorrect The Court
wlll have observed that at no point in Bahrain's letter of 25 September 1997 does
Bahrain allege bad faith on the part of Qatar; nor is it necessary for Bahrain to show
that Qatar used the material knowing it to be forged.
3. Qatar states that "before submittlng these documents to the Court ... [ltJsatisfied itself
that there was no reason to doubt their authenticityThe Court will note that Qatar
1 does not say thatiwas satisfied that the documents were authentic. The Court will no
; doubt await wlth lnterest Qatar's statement of the steps that it alleges that it took
· diligently to "satisfy itself !hat there was no reason to doubf' the "authenticity" of the
documents.
Y ours very truly,
}AWIID SAUMAL AAAYED
MINI5TEROFSTATE
ACENTOFTHESTATE OF811JJNFORETHEICJ -STATEOFBAHRAIN .
ÛF!'!COF!HEM!JirSTEORFSTA'!E!
P.O.Box 2088
MANAMAB , AHRAJN
Phone: 21n21 Fax: 215508
No. : ICJ.QvB,/118
Date: 18 November.1997
HisExceflencyStephenM.Schwebel
President i
/ntemational Court of Jus1ice
1ea Pcaace 1
2517 KJTheHague '
THE NETHERLANDS
1 CaséConcemingMadtirheDe!îmitatjonand TerrftorialQuestionsbetQatar
~ndf!ilh@in(Qatav.B~hrain]
1"' !
i <
• OearMr.Pres1dent.
UJj!vethehonortoac!<!lo rcli~tgftheDeputyRegistlats lettof3 Novemberand
f'IJ'Ovember1997 attachingJwolettersfrom the ofQatartcthe Regis!rar,eachdated
31 Ocrober1997. 1wishto i:ommenton thestwo lettersandalsoto infmmyouand the
Membersof ltle Courtofa remarl<anew develoomentreoaminothe 81 fol!led
documentssubmittedby0a1ar.
Ostar'LT>:Iletters Daied 31 Oçtobjlr1997
2. AftermanymonthsofrequeSts byBahrainanaon tflt: v1 t~submissionoftnet-'arties'
Counter-Memorials, atMstwo lettersare, tosay the !east,unresponsivetoltle gravityof
L~esituationQatar'sactionshaYecreated.
3. The firstlatter,purportingto jlJstifyQatar'sfailureto producethe six documents!hatthe
Court calledfor,statesthal"lheadministrationof theDiwaarchivehasnot yetbeen
abletoftndthe ortgi..:.!Iidiffi tcuo~eptltlat documentsin ils archives,which
Qatar repeatedlylnsistedweie to beprotectedànd twitexading cars,havebeen
1 :suddenlymispiaŒdjustwhehtheyhavebeen exposedasforgenes. The reproductions
. annexedtaOatar'sMemorialwereobv!ouslymadefrom theorlginalsby persansknownto
Qatar. Theseparsonspresutnablycouldhave indicatedwhenthey fasthadpossessionof
the originals,whattheydldwiflthem. The absenceofany such explanationis stnking.
The inabilityof Qatarpromptlytaproducetheongof!heallegedevidencesugges!a
lad<ofcarein ltle handlingof ils evidenceof whichil cannatbeassumed thatthisis theonly
examp!e. '
4. Qatar'ssecondlatter,accompanledby 20 boxesofreplacemenrAnnexas, indudinnew
translations,notableforils bompleteavoidanceof theforgeryissue. Qatarhave!
sought tcwithdrawthedocufi,ents,or at!eastproposedthatbeeignored,filwasnot
beyond reason!hatQatarhad beenunawareof ltle !raud. Thal now seemsimpossible,
since Qatar,lhrouilletter.of31 October1997, inthe faceofthe proof of theforgeries,is
now seel<intosubmltnew reproductionsof the documentsasevidenwithnew
tmnslations.
5. The problemwiththeQatatfdpcumentslsnotlheirtmnslationorthe quaoftheir
,reprodUction.Theproblemis !htheyare forgedand fraudulent,a !act thatcannatbe
changed,however!hayarst:ànsla!eor reproduced. \
Page2
6. Nevertheless!,hefactisthal Qatarhas newsoughttointroducenew "translations"of the
forgeddocuments,andhas announced!hat1hereareothersyet to be produced. ·Bahrain
notesthal !hedeadlinefor!hese submisswass30 September1996, i.e.,the date When
theMemortalWhichtheywereannexedto wes due. Article521heStatuteprov!des:
·Mer lhe Courthasreceivedtheproofsandevidencewilhinthe timespecifiedfor the
purpose.ftmayrefuseto acŒptanyfurtheroralorwnttenevidencetnatone party may
desiretopresentunlesstheothersidaconsents."
Sahrainnotes!hatQatarhas attemp!edtointrod75e"rep!aŒmenf'Annexesasa lait
Jccompli,withoutaskingleaveof theCourtandindeedwilhoutgianyexplanation.
BahrainŒspectiullylnforrnsUleCourtahdoesnotoonsent,forthe purposesof Art52le
of!he Statute,toQatars attemptto introduŒt!le replacementAnnexesmor13han
rhonthsafterthedeadfineforltsMemorand,on theeve ot8ahrain'sfina!izof its
Counter-Memoriaf.
7. ~o irpernisibleforQatarto justifytheproductit75 "replaŒmenrAnnexesas a
dorrection.Article50 ofthe Ru!esreqtha"thereshouldbe annexedtotheoriginalof
~ve pea)dngcerti!iedoopiesanyrelevantdocumentsadduŒdin supportof !he
contentionscontained1hepleadings."Art!c!e51(3)provides!hat "whena document
annexedtoa pleadingis not in oneof theofficiallanguagesofthesha!be it
~ooomp by ntanslationintooneolheselanguagesŒrtifiebythe partysubmitling~
~sacŒrate." Bahrainis at a lossto unc!ehowQatarcan, by itslelte31fOctober·
\997,nowpurporttoattachafresh"whereappropriaanaccuraterevisetranslationIf
thetranslationsoriginallwiththeMemorlalof 30 September1996 werenot acŒrate,
thenQatarwasat !hattimelnbreachof Rule51. Qatars statedinten1ionthat"the Annexes
t~smi undtecoverofthislatteraredasignedto replacethecorrespondingAnnexesto
c1latarsMemoriaiunaccep!aole. Ar1ide52(4)theRulespruvidleasfollo;;s:
1 "The oorrectionof a slipor errorin anydocumentwllichfledmaybe made at
1 any timwi1!he oonsentof the etherpartbYleaveofthe President Any correction
. so effectedShallbenottfiedto the olhert11samemannaras thepleadingto
1 wtlicitrelates."
SahrainobservesthatQatarhas not soughttheconsentof Bahraanysuchoorreçl;on(if
iuch be thescopeof theamendedtranslationsnow bYlQatar) nor,so faras Bahrainis
~wa rasQ,atarsooghtheleaveof thePresidentfitacticns. Had Bahrain'sconsent
orthe PŒsidenfsleavebeensaughtbyQatar,BahrainwculdŒrtainlyhavepointedtthe
latenessof thedateatWhichQatarwouldhavebeenseekintomakethissubstantial
·replacamenrofno lesstha75Annexes. fj
8. Bahrainwillproceedto subitsCounter·Memorial splanned,but in so doing- as already
indicateditsletterdated17 October19-wm ignorethesubstanceothe81 forged
documentsandtheentiretyof thepurpor75dreplacementAnnexes. Bahrainrespectiully
submitsthatthecomp!lcatgeneratedby Qata(s successiandstiflincompleattempts
topresent..evldence"providesadd!tionajiustforan expertinquirylntothe81
IO!"ÇerbeforetheCourtal!o;;s the debateonthe meritsof the caseto continue. That
wouldpermittheCourtand the ParttoproŒed Withltle calendarthasbeen
estabrJShey,etallowforan eartyresolut1hematterof the forgeries. H,as Bahrain
befieveswilllhecase,1heverdictof suan inquirywculdbe thatthisslgni!masstof
documentsisin!act!myed, tlegalcoosequenŒsflowingtherefrommaynotbe lim~ toed
theexclusionfromthecaseo1hesubstanceof1hedocuments. Page3
NewDeyelqpmentConcemlng theForgerie§
9. Bahrainhas nowdiscovered !hat!he seaJsw!thwhlchsorneof the81forgeddocuments
havebeenlmpressedweredesignedrecently-more !hanhalla oenturyafterthesupposed
dateof!he relevantdocumenls- by an Englishcompanywhichsellssealsta the general
pubfic1attachaletterfromMr.Peter Tytell,oneof theeminentforensice>aminersupon
whoseeJ<per1isBeahralnhasdrawn inthismatter. SectionA of !he letterdescribesthe
sealsthal havebeen usedand paragmph 91heŒofreferstothedîsoove!)'of fioralLatin
charactersealsof!hesamashapeand sizeas !haseappearingonsomaof theforged
documenls.The d~cov erasin tact made by Mr.Tytellwhen,ln!he courseof a walkin
The Hague,hepassedbya gifand stationeryshop. Henotioeda collectionof persona!
seal kitcontainingHoral atincharactersealstogelherWill1astick of redseawax. On
closerexaminationt,Ewas struckby the apparentsimilalffyof lhesesealswithsevera!of
thoseappeatingon anumberofthe 81 forgeddocumentssubmittedby Qatar. He
purchasedtheseal!<il!hatcorrespondeéta !heimpressions!hatappear in!he forged
documents.Wax andinkimpressionsmade from!he sealshepun::hased astonishingly
matchedin alioftheirrelevantcharacteris/icstlloseappearingonsevera/oftheQatari
documents.
1o .nquiriesdirectedtathellstedmanufacturer,StuartHoughtonltd., inEngland,elicitedthe
1followinginformatio, hichisdiScussedin furtherdetailinMr.Tytell'sattadled
1supplementary repon:
1 a) The floralLatinc:haracreal impressionsappearingonthe Qataridocumentsare
froma fineofsealsmanufacturndby StuartHoughtonLtd.;
b) Thesealslhatmadethoseimpressionswèredesignedby StuartHoughtonin the
earty1980s andareof StuartHoughton'soriginalcreation;!hatis, theyarenot
replicasofaf'knownparsonalor officialseals.
Yows verytruly,
)AWAO SALIM AL ARAYED
MINI>TER OF SrArE
A/:;EN{OfSTAiEOF!lAw?Nfi1E1::lCJ
t ·) PETER V, TYTELL lN BlloAI><iAY
. DOCVM!!af]' .1C,Aim'ŒR Som: 11-llOS
' N!OWY<> NIY.1003&-2515
TU; Z12~
FAX:212/~
J:-tW~cov
14Novembêr1997
Arif HyderAliEsquir<>
Freshfieldz
69 &ul<Vard Haussmann
7~08Paris
FranŒ
1
DearMr. Ali:
1. The present report suppleme»ls lhe Forensie Document E:Œminat!on Rep(the
"Main Report")Mr. ~tar Amin,Dr. Mohamm< >dzz-el-DiSobhi,and Isuhmitlèd to
M.,.srs. Freshfieldz onSeptember 1997. Illsbasedon .....,radditionai dayof
• .k:minalion tbllowinz lhe submlssion <lMal: :Reporand shoWd beroad in lhe
.:ont oflxhtreport.In this supplementary report I have aiso nolèd"""eral non·
ihtnuive or minlmally intnuive testa!hat might pr<Mdeaddilional signifioant
.ihformatio.u.
'1
. A. Seal8
l Sect;ons V. A(1).(c) onLatig 1\WhabotipàtSêa alidV. A. (1)(donY!u
~ includad<liscussioŒof!!@aim)'tŒSionwith a !lora! motifdeo!gn.
3[ In Section V.A. (1).(liwaanoted!hat lmpm!SioΠwith a floramotif D ~
r1.und.., thrŒd=ents. (MainReportat p.23)
ms Putported map ofQatar, dated Jumada I 128A.H.(corresponcfulg to
apprŒ:imaiely Septemhet l!la7 AD.)
UI.9 to apprŒimaleqfB30Septemberel~2JAD.}a 1874A.H. (<:<>nespondlnjr
mlo ~ m&p of Qatardatee!Rajab 123A.H. ("""""pon<!mg to
apP..-ately November1867AD.)
• 4. In SectionV.A. (1). (on~ it was !urther notee!lhat four wu Hals
eontairdngimpressiou 'Rih a fioralmot'Jwwe fonndon threeother<locumentl(aeal
impl'llSOiowlth this motif appearon both the front and baek o!DŒam...,t ni.27).
(Main Reportat p.24)
· IU.H Letterpurpottedlyfrom u;..-....,.mander<lflhaSultanlllfarlne
Fleet,ead ...._,t (Buh Jawish)toHaSdh134aha,Mutasvanilr of
the Vùayet o!&ml, dated l(RaJa b.287A.lt {cort'e&pondingto
appramnately SSeptember1870 A.D.)
m.27 Putport.oswvey map tl:omMcbommed Qui! Abdu, ilalèd 2QShawwal
1290A.H. (com>spollllingtapJ>l'Od=at<ol0DeŒrol>o !r73 A.D.)
.-
.. ' ··p.ees
A. H. Ali, Esq. 14 Novomber 1997
rY.l 0 ~!te purportedly from the vice-<:omrnanderof the Sultanlc Marme
Fleet, headsergeant(Bash Jawish) tc HafidhBasha, Mutassarri.ff of
the Vùayet of Basra, dated 20 !Wab 1287 A.H. (corresponding to
approximately 22 August 1870 AD.)
5. In SectionV.A. (1) (c) on t-atin AlphaInitialSealsitwas also noted that
.. impressions with a floral motif F'were found on two other documents. (Main Report at
p. 23)
1 III.29 Purported Ottoman map, dated 5.10.1874 AD. and 10.10.1874 A.D.
i JII.46 Purported Ottoman map, dated Muharram 1316 AH. (corresponding to
approxilnatelJune 1898 A.D.); dates 10.5.1891 AD. and 3.6.1891
A.D. also appear
'
6.1 It was further noted in this section that an impreswitha floral motifG was
a1~ fund ou Document III.46. (Main Report at p. 23)
7.1 ln Section V. A. (1). (d:IYax t.~aa noted that on this same suspect
ddcument (Document liL46) there is the impression of a floral motsplitbetween the
t~ parts ofthe wax usedto dose the document when iwas folded over. (Main Report
atip. 26)
a.j Examp!es ofthese four floral motinitial aealare illustrated below. The
dOfument from which the exa.mple has been taken is ideo.tified below the impression
·r"
!II.9 III.29 IT!.46 III.46
(Reverseand Front)
9. It was subsequently discovered that floral motif impressions of the same style
and aizeas those appearlng on the suspect documents are produŒd bseals from a
serles of seals manufactured by the En.glish fi.rm ofStuart Houghton, Ltd. Impressions
from these Stuart Houghton seals are illustràted below.
..~ F.006
A.H. Ali,:f;sq. - 3 -
10. The finn o!Stuart H<>UghtonL,td.bas boen in !Nslnessf<>lame ZQ yeuo. In
m~pon soan lnquiry dl.n.cta!othelirm, Stuart Hougl>ton,Ltd.bas oŒdlrmed thet
the a<>raml otlf!mprŒsiOD.Oappearingon the_. dooumcto llstedabov9 arel'rom ..
seri..Of~ the finnprocl"""".The finn bas aJsc infonnedUB fustnone of- seals
were availahle be!ore late 1982. Stuart Hou.ghton, Ltd. fur.taled thal th....e.l
des~ were originale<by thef!rnl.In tlrll'eSjl<,h•y are not r<!pllcoE and were
not copied l'rom any prior ailting seapem>IUÙ or oflkial'l'haoêfuu:linghave led to
the determi.natiou thel the suopect documentbeatingthese sealimpreosion oould not
have been prepaxed ou or about theipu1'p<lr\edates.
1
11' These Stuart Houghtoo.seals are currently readlly available in •hops in many
eotiotries and are packaged inbol:eomplete wlth a st!cof sealùogwax. Some of the
...himp~ w.ith matclùng floral m<>desigDSon the suspect documents are in
w.lx.A:lalysis of the wax used fur tsealson thesesuspect documents might reveal
sign.ificant alm!larittothe wax supplied withthe Stuart Houghton seals and/or may
reveal cwnponeuts that were nollloed in sea]Wg wax untiafterthe purport«< dates of
thl,se docwneots.The .amples required for sueh analysis woube minimal and eould
be'taken without affecting'thelegibUity theseallmp,...o!ons.
• 1
B. Reuaed Document&
ri. In Section V. A.(2).(of the Main Reportthere was a dls<:usl>lofhow OttomaJJ.
dofwnmts were reused inorderto createŒrtain of the •ospect documents.In that
rontextreferenoewaomadetoremnao.ts of earUer wrlling amdenΠofoucllpape>"
re!;yclingFutther examinationo have revealed what may weil beanotl>er Instance of
!"'1perpreviousluoed for ao.other pwpooebeWg ~ed: Document ni.l67 (Le;tw
po/ported!y from Charleo Belgravetothe Re)lt,..,.tatiof theBritish State in S!w;ah,
Khan Bahador Issa Abdul LateefAJ-Sarkal,dated 20 Ju]y198!1)bas an enraneous
~Une atthe uppor rea aswellas atrel>eDU! words. In addition,tracesofwriling
sh'owing•iens oferesure bymeci>>nicalabrasion were found atthè tctn left<>dgecftbe
document; thisfeature was also!i:>unndthe lowarportionof thedooument that was
f<>!deunder ~the document was sealed in the plastic sheath.
C. Sequence of Writing
13. s-on V. A. (2). (OlRtllSed Ottoman Ilçç!jjlltmincludod a diseusiion of
Doçument IV.ll having boen partofthe .ame larger document aa D<>CW~ >I.25.>t
• (Main Report at pp. SZ-33) Further examinat.iooo ofDooumeat IV.ll were ronducted,
opecifical!lnthé portion of the toUjlpe>edge ofthe d0011111"w"h...,thetéls a
concave portion of the pape>"thatŒisaùog. On tha back of this document thore are
severa! !ines of Anobiowrit!ng, whlch robaread u an addreai, writtenin redink at
rightang~ o the Osmanl!ca tm. Tru>ends of theseUnes inred ink are inte<rupted at
the ooncaw portion ofthetorn upperédge, as Jfthelast!etternor portions of th1ast
Jetters of tfinalwords of th...lin..ofwrlting"""" carried away -.ritthe mü;sing
p!eŒ of pape>".Microsropie a:tamination the torn édgeI'IM!6!ethet tha redink
writing does not stop the pointwhere the surfaΠ181erofpaper ends, but continues
over the expŒed !noorlayers ofthepaper to thevery edgl>,with theredink "bleeding"
onto the otheside. This interaction of the ink and the paperleatothe determination
that these !ines Arab i~red inkwere written af\.ethe paperwwo tctn. 1 1
P.007
1
_.;H.Ali, Eaq. 14 November 1997
-·-
/
14. In Section V. A. (3) on SequegceofWritingit was noted thatthe right margin of
/ the writiog on Document ill.13(Letter purportedly from Zayed bin Khalifa toBarakah
bin Erayr, dated 5th RalliaI 1287 A.H. (correaponding toapprŒimately 4 June 1870
AD.)) and on Document ill.95(Letter purportedly from Shakhboot bin Sultan to Sheikh
Hamad bin Issa bin AliAl-Khalifa, dated 12 Jumada I 1353A.H. (corresponding to 22
August 1934 A.D.)Jfollowed the irregularly eut edge ofthe paper, indicating that the
paper bad been trimmed before the text was written. lt should be further noted that the
irr\,gu]ar right edges ofthese Iwo pieces ofpaper match, leading to the determination
th~ tt ey wereeut simuitaneously,even though theirpurporteddates are separated by
mo rhan 60 years and they are purportedly from two different sources.
D. Other Findi,gs and Potential Tèsts
15., SectionV. A. (2). (b) on Qther Pbysica] Fit MatcheofPaŒr noted the white
m3terial on the back of Document III.214, referring toit as "whitewasb-like"(Main
RePort at pp.35--36) Fnrther study of thissuspect document under the microscope
indicates that this materialresembles opaqueing liquidcorrectionfluidsuch as that used
forboveringovertypewrifulgerrorsas much ormore than it re:semb1eshitewash.
eerltain.correclingfluidswere not introduŒduntil weilafterthe purport€ddate of the
sus\>ect document. Analysis of this white material on the back of Document III.214
miiht reveal!bat it is such an opaqueingmaterial and/orcontains coroponent& that
wei; •ot avai!able untiweil after the purported dateof the suspect docmnent. It was
further noted with respect to thisuspectdocument tbat the white materiel is pain led
ovet a layer ofhardened glue-li!<emateriaL This material may be an organic glue (e.g.,
made from animal hides) or it may be a plastic based material. Again, analysis of a very
sm,•ll samp!e may weil identifythismaterial and provide information about its
availabllity at the purported date of the document.
16.1 Two other simple tests(one completely non-destructive) might reveal significant
infdrmation about Document TII.21S (Letter purportedly from Hamad hin Alx!ullah
Al-'Thani to Abdul Razagbin Rizoogi daled 19 March 1940). As with a severa! other
susj\e<t documents, writing appears on the reverse ofthis document. As is also the case
wi~ severa! othersuspectdocuments, this potentiaily significant wtiting is covered by
the "backlng" paper attached to the document by the Qatari Archives. This writing is in
the Latin alphabet on the back of the lowel<•lcorner ofdocument and can be read (in
spite oftheadded backing sheet) as
TELEG
To BAHRIN Go.
B.X.3,QT 20.8.1940.
Althoughtheliquid ink usedforthe Arabiewritingon thefaŒof the documenthas run
in!<>the paper, the ink othisentry has not run at ali. This characteristlç lack of
"featbering" of the ink into the paper, the ink's sbaofblue (asvisible through the
backing paper) and the embossing of thapaper are consistent witb bailpoint pen writing.
lf the sbeet ofpaper added by the Qatari archives oouldbe removed or even rolled back
from the corner ofthe page withouttaking the Suspect document from itsplastic sheath,
it nùgbt be possible to make a defintedetermination as tothe nature of the pen used.
Bailpoint pens were not generally availableuntil afterWorldW ar il. Furtber,about
1950 therewas a·major <:bangein the vehicle used for tbeink. Ithisentrywas written
witb·a balipoint pen,a fair!y sùnpletestnùght determine ii tlieris a m!Qordifference
betwe'n the date thal the ink could bave been available and the purported date of the
suspect document.
. lOM
~---'
'. A.ILAli, Eoq. - G- 14No"""'- 1997
17, Pleasdo notb.esltatooontaot molf ,-ou hava any queetlool oonŒnùng"the
foregoing.
Peler VTytéll
.'
1
TOTALP.08 /'sTATE OFBAHRAIN
OFFICEOFTHEMINISTEO RFSTATE
P.O. Box 2088
MANAMA,BAHRAIN
Phone: 217721 Fax: 215508
JCJ.QvB/132
No. : •..=.>JI
Date: 31 December 1997 • ~i.=Jl
His ExcellencyStephen M. Schwebel
President
JntemalionalCourto1Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJThe Hague
THE NETHERLANDS
Re: Case Conceming Maritime Delimitationand TerritorialQuestions betweenQatar
and Bahrain(Qatar v. Bahrain)
1
'
Oear Mr. President,
As indicated in footnote 27 of my letter to you dated 25 September 1997, enc!osedherewlth are
the appendicesto the Expert Forensic DocumentExamination Report (the "ForensicReport"}
copceming the forged documents subrriittbyQatar in lts Memorial of 30 September 1996.
1
Bahrain had intended that this detalled study deal with each of the 81 forged documents on the
ba~i osan examinationof the originals but, as you and the other members of the Court are
aWare,six of theseoriginal documents continue to be withheld by Qatar. lt now seems unlikely
that Qatar willsubmitthese documents in the foreseeablefuture. Moreover,Bahralndoes not
wish to give Qatar any basis to ask for delaysln providingits explanatlon of the forgeries.
Accordingly, Bahrainsubmits the ForensicReportat this lime, as complete aspossible ln the
circumstances.
The context of thisdetailed report ls as follows. Duringthe first three weeks of September
1997,Bahrainexamlned the originals of 75 of the 81 documents from Qatar'sDiwanAmiri
Archives submittedbyQatar with its Memorialdated 30 September 1996. Bahraln'sletter to
• you dated 25 September 1997 informed the Court of ils conclusion thal ali81 of the documents
are forgeries. Among the 16 expert reportsand other affidavits annexed to that letterin support
of this conclusionwas the Forensic Reportprepared three lntematlona!ly renowned foiensic
document examlners. In that Report the document examiners provlded the followingcategorical
opinion:
"Having examined the originals of 75 of the 81 suspect documents and photocopies of
the remaining six, it is our expert determination that the entire Qatari Diwan Amiri
Archivescollection of 81 documents submittedfor examinatlon is notgenuine."
ln its entirety,the Forensic Report consistsof a coveringreport and four appendices. The
covering report was included with the 25 Septemberletter as Appendlx IL8,withoutthe four
appendices. Those appendices are submlttedherewith,together withe coveringreport, as
supplemented and/or modified where necessaryto reflectadditional f!ndingsmadesince 25
September 1997. For example, theCollegeofArmsin London hasconfirmedthat the
RoyalarmsoftheUnitedKingdomappearingas anink impressionorimpressedintofofl
seals on 7 suspect documents (III.7 [111IV.5], lll.186, IIJ.202,II1.2,V.14],lJI.46
), Page2
' pV.17],111.1511,11.167,11.201I,II.242)is from the reign of Queen Elizabeth, any decades
1 afterthepurporteddatesofthe documentsonwhichtheblazonappears.
1
1
' Appendixl providesthe curricula vitof the threeexpertdocumentexaminersconsultedby
Bahrain;Appendix2, the detailedtindings to date tor each ot the 81 documents in the Qatar
Diwan AmiriArchivescollection;Appendix3, certain additionaifindingsregardingthe collection
of documentsas a group;and Appendlx 4, colourreproductionsof 75 of the 81 forged
documents,colourreproductionsof genuinedocumentsof the purportedauthors,asweilas
.othersupplementarymaterials.
Yoursverytruly,
)AWAD SALIM ALARA YED
MINI5rEf?DFSTATE
ACENTOF TH5TATOF 8AHRAI8EFORETHJCJ "
/ STATEOFBAHRAIN
1
.OFFICEOF THEM!HISTE RFSTATE
P.O. Box 2088
f.AAy'-""
MANAMA,BAHRAIN (;<~1.4.\;l\
Phone: 217721 Fax: 215508
noc-1vS' r~rv"rh~\..
No. : ICJ-OvB/136
Date: 2 February,1998
His Excellency Stephen M. Schwebel
President
Internationalurt of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS
:Re: Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and
• Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain}
'
:DearMr.President
11. Permit me to address you once more on the question of the procedure to be adopted
ifo!lowing Oatar's massive introduction into this case of forged documents, and its continued
jrellance on them.
i
/A. The development of the matter untU now
1
)2. 1first brought the matter to your abymy detailed letter to you of 25 September
1997. On 17 October 1997 1wrote to you again setting out the procedural complications.
·that would ensuifthe question were not dealt with by the Court before the case continues
on lts merits, and urged that the question be investlgated withaufurther letter to
you of 18 November 1997 1again mentioned the need for ar; inquiry. Most recent!y, on 31
December 1997, having waited in vain for Qatar to produce the six missing original
documents of which the Court is we!l aware, 1submitted the detailed appendices to the
Expert Forensic Document Examination Report that accompanied my Ietter of 25
September. ln the meantime you had, o26 November 1997,held a meeting with the
• Agent of Qatar and myself. Thdidnot lead to any agreement between us; nor have you
since then communicated tous any decision of the Court on the procedure to be fol!owed.
3. Counter-Memorials were exchanged o31Oecember. In itsCounter-Memorlal Qatar
continues to rely without qualification on the forged miused in lts Memorial and
has thereby confirmed its insistence on recourse to them. Qatar has not yet offered any
explanation whatever of the numerous remarkable aberrations noted with resp81t to the
documents in question.
B. The need to deal with the forgery question separately
4. ln consequence, whilstnormal circumstances the next step would be for the Court
·to consider whether Replies should be exchanged and to fix appropriate dates, it ls
!undesirable th~n futh.r eps ln relation to the merits of the case should be taken until Page2 \
\
the matter of the forgeries has first been resolved; othelWise there wlll be additional
procedural complications, delay and unjustifiable expense, no less for the Court than for the
Parties.
C. The massive extent to which Qatar has used forgeries
5. lt is impossible to overstate the extent to which the forgeries used by Qatar
contamlnate the case. With the present letter, Bahrain submits copies of Oatar's Memorial
and Counter-Memorial highllghted to show ali references ta the forged documents, and the
arguments based on them. As can easi!y and quickly be seen merely by turning the pages
of both the Memorial and the Counter-Memorial, ail elements of Qatar's clalms are affected,
from the earliest historical references to the maritime delimitation.Unless and until the
record is purged of these fundamental falsehoods, it will bea near-impossible task to
distinguish those contentions which are based on forgeries from those which are not. The
danger goes far beyond the intended harm to Bahrain, and even beyond the dellberate
mls!eadlng of the Court. The attempt to rewrite regional hlstory also poses a threat to third
party States, and thus to regional stability. Especially considering that they become part of
the p~bl reccrd at the conclusion of the case, any weight glven to the forged mateiials
(
could thus have unpredictable and far reaching repercussions.
D. !The complications and expense to which Qatar's forgeries wi!I give rise if not
dealt. with before the rest of the merits
6. :consideration of the impact of the problem on the successive steps of the case
revea:Jsthe serlous degree to whlch the case wlll be complicated if the question of the
forgefies is not deawith as a pre!iminary matter.
1
7. lAt the Reply stage Bahrain will answer the Qatar Counter-Memorial, identlfying the
forg docu~ ents but otherwise disregarding them. Qatar, on the other hand, will
presUmably continue to refer to these doèUments and Wm no doubt comment at sorne length
on thèir clafmed significance in the case, especially in vlew of Bahrain's disregard of them in
its cbunter-Memorlal. Thus the two pleadings will not be focused on the same issues and
their~al wuiebe significantly reduced.Even so, both Replies will have to be translated.
And the extent of this taswillbe increased by reason of the tact that Qatar has sald that its
(douQtless lengthy) response to Bahraln's case on the forgeries wlll be relegated to an
Annex toits Reply.
8. lnthese clrcumstances, the Reply willneed to be followed by a Rejoinder- at least so
as to enable Bahrain to answer the Annex to Qatar's Reply. And Qatar ls unlikely then to
wish toleave the Jastword to Bahrain in a case which untll then would have been cor1ducted
on the basfs of simultaneously exchanged pleadings. Again, alithese p!eadings, wilneed
to be translated. ln other words, the course Qatar proposes in this case will greatly
comp!icate the procedure, expand the time to be spent by the Court, and lncrease costs for
the Court and the Parties.
9. Bahrain therefore requests that the Court, if it can find a suitab!e period during the
latter part of 1998 when it can deal with the forgery point separately, take up this aspect of
the case and treat lt before the real merlts and without further delay. The issues involved
are readily severable from the substantive lssues proper!y falling wlthin the scope of the
case as origina!!y submitted to the Court and can be dealt with by the Court without enterlng
into the real merits.
1O. There is no ground for thinklng that Qatar wou!d be disadvantaged by this procedure.
lt has already had ample opportunlty for full examinatlon of the documents in question. The
follo,.Yingconsiderations must be reca!Jed:
' 1
' Page3
(i) Qatar had already carried out sorne examinat!on of the documents even before its
Memorial was submltted. In its letter 8 October 1997 to the Court Qatar affirmed:
"Of course, before submitting these documents to the Court as Annexes to its
Memorial, Qatar sat!sfied itself that there was no reason to doubt their authenticity".
~· rot• t"Z.I>I'COvc.q,cl
(ii) The fact that, under cover of hfs letter to the Court of 31 October 1997, the Agent of
Qatar sought to submlt slightly amended versions of 75 of the 81 forged documents
indicates thaty that date Qatar had re-examined them and had, presumably, sorne
basis on which stjjj to maintain that they were not forgeries.
(iii) Qatar has known slnce May 1997 that Bahrain has doubts about these documents and
has known since 25 September - that is to say, a!ready for some four months - the
precise nature anddetails of Bahrain's submissions.
(iv) Fina!!y, Qatar acknow!edged at the meeting with the President of the Court on 25
November 1997 that it had commissioned expert examinations of Bahraln's
conclusions. It took Bahrain's experts no more than four weeks from the delivery by
Qatar of the orlglnals to the Peace Palace to determine that the documents are
( forgeries. Surely, itshou!d not take Qatar significantly more time to develop its
answer - the more so as, after ail, the documents are alleged to be documents from
the Qatar archives.
1
11.! May 1therefore respectfully inform the Court that Bahrain would be agreeable to the
follbwing schedule:
1
(i) the fixing of a date no later than 30 M1998 by which Qatar should submit a written
reply to Bahrain'sontention that the documents in question are forgeries, and
(ii) 1the fixing of a date in the autumn o1998, shou!d a suitable opportunity arise in the
calendarof the Court, for the commencement of hearings limited to the question of the
' forgeries.
!
Th9se dates wlll al!ow ample opportunity to Qatar to conduct its examinations and prepare
its Position whi!e not intertering with the order!y progress of the case.
Yours very tru!y,
··=;>J_5 ~
)AWAD SAUM ALAAA YED
MIN15TEROFSTATE
ACENi OFTHESTATEOF8AHAAINBEFOR!CJE Dr. Abdullah Al-Muslemanj
Agent of the Stale o( Q_l.7r
before the /nleinCourt justice
Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Esq.
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The NetherJands
17 March 1998
Re. Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and TeQuestions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain}
•
Sir,
1
On the occasion of the meeting with the President of the Court convened with the Agents of the
Padies tu1der Article 31 of the Rules of Court on 17 March 1998, I have the honour to confirm
whdt i said at that meeting in response to:
Il JI'!rOI- .U,.odu~d
a) your Ietter of 5 Fe~98at,nsmining copy of a letter of 27 January 1998 from the
Agent ofBahraand ~ ott~/ :).;eo fiil>"ct ((.(;,
b) ! yourletter also of 5 February 1998, transmitting copy of a further letter of 2 February
1 1998 from the Agent of Bahrain.
'
As regards the first of the two Ietters, l repeat what I said at the meeting, namely, thal the six
mis'sing docwnents have not yet been traced, and that, in the circumstances, Qatar will suspend
refrance on umtil they have been fmmd and transrnitted to the Court
• '
As ·regards the second of these two letters, I confirrn the position which I and my Counsel
explained on behalf of the State of Qatar at the rne'etingwith the President earlier today. Qatar
very much resents the repeated reference by Bahrainl to the "forged documents" ln both that letter
and Bahrain's Counter-Memorial. This is most objechonable.
So far, Qatar has not had an opportunity to considJ fully and respond to the serious allegations
which Bahrain has made with respdoc~eo thBnhtishd a period of almost exact!y
one year between 30 September 1996 and 25 Septdmber 1997, to formulate these allegations of
forgery. Indeed, it was only at the end of January 1998 that Qatar received copies of the updated
B~ai reorion what that report refe"~~to sownens"t It would be Wlrèasonable
fo.i Qatar not to be allowed a corre'ponding period in which to examine and respond to these
allègations. 1
1 :
!
c/oEmbassyoftheStateofQatISouthA~dl LoydSntrIe5e~
r~lfAd17n~N'.???nfJ_J:RJ 7!4932661 -2-
The Court will be aware that Qatar has taken steps tohigh!qualified forensic
document examiners and historians in order to scrutinise and respond to the allegations which
Bahrain has made. The investigation of the originals of the documents currently deposited with
the Court has not yet been completed by the document examiners and the reports of the historical
expertwillinevitably take sorne time to prepare. As Qatar stated in its meeting with the
President of the Court on 25 Novemiintends to provide a fully considered response to
the Bahraini allegations concerning the authenticity of the challenged documents in an Appendix
·to its Reply. As soon as Qatar has received considcred observati"supectdhe so~ca
documents" - and it expects to receive those observations withiitintends, six months -
without prejudice to the Statute and Rules of Court, to present as may be relevant its interim
coùclusiotothe Court and to Bahrain. Qatar is as anxious as Bahrain to resolve this problem as
ra~ aipdssbl, but must be pennitted the necessary time to conclude the Investigations which
ibas now set in train.
'
Having regard to what I have just said, it is the view of the State of Qatar that the Bahraini
re~ uoeivedthe written proceedings on the merits into two phases and to hold separate
hekings on the issue of the documents (which for Qatar is strictly an evidential issue) in the
auiumn of 1998 is i!l-conceived and contrary to the Statute and the Rules of Court. Bahrain's
re<fuest would have the effect of prolonging the proceed!ngs considerably, while it is to be
exPected that the matter will be clarified once Qatar has finished its own examination of the
doÇuments. Qatar firmly believes that to proceed in accordançe with the Statute and the Rules of
Cotirt willlead to a speedier settlement of the dispute as a whole.
1
Pl~ acaep, r, the assurance of my highest consideration.
1
1
/1 ti..· J,.,<.c(f'--'~'
/l·rt· ~
Dr. Abdullah binA 1 Al-Musle·Ip~m,.
AgentoftheS eofQatar
f 1
STATEOF BAHRAIN ü~\ Â. -;~
OFFICEOFTHEMINISTEORF5TATE :o.:--\ . .'....::5::
:..r::r .
P.O. Box 2088 ti.Y\V"
MANAMA,BAHRAIN <J>._.).I\:ll
Phone: 217721 Fax: 215508 ~loc.A f,Wv.S.',i.ifh~~
--------~--~----------------~-
No. : ICJ.QvB/155 l , ~)\
Date: 26March,199E 1 '~\:JI
His Excellency Stephen M. Schwebel
President
International Courtustice
PeacePalaŒ
2517KJ The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS
Re: Case Conceming Maritime Delîmitaüon and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
• 1
DearMr. President,
1
1ani writing in connection with certain of the points made by Bahrain at the meeting held by
you!on17March 1998. In thîs regard, 1have the honour ofreferring to the letter dated
17 M:arch 1998 from the Agent of the State of Qatar to the Courttrar of the
1
1 1. Map No. 1 of Qata(s Counter-Memorial is a forgery
ln its Counter-Memorial dated 31 Decelilber 1997, Qatar submitted one more document
fron)tîts Diwan Amirî Archives, containing two purported Ottoman maps. As with the other
81 documents from these Archives subwithQatar's Memorial, Bahrain's experts
have established that this document is not just "suspect"; it is an outright forgery. A colour
photocopy of this document is annexed to this letter as Attachment A.
As explained in greater detail in a report from Bahrain's Ottoman experts:
(a) The map contaîns two impressions of a seal of the "Accountancy Department cf
the Vilayet of Chorum", a province în North Central Anatolia. lt is înconceivable
that an Anatolian province would have been invorved with surveys
•
surveys of islands in the Gulf of Arabia.
{b) (b)The maps are dated 1876 and 1883. However, this same seal contains the
date 1926 and Chorum did not beaVilayet until after 1924. lt ls lmpossîble
that these impressions could have been placed on the maps prîorto 1924, tet
alone1926.
(c) The map contains an imprint of a seal of ''The Imperial Land Registly (Office)".
an administrative agency of the Ottoman Stwitland transactions for
private persons.s lnconceîvable that the Land Registry Office would have
been fnvolved with suorthe mapsof surveysof islandsin the Gulfof
Arabia.
{d) The document contains two impressions of the seal of the village council of a
smal!town in Northem Anato!ia. lt is inconceivable that this body would have
MapNo.1,QatarCounter·Memol p.28--29;Annex, oL2, p.23; Annex HL12,VoL3, p.
' i 77; MapNo.1, Vol.6. Page2
alsobeen involved with surveysor the maps of surveys of islands in the Gulf of
Arabia.
(e) Thissame seal refers tothe Vilayetof "Shebînkarahisar".This Vilayetwas,
however,given the name "Sheb!nkarahisar"in 1924. lt is impossiblethat these
impressionscould have been placed on the maps priorto 1924. Yet, as recalled
above,the maps are dated 1876and 1883.
A copyof this reportis annexed to thiletteas Attachment B.
2. The six Qatari documents not submitted to the Court should be fonnally
withdrawnfrom the record
At themeeüngof 17Marchand subsequentlyin his letter of the same date to the Registrar, the
Agent for Qatar announced,with respectto the originals of the six documents whichQatar has
yet tosubmit ta the Court, that "(;latarwill suspendreliance on them until they have been found
and transmittedtothe Court." The reasongîvenwas that these six documents, eventhough
from Qatar'sownarchives, stiJlcannat be found.
Bahiain first requestedthese documentsin May 1997. Qatar has had over 10 monthsto !ocate
the1 and tamakethem available to the Courtand Bahrain. Qatar has failed ta do sa.
Qatar'sunilateraldeclaration thatwill"suspendreliance"on the six documents cannat be
supPorted by referenceto the Statute or the Rules. A document is eltherduly beforethe Court
or îtîsnot Were this not sc, any party coulddeclare that îtîslooklng for any number of
do~me butis"suspendîng rellance"onthem until they are found. This would cŒate an
intolérablesituationfor the ether party,which would be leftin uncertainty asto theitmust
ansJ..eruntil Memorialsand Counter-Memorialshave been finalised (as indeed has happened in
thistase).
!
The:Courtwill observethat Qatar has not desaibed whidl: oftsarguments relate tothe six !ost
documents. Thisis a hîghly problematicmatter,as shown by the colour-highlighted
reproductionsofthe Qatar Memolial and Counter-Memorialdeposited withthe Courtby
Bahrain. Moreover,if the six lost documents wereta remain on the record and the arguments ta
whichthey relatewere only ta besuspended,the Court would have ta examine two cases at
each stage of theremaining proceedings:one thatanticipated the inclusion of the six
documentsand theîrarguments and one that anticipatedtheir exclusion, entire!ydependent on
the unilateraldiscretionof Qatar.
ln viewof the foregoîngand with referenceta Articles48 and 49 of the.Courfs Statute, Bahrain
respectfullyasksthal the Court record thal the six documents are withdrawn fromthe file.
If Qatarat a laterstagewishes ta apply for the re-introductionof ali or any of these documents,
such an applicationand itsjustificationwould need to be evaluated in lighthe circumstances
at thattime.
3. Furtherproceedings to considerthe Qatari forged documents
'
At tt}emeeting on25 November 1997, the Agent of Qatar stated unequivocally that Qatar stood
by thoauthenticityat the documents challengedby Bahrain.
1
Qatàrnow daims thal, in order to adduce evidenceof the authenticity of documents that come
froni Qatar'sownarchives, it musbe gîventhe same arnountof time as Bahraîntook to
esfljblish thal thedocuments are forged (i.e.,12months). Qatar accordingly proposesthatt
subrTiîtin September1998 an "interim"report,respondingta Bahrain's charges, and in March of
1999a final reportas an annex ta ils Reply.Qatar contends thal this procedure willbe fair and
'
willlead to a moreexpeditious resolutioofthiscase.
1
1 1
l Page3
Bahrain doesnotquestionthe faimess of this approach,providedthal the Court requiresthal
I the so-calle·~nte reior"containexhaustivesubmissionsandevidence,as weilas a
definitiveposillon,regardingnatureof the documents(i.e.,are they forgeriesor not),and
that the subsequentRplybe lîmîtedto drawîngthconsequences of the posttionthus takenas
tothe documents. (lt would not howeverbe fiBahrainwere requiredto face a moving
target.)
At the sametime,Bahraindoes not believe thatthe Qatar proposaiwould lead to an expeditious
resolutionofhecase. Bahrain venturesto repeaitsuggestionthat Qatar be directedto
submit itsreporton the documentsby 30 May 1998and thathearings on the character of the
documentsbeheldin the fourthquarterof thisyear.
In this regardBahrainwould agaînwish to raiseforthe Court'sconsiderationthe importanceof
an expert commissionbeingestablishedforthwithpursuantto Artides 48 and 50 of the Statute
to considerthismatter. ln view of the volume andtechnicalnatureof the evidencethat mustbe
examined, as notedbyQâtarin_themeeting of 17March, Bahrainreiteratesits offerto finance,
if necessary,thework.of such a commission.
4. Additiona!Materials
ln previouscorrespondanceand reports submîttedta the Court, Bahrain has referredto the
CollegeofAnns,the officialbody in London, England,that isthe heraldicauthorityfor England,
Wa!es, Northemfrelandand muchof the Commonwealth,and to Stuart HoughtonUmited,the
manufacturerof a certatypeof sealswhich havebeen imprintedon many of the Qatari
Ottoman documents. ln additiontc the supplementaryreportfrom Bahrain'sOttoman experts,
mentioned above,and in orderto give Qatar thefullestopportunityto examinewithout delaythe
specifieflawsthatrevealthe forgeries,Bahràinindudes herewithreports fromMr. \oftheite
College ofAnnsand from Stuart Houghton Limtted,as follows:
(1) Reportfromthe Collegeof Arms: ln hisreport,Mr.White,one of the College'sexperts,
confirmsthat nineof the Qatari documentsbe3r imprtntsof Britishheraldicdevlcesthat
demonstratethe inauthentidty those documents. For example,nine of the
documents,datingfrom 1867to 1945,bearimprintsof the RoyalAnns thal were
designedfor Queen ElizabethIln 1956.Oneof the documents datingfrom 1867bears
the imprintf a RoyalAir Forcepilofs badge,notwithstandingttacthet the RAFwas
createdin 1918.(SeeAttachment C)
(2) ReoortfromStuart HoughtonUmited: Intwo statementsfrom Stuart Houghton Lîmîted,
Mr.StuartHoughton(ManagingDirector,seeAttachment D) and Mr. Roy Hudson
(Directorof Production;Attachment E)confirmthat certain of the inkwaxdseal
impressionsthat appear on eight of Qatar'sOttomandocuments were made by seals
froma sealcollectionStuart Houghton Umiteddesignedand mark.etedin 1990-1991.
Thedesignof these sealswas conceîvedbyMr. Houghtonand does not replicatethatof
anypre-e:xistlngseals.
-
Bahrain remainsready to assistthe Court inanymannerthat the Court considersbest to
expedite theresolutionof the question of the forgeddocuments.
Yours verytruly,
~JAW~~~ALA~~
MINISTEROFSTATE
ACENrOFTHE5TATEOF8AHR8EFORETHICJ .
STATE OFBAHRAIN ù:'J .,! !1.---''.SJ
Office of the Minlster of State ~J.-l r--=jj ·: )<,..
P.O.Box2068 T •/\A"-?~
Manama, Bahrain ~~1-.i,..,l ·.alj
Phone:217721 Fax:215508 r 1co. A :__,..s\n vvn :...ii~..:>
No: iCJ-QvB/193
Date: 27 November 1998
His Exceliency Stephen M. Schwebel
President
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517KJ The Hague
THE NETHERLANDS
Re: Case Coneeming: Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahraio}
Dear Mr. President,
The Court has received Qatar's Interim Report submhted pursuant totheCourt's Order of 30 March
1998. The OJder does not require Bahrain to submit its observations on !hat Report llefore its Reply.
However, in view of the effectlve abandonmentDy Qatar of ali of the impeached documents in the
face of Bahrain's proof of forgery, Bahrain consldefS it appropriate even new to note the situation
resulting !mm the terms of !hat Report.
In paragJaPh 7 ofitsReport. Qatar ''forrnally declares", in an unqualified and bin~iy mnanner,
that it "will disregaJd all1he challenged documents for the purposes of the present case.• L.ater,in
paragraph9. Qatar states thatasa consequence "Bahrain is now in a position to prepare its Reply on
the same basis" and continues that "Sahrafn suffers no prejudice in this respect since Bahrain itself
prepared itsCounter·Memortal on ttut basis that it would also disregard the challenged doçyments ...
Qatar at this point ados a footnote referring t•seM, para. 6,inwhich Bahrain declares !hatil'will
treat the content of the 81 forged documents as non-existent'." Qatar thus equaitsdecision to
disregard the challenged documents with a decision to treat them and their content as non-existent.
Although the Court's Order contemplated that Qatar could make known its "definitive" position in
regard to !he 82 documents in the Reply due on 30 March 1999, !he !act is !hat Qatar has already
taken a position which is as "definitivitcan possibiy be. There is thus no seope for any further
defJnition of Qatar's position in lts Repfy. The status of documents explicitly declared to be non
existent leaves no room for amplification or qualiflcbyany subsequent statement.
lt follows that Qatar cannat make any further reference to the 82 forged documents,itwill not
adduce the content of these documents ln connectlon wlth any of its arguments and that, in general,
tne merits of the case will be acfjudlcated by the Court wfthout regard to these documents. (A list of
the documents thus excluded' appearS as Annex 1 to this letter.)
At the same time, Bahrainisbound to recaii that Qatar. being confronted with proof of the forgery of
the 82 documents, has made no attempt ln its Interim Report to suppoitAgent's unequlvocal
statement to the Presidentf the Court on 25 November 1997 that Qatar had examined the
documents and ..stands behind" them. lnstead, it seeks at paragraph 47 to evade responsibility by
hidingpehind the aneged disagreement between its experts, and advances the extraordinaryOFFICE OF THE MJNISTER OF STATE
Page2
proposition thal Qatar is "unqualified, of c'Dtake a position on the autheoticity of documents
where there appear to be confticts between the sxpens". ln view of the inadequa idth~
expJanations givenby Qatar in its Interim Repon {sorne of which are noted in Annex 2 to this Ietter), it
is unacceptabre for Qatar to state {in paragrapthat "the Bahraini charge of misconduby Qatar
is whofly unfounded." Rather, Oatar'abando~t ofan tpe 8Z documents entirely vindicates the
position takeby Bahrainon this issue. Qatar'sconductin introducingthe forged documentscan be
seen only as deliberate negligent Either way. Qatar's conduct has been unlawful and has caused
moral and materia! damage to Bahrain, in respeorwhich Bahrain reserves ali its rlghts.
Qatar has suggested that Bahrain hasby its reaction to the forgeries. caused delay. The truth is
quite the contrary. Bahrain needs hardly point cvitwas Qatar's actions in submitting forged
documents, and then refusing to address the situation thus created until ordered tbytheso
Court, that has helup theproceedings. Bahraiï's rostiy and successeffortsto prevent massive
fraud • on the Court and oitse!fcan hardlyŒ considered a delaying tactic.
FinallyBahrain is compelled to note the absence from the Qatar interim Report of any apology or,
indeed. any expression of regret whatsoever, theculpable manner in which Qatar has treated the
Court and Bahrain.
fours very truly,
JAWADSoiUMALARAYElJ'
MiNtfJTEROFSTATE
AGENrOFn-ESrATEOFfJ EFOREn-EfCJ 1
Agent of the State of Qatar before the
lntenwtWnal Courl of Jw;tice
EduardoValencia-Ospina,Esq.
Registrer
InternationalCourt of Justice
PeacePalace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Nethedands
15December 1998
Re. Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
'
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to the letter from the Agent of the State of Bahrain, dated 27 November
1998, and itsattached Annexes.
As Bahrain itselfacknowiedges,the Court'sOrderof 30March 1998 did not authorizeBahrainto
submitits observationson Qatar'sInterim Reportbeforefi!ingits Reply. Thus,.Bahrain'sletteris
onceagainan irregularcommunicationwhichisnot providedfor by the Orderofthe Court.
Qatar,on the ether hand, and contrazyto what B~n nowasserts, has compiied fully withthe
Court'sOrder. Indeed,by settingout in its InterimReportthe results of its forensicand historical
exarnination of ail of the documents in question aby indicatingitsdecision to disregardalithe
chaHengeddocuments for the purposes of the present case, Qatar has given itsposition with
regard to thosedocuments in advance of the time-limitof30 March 1999 that was fixed by the
Court's Order. In effectively removing the documents from consideration in the case, Qatar's
intention was to enable the Court taddressthe merits ofthecase and theParties to prepare their
Replieswithout furtherproceduralcomplications.
Qatar does not intend toadd.-c.:f.rrt.'ihere the highlyintempe remts~of Bahrain'sIetter
which it cannotaccept
As Qatar pointed out lnitsInterim Report, it goes without saying thaifQatar hadhad doubts as
tothe authenticity of these docwnents, it would not have introduced them into evidencin these
proceedings. However, so that there be no nüsunderstanding on this point, Qatar would like to
expresshere itsregretat the situatiothat hasarisenandthe inconvenience that this has caused to
the Court and Bahrain.
Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my bighest consideraüon.
do Embassy of the State of Qatar. 1Soulh Aud!ereet, london W1Y 500
Tel (44.171} 493 22 00- Fax {44.171)493 2661 l
STATE OF BAHRAIN
OFFICEOFTHEM!NISTEROF 5TATE
P.O. Box 2088 '·""YU'
MANAMAB , AHRAIN Ù'-~\_i,.\:l\
Phone: 217721 Fax: 215508 noo.A,vS'ni v~n,~l...
No. : • ,..:>)1
JCJ-QvB/199
Date: 1~l:.ll
13January1999
HisExce!!encyStephenM. Schwebel
President
Jntematlonl ourtoJustice
PeacePa!aŒ
2517 The Hague
TheNethertands
RE: CaseConceming MaritimDelimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
Dear Mr.President
il'
Bahrain acknowledges receipt of Qatar's letters of 11 and 15 DeŒmBahrain8.
appreciateQatarsexpression of regret for the situation resulting from the submisslon of
theforged documents.
Bahrain has no objection to the modification of the Court's Order of 30 March 1998 to
accommodate Qatar's request for a two-month extension of the time-limit for the Replies.
Inconnection therewith, Bahrain recalls that the final paragrapcallefor Order
Qatar to provide its "definitive position" on the documents lon30sMarchy, due
1999. Since Qatar states that !t has "given its positiotothese documents ln
advanceof the time-limit" to the effeis"removing the documents from
consideration in case", Bahrain respectfully requests that any modification of the Order
take note of this development.
Yours very truly,
cc-==~t __. :'·: .;J.{.,.s
JAWADSAUMALARAYED
M!NISTEROFSrATE
AGENTOFrnESTATEOF~BEFORETHEICJ Agent o/{the State of Qatar before the
1 ~-
lntefnatWnal Court of Justice ~~· ~2 -~
'\lJ, . .~
·?'i•uf"' ·
1i
Eduardo Valencia~Os Espq.na,
Registrar
InternatlonJ:l Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
1 February 1999
Re: Case conn·rning Maritime Delimitation and TerritorialQuestions bctwccn Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to your letter dated 14 January 1999which was attached the
letter from the Agent of the State ofBahrain, dated 13 January 1999.
Qotar is pleased to note that Bahrain has no objection to the modification of the Court's Order
of 30 March 1998 to accommodate Qatar's request for a two-month extension of the time-limit
for the Replies.
Qatar cannot however accept Bahrain's description of the documents that were challenged by
t Bahrairra~ "forgeedoc~;men! Qat".sp0si!i0rwith reg<rrt0 tho<;ed0cument!' is sta!ed in
its Interim Report of 30 September 1998. In that Report Qatar inforrned the Court that, in the
light of theconfllcting views amongst the Parties' experts, it had decided that it would
disregard al! the challenged documents for the purposes of the present case, so as to enable the
Court to address the merits the case without further proçedural complications.
This is Qatar's definitive position. Qatar hereby confim1s willnot rely on any of those
documents in its Reply; nor will it make any further observations asto their authenticity. In
its Reply Qatar will, however, address the consequences of Qatar's decision to disregard the
cha!!enged documents with respect to its previous written pleadings, and will provide a
document to illustrate such consequences.
do Embassy of the State of QatSouthAudley StreetlondonW1Y 5DQ
Tel (44 171) 493 00- fa> (44.171) 493 26 61 \\
-2-
As far as the Order to be issued by the Court is concemed, Qatar considers that the question of
the nature and substance of such an Order is a matter for the Court alone.
Please accept,r, the assurance of my highest consideration.
1} . ,4. f(_~rv~~
Dr. Abdullah bin Abdul ·
Agentofthe State ofatar 103!65 5 July 1999
Sir,
With reference to the meeting held on 28 June 1999 by the President of the Court with the
Agents of the Parties, in relation to questions of procedure in the case conceming Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain}, I have the
honour to inform Yur Excellency !hat the Court bas instructed me to let the Parties-know thal no
• further roundf pleadings will take piace in the case. However, taking account of the vicws of the
Parties, the Court has decided to permit them to file supplemental doThese documents
might be uccompanied by a brief commentary of no more !han a page per document limited to
placing them in the contextthe written pleadings; in particular, the provenance of the document
and how itrelates to the proceedings should be descrA time-limit within which any such
further documents would have to be filed will be fixed by the Court, once it bas detennined on the
date for the openingf the oral proceedings.
Accept,Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Eduardo Valencia-Ospina
Registrar
•
Hts Excellency
Mr. Jawad Salim Al Arayed
Agent of the State of Bahrain
before the International Court of Justice
cio Ministry of Foreign Affairs
P. O. Box 2088
Manama
Bahrain 1
1
STATE OF BAHRAIN .,.·'4.__ _.,.,..1
Office of the Mlnister of State iL_jJ.>.l .>-:!.JJ '.'.,
P.O. Box 2068 y •A!'7>.)D
Manama, Bahrain 0::~~-~~ ·,n
Phone:217721 Fax:215508
n oo ·A :._,..sin vvn :~u.
ICJ-QvB/241
No:
Date: 23 November, 1999
H. E. Stephen Schwebel
President
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
Carnegiep!ein, 2
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
RE: CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION AND TERRITORIAL
QUESTIONS BETWEEN QATAR AND BAHRAIN (QATAR V. BAHRAINl
Dear Mr President,
At the meeting which yeu convened on 16 November 1999 with the
Agents of the States of Qatar and Bahrain, Qatar indicated thatitwished
to be allowed to fUe various unspecified witness statements or expert
opinions six weeks before the openfng of the ora! proceedings.
Confronted with this unanticipated proposai, Bahrain reserveditsposition
ln order to consul! w!th lts advisors. 1now have the honour of informing
you of BahrainTsposition.
Bahrain recalls that this case has ~iread rysulted in three rounds of
simultaneous p!eadings. The Memorials were filed on 30 September
1996, the Counter Memorials on 31 December 1997 and the Replies on
30 May 1999. Qatar has addui:ed no !ess than 1317 exhibits totalling
8683 pages. Bahrain, by contras!, has submitted 505 exhibits total!ing
2133 pages. The Parties have been afforded a full and unhurried
opportunity to adduce thair evidence and the Court understandably
declined, per your letter to the Parties dated 5 July 1999, to authorise
any further round of wrinen p!eadings.
Because it was correctly anticipated that many months would pass
between the !ina! round of written pleadings and the opening of the oral
proceedingsT the Court acceded to the proposa! that the Parties ber·--- ..-
..
OFFICE OF THE M!NISTER OF STATE
allowed to file ""supp lamentai documents". The conditions under which
such supp!emental documents could be filed ware artlculated in your
aforementloned Jetter as follows:
'These documents might be accompanied by a briel commentary of
no more than a page per document !imited to placing them in the
context of the wrltten pleadings; in particular, the provenance of
the document and how it relates tc the proceedings should be
described."
'Given the Court's decision not to authorise a fourth round of written
'p!eadings, Bahrain understood that the Court was giving the Parties an
opportunity to file a limlted number of already existing historical
documents which had not been available to them in time for inclusion in
earlier pleadings {hence the instruction to explain their provenance}.
Given this background, Bahraln's position is as follows:
1. To date, both Parties have had an equal opportunity to state
their case.
2. lnsofar as either party sees something in the ether party's final
pleadings to which it has not been able to respond, it has ample
opportunity to address the matter in oral argument.
3. lt is inherent in simultaneous written pteadings that neither party
will have •the last word"; ifa party is entitled to inltiate a new
wrinen exchange for afterthoughtsr the written phase will be
never ending.
4. Jt is also inherent in the nature of simultaneous written
pleadings that each party will see something in the other party's
final p!eadings tc which it has not been able to respond. For
example, Qatar's Reply ('QR"l contained 259 exhibits, including
no Jess than three expert reports. If there were to be an
opportunity to filefurther witnesses statements or experts
reports, Bahrain would be incllned to produce a substantial body
of new evidence tc rebut ihese Qatari exhibits. For example
{and without limitation):-
• ln OR Annex JV.31, Qatar submitted a report by Prof.
T.D. Rabenhorst analysing satellite photos of Fasht ad
Diba! and Qit'at Jaradah. Bahrain could submit expert
opinions regarding the accuracy of the report and the
interpretation of such images. ln additio fur~her expert
opinions on Bahrain's islands and low water elevations
could be submitted.OFFICE OF THEMIIIISTER OF STATE
• In its ReplyrQatar submitted over 60 Ottoman documents
dating from the Jate 19t" century and early 20u. century.
These documents are accompanied by translations on
which Qatar relies. Bahrain could submit expert opinions
to correct Qatar~ m is·translations and mis-interpretations
of these historical documents.
• QR Annex Il. 75 con tains an opinion by Dr. Zekeriya
Kursun on the interpretation of an Ot1oman map
submitted by Bahrain in its Memorial; a map that clearJy
shows that the Hawar Islands were part of Bahrain.
Bahrain could submit expert opinions confirming the
accuracy of the map and describing the errors in Dr.
Kursun's report.
• QR Annex 111.98is a legal opinion by Judge Wassel Alaa
El Din Ahmed Ibrahim regarding the jurisdiction and
powers of a Qadi, an ls!amic reiigious and legal official.
Bahrain could submit legal opinions tc clarify this issue.
• Bahrain could submit expert opinions and reports ta put in
proper context each of the 55 published historical and
legal works found in Oatar's annexes that Bahrain
believss are grievously mis-construed in Oatar's
arguments.
5. The Court's tolerance of ·supplemental documents" was
refated to historical documents for which there existed a
good reason wh y they had not been filed previously. lt did
not encompass materials created specifically for the
purposes of these proceedings. ln the Court' s parlance,
·document" means evidentiary material (for instance,
historicaf or diplomatie documents) and does not include
wltness statements or expert opinions, which are part of a
party's pleadings. This is clear from the Statute of the Court
\e.g., Article 43, which could not refer to a •copy" of each
document ("pièce" in French) ifit was meant to refer to
witness statsments or expert opinions}. The same holds true
for Articles 50 and 56 of the Rules of the Court. A
"'document" is a "document "nd not every written
statement or opinion that a party would like to put before the
Court. Any ether interpretation would, de facto, reverse the
Court' s decision not tc have a foUrth round of written
pleadings. . Moreover, it would open the possibility of
dsmands tor stiJl further pleadings.OFFICE OF THE MIN!STER OF STATE
6. Furthermore, the filing of such new evidence, equivalent to a
fourth round of pleadings, only six wee!cs before the opening
of the oral proceedings would prevent the orderly preparation
for the oral phase of the case - not !east because of the
need for translation.
7. Bahrain understands that the Court considered the case to be
•ready for hearing" as of the filing of the Reply. This follows
from the operation of Article 54 of the Rules of the Court. If
the principle of the closure of the written proceedings as
contemplated in Article 54 is not respected, the oral
proceedings will perforee be postponed. Bahrain is anxious
that no such delay be permined.
8. Recalling that the Replies were filed on 30 May 1999,
Bahrain observes that any urgent and justified need on the
part of Qatar to rebut Bahrainrs exhibits could have been
expressed on the occasion of the meeting with yourself on
28 June 1999, or by way of response (or request for
clarification) following your letter of 5 July 1999.
For these reasons, Bahrain respectfully submits that the Court should,
pursuant to Article 52 of its Statute, proceed according to its decision
notified by your letter of 5 Ju!y 1999 and decline Qatar' s proposai that
new documentsr written for the purpose of these proceedings, be
admitted into the record at this stage.
Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration •
.
jA WAD SALIM ALARAYED
M!NISTER OF STA TE
A CENT OF THEST.A.IEB.A.1lRABEFORE THE IC}r----------
.r--laiu,. ~.J
Agent of theStale ofQatar befixe lM
lnknudional Court of JIU&< • _JJJI J.wJI :;..~ .s.i-1
J(ef: 30/991277
D•te: 30 l'/Member !999
Eduardo Valencîa-üspinaEsq.
Rcgistmr
JnternntionalCourt of Justice
PcaccPalace
2517KJ The llague
T]leNelherlands.
Re. Case c:once~ Mgaritime Delimitation and Ter 'torialQuestions between
Qatar and Bahnùn (Qatar v. Bahrain)
Sir.
l have 1he honour 1.0refBTto Ole Jeu.er from tbe Agentahraid:lted2>No'veŒ,h%
to24Novcmbcr 199 '~:
J999, whlch you tranarnined to mc undcr covcr ofyour lcttcr
As lndicatcd at the meeûng wi1h!.hePresident of the Co16 November 1999, Q<llar
would wish to reserve the rigtcsubmitto theCourtw!lhiha time-limit totixed by
the Court befor$ lhe opening oflhr. oral proceedings.'messsta1ements aneJ~>pert
reports, along with othcr histdocument..~.
In the light of Bahrain s contention that the Court stQatars proposaithatsuch
documents be admiued into th~ord at thi~iag Qaetarwo d like to clarify ils rositlun
in this regard.
The !cttcr from theRcgî~ trtad5 July 1999 indicathatthe Court hac;dcc.ided to
pemrit the Pnrties uto fiiesupplement&doçumcnts"antha"thesedocumentsmightbe
accompanied. hy n hrîef commtm1ary.of :nu morthan a e rer document Iimhed to
placing !.hem in the contcxt of tho wrinen pleadings".
Bahrain argues a!pointS of iL-.lerf23 November1999 t tthe Court'sauthorisation
for the filing by the Pa.nies of "supptemental documents' was related to ..historical
llocument<>for which 1hereexisted a good rewhynthey h not heenfilcprcviously".
llowever, the Registrar' s letter 5July 1999 mlkes no istinction between.differe;Jt
categorie.-;of documen,ndtherearethusno groUndsfortb unUateralinterpretationby
Ua brain.
ciEmbas.syofmeStateofQatar.1SouthAIJ<IJStreet.LononW1Y500
Tel {44.171}493 22 oo- fax (44.171) 493 26 61r
Agenlofthe StareofQolarbe[orethe
lntenu.tibnd C<>Urlaf Jum,.
. 2.
Qatar finds support for its own interpretation oflhe Regi::.'tr 's letter in the provisions of
the Stature and Rulcs of Court. Articles 50S6of the kul;s make no allempl to define
different categories of wri:tte:n evidence, rcfcning simply tO ..documents" în beth the
Englisl' and French versions of theRules~u.gener firllcetegoricsof1ri11en
evidence;and the Frenchtexr of .Article43oftheSra1ape rsto\f'Wthe tenns -pièce'•
ami ''document.. intcrchangeably.Similarly, the Court's 1 98 guidelines on wnrkîng
mc!hodsmllk.eno distinction bl!:twŒndHTerenŒ t tegories f'tlltitten.evidcncc!.ndeed,
Rosenne, ccmmenting upon Anicle 43 of !heSLatuteand Arti le 50 of the Rules of Court,
indica:rcsthat documentaty evidenceinclu "Jegaiopinio and opinions cf experts,
1 1
etc." and'Dffidnvitsanddeclaraû:ons"
ln shon, neither the Registrar's letter, nor the Statate oesofCourtnorthe 1998
guidclincs cxprcssly limit rhinoricaldocuments the suppl mentadocuroctltthat may
be filedhythe Parties.
Consequeo.tJy, baving regard lOthe instrueilons of the Cd Article 56 of the Rules of
Court. it would ha,.cboenpcrfectlyinorderforQa1arto file ocumentswithinthe time·
lim11without indicatingthe narure of the documents it jn nd.to file. Nevertheless,
Q3tar t()(')k1he s!ep of <mnouncîng its int:ntion tc prodexpert reports and witncss
statcmcnt-; prccisety in ordet.averl any p!.rso:iblerlison of the ornl proceedings.
lndccd, from the very bcginning ofthp~ceedi inbisS$~ the pUIJIOSmd objec'. f
Qatar to C\Joperwithand assist tCourt ioaccordance wi its Rulesandpractice.
ln omyevent. \he number of documents that Qatar propos to submit and towhich
13ahtaiuwoutdapparentlyobject is verylimited.Qatarenvis es subm.ittingno mothan
two expert reports conceming Qit~ Jatadah and Fasht al andno more thatJeigh1.
shortwit.n !lsa~1!ments.
With regard to the ex~r repons, Qatar has noted that two repons subm.ittedas
Annex~ 1.sund 14 lo Buhmin's RqJly arethe onlyQ;pen e idencc produced in suppon
of Bahrain's positive case conceming Qit'alJaradah and taal A7.m. They might well
huve been presented earlier b8reproduced now in an atte pt to fill a gap in Babrain's
prcvlously preaented case.Bahrain basgivelno reason, an there is no apparent reason,
why thesc repons could not bave bccn submittewith B~'s Memorialor Cowltcr.
Memorial: nonetheless Bilhra.inelectcd towaituntitfinalwrlttenplelldi.ngto produce
S. RuxcnmTh~1~ and hactice JJ,1~f(rnQtilolirl, 19: ·1996. V{\!.IU,l>. 12&2.
do Emba~ :ltYit Stztteof Qatar. 1 SoolhAudleyStreetW1Y 500
Tel {4H1~ 493 22 00-fa;{~;.171}493 25~ __.,.w_,. J.-.:S'_,
AgmzoftheStoho(Qat.art;e{urethe
lntemanonal Court ofJiUtlce - _,,1)! J..w.J!l ,c_ .s.io..J
-3-
them. If Qatar were denieÙleright sobmit expert~den inrcsponsc,.lhis would he
a deniai of theequali1yof the PArties,particulinview fthelil<:tthat the Courthas
alrcady cnvisagcd thar both Parties may file new docum larymaterin!s befure the
openlng<,lthe orab~ings.
lt may also be-observcdthaasregardsBahraln'sAnnexes1
'16, 17,13, !9,20,21,22,
23, 26, 21128, 30 and 31 tc ltsReply. noressonisgive by Bahrain,andthcreis no
apparent rcason, why .thcsc could not have heen submittalong withth ~tntements
pr~!vlo $UbmlyUed by Baluain in carlier pleadiDglt iconsistenwith thenllcof
cquality of the Parties that Qatar should beal~owed to ese statemeuts,
Furthtrmore, it wilberecalledthat.asearly as the meeting ·ththoPresidenton 2$ June
1999, Qatar stated tha.11here werc a number of new el ents inBahrai nepsy,
spccifically expert opinions and witness statements.,.to w!Uh Qatar would wish to bave
the possibilityf respcndhlg. This stat3ment elici1ed ksponsefrom Bahrain at the
lime. l
Babrain now argues th01tto adariQatar'scxpen reporu 1 wim~: sascments~()uld,
defacro.reverSethe Court'sdecisinotto haven fourlhro of'\JirltplcadingsThis
a.-;ser!.:ls quite unwmankd, givcn the Jimited nwnbet ocument;; 1hal.Qatt would
wish 1o produce as experre~o and simess stat.ementsan the fact that ·thesubmisslnn
of ruch materials, ahmg with olher documeots which e.ac Party wiil undoubtedly file
uccompanied by a brief cxp:lanationin aceordanΠwithe Registrar's leUer5fJuly
1999. in l'Rwuy can be equated to a fourtlround ofwri n pleadings. ln this regard
Qatar notes. howcvcr. tbat Bahrein has nevertheles:sseen !h to uitslouer of 23
Novemher 1999 to put forward certain comment! on Q •s Reply and theAnnexes
thcrcto.
Givcn the nature and nurnher of the documents tbatnoatintends 1~bmit tere ean
be nuconcem that th~ deocumentswouldlead to postpo entof the oralproceedings
a.c!lïuggcstbyBahrainatpoinr7of il">leUer.
Neverthe lneorse~ toavoid unypossible prejudiceofth type suggested byBuhraln,
Qa.turwould und.ertake. on thea.ssumptitha.tlleorpt'(xj>«<liwgll:eginno ea.rHer
lhan the end or May 2000, to submitits expert reandta statemcntsby 1March
2000. or three nlonths before tho opening of the ornl h'ngs if suoh hearings are
:schcduicd for a latcr date.
cio Embassy of the Sl&teof QaSou~iAudleySff'eLo on WlY 500
Tel {44.171) 493 2~~ax (44.171) 49;) 26 81Age1fZof theStateo(Qaku befo .the .,-lü w,. ~,
·· I11b!rnalùmal Courl of JUIJtice ..~ J.iall • ,s:., .s.U
-4-
As 1o Bahmin's conl.ciltion tthesubmission of Qatar's xpert report.'>and witness
sta1emen{!iwouldbe a breach ofthe cqual!ty oflhe Partiof the simuttaneity of the
writtcplcadi Qnaars~ouJdsimplyp:>inoutthaitwould fcoursebe open to Bahmiu
tu produΠthe samc typof evidence. Moreover, giveu thtthateachfartyis already
authorisedto file m:lditidocuments before 1he hearln ,thesubmis5ionofwitness
statcmcnts and experl reports is no mincontravention a the "equa1ii>'of anns" rule
thunthe simultaueous submission of oUJerkinds of docuwy evidenCe. lt thercfore
goes wi!.hout Siiyi~t to the cxŒ:ntthat Bahr!in suggeder pointOfits!etter tbat
it, too, could submit certain expert repostatements. W bas no objection to this
providedll11ttJchsubnilisioue subjectto thesameûmeli itatiotsQatar•sfilings.
ln çot'lelusioo,Qatar is of thevthat to~lude Q fromprod~i teexpert
reports and witncss statementhatithad intendedto sub 't V~au ledanincorrect
application othe:Registrar's letter of 5 July 1999•raad in c njunctirel~vantthe
provisions(lf(he Sta.tute, the Rules ofandthe 1998 'delinesan4would unduly
prejudice Qatar, contrary taprinciple of equality of lncontrast. the submission
of such materinls along wi1hothcr documthalhavebeen uthorise\,"in now?.ybe
sa.idto preJudice Bahrain, givcothatBs.hrainwouldenjoye right.
If the CourtweN nevcrthelestodecidethaQatar should b precluded f{om submitting
cxpen reports and wltness statemtnQatar mightb~I:ft ith no alternatbutlocali
expert<and witnesses duringth&orsl proceedings. wbich ld nccessarily have an
impactouthe dtlration ofthoscproeeedings,
Ple<1Saccept, Sir, a:~sur ofanyhighesl conslderetion.
e/c Embassy of the Stateof Qalar, 1SOu1hAud!eyStonwa, L500
Tel {44.171) 493 22 00{44.171,493 2651 lü4!29 9 Decembcr 1999
Sir,
Further to my letter dated 5 July 1999, and with reference to the meeting hcld pù \.6 November 1999
1
by the President of the Court with the Agents of the Parties and to the Ietters dated 23 November 1999 and
.· 30 November 1999 from the Agent of Bahraiil und the Agent of Qatar respectively in the case conceming
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Oatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), I have the
honour, on the instructions of the Court, to inform Your Excellency of the following decision taken by the
Court at today'sprivate meeting.
(i) The Court ha' decided to permit the P,ctie' to file 'upplemental e'pert ceport' and hi"oric
documents. However, no further witness statements should be produced. The Court has also
decided that the Parties should be asked to endeavour lo produce supplemental documents in bo!h
English and Frend1, the two official languages of the Court.
(ii) The Court has fixed l Marcl12000 as the time-limit for the filing of these supplemental
documents.
(iii) The Court has decided, pursuant to Article 54, paragraph 1, of ifs Rules, that the oral proceedings
in the case will open on Monday 29 May 2000, at 10a.m., and will iast for a maximum of five
weeks. The Parties should endeavour to reach agreement on the organization of the procedure
within that period.
Açcepl, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Eduardo Valencia-Ospina
Registrar
His Excellency
Mr. Jawad Salim Al Arayed
Agent of the State of Bahrain
before the InternationalCourt of Justice
c/o Ministry of foreign Affairs
P. O. Box 2088
Manama
Bahrain S'TATEOFBAHRAIN v::.J._._r>...~ J... "~ 1
, Office of the Minister of State "-----~.JJ>':';s.
P.O. Box2088 Y~AA.._,...p
Manama.Bahrain ~J ':ttLt .)·li
Phone:21772Fax:215508
n oo ·A:~Lj YIvvn :....i:J~..t
No:
ICJ-QvB/248
Date: 28 December 1999
His ExcellencyStephen M. Schwebel
President
InternationalCourt of Justice
Peace Palace
THE NETHERLANDSe
i
Re:1Case ConcerningMaritimeDelimitationand TerritorialQuestionsbetween Qatar
1 and Bahrain v.Bahrain)
1 •
DearMr.Pres1dent
i
1. 1regret having to extend the correspondance thal has passed between the Parties
and the Court relating to the question o! the submission of further documents
betweenw and the commencement of the oral hearings on 29 May 2000.
However,Bahralnmustexitsconcemwithrespecttothetsrrnsand effectof
operative paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the decision of the Court taken on 9 December
1999.
2. Bahraincallslhat the requestfor the liJingof supplemental expert reports was
made by Qatar alone and tM! the decision to allow such a fiting is in tact responsive
ta the requestoneParty,namely, Qatar. This was opposed by Bahrain lor
the good reasons set out in mylenerto Your Excellency of 23 November 1999. The
expressbythe Courtofits decisionas one permitting"theParties'"i..e. bothof
tthat the Court hasdvantaged Qatar alone. Bahrain has no present need tothe tact
file further expert reports and, therefore, derives no benefit from the Court's
permission which expires on 1 March 2000.
3. Qatar has emphasised the importance of the Court maintaining the equality of the
Parties. But this cannat be achieved by the simultaneous filings now envlsaged by
the Court. Such equality can only be achieved by assuring to Bahrain the right to
respondtothe furtherexpertopinionsthat Qatarwishestofile. Thisis evidentlynot
a rightthatispreseiVed bytheCourt'sdecisionas it standsat present.
4.: If may be thal the expert opinions to be filed by Qatar will be entirety without
significance- though Qatar's anxie1yto file them suggests otherwise. ln Bahrain's
submission the correct way to preserve equalily between the Parties would be to
: give Bahrain time to consider and respond to Qatar's proposed filing, limited ln the
: Court0 November 1999, before the opening of the oral proceedings. Theto the
·Court's decision does not contemplate this. f_r·
.Omet! CPlHE MtNJSTER OFSTATE
'
••
Pag&2
5. Upon studying the addilional Qatar opinions, Bahrain may find ilself obliged ta ask
the Court, as Qatar has now successfully done, for leave ta flle further expèrt
opinions in reply thereto.r Bahrain may have ta deal with the matter ln the course
of theoral proceedings either by the cross-examination of Qata(s experts or by
producing oral testimony of fts own. However, neither of these stepwas, or could
have been, present ta Bahrain's mind when il agreed witih Qatar to propose ta the
Court the commencement of proceedings on 29 May 2000 or indicated ils view !hat
theoralproceedingscouldbe concluded infiveweeks.
Accordingly, wi!h ali respect ta the Cour1am obliged to reserve Bahrain's position
as regards thesematters until after it has had an opportun!ty to study whatever it is
thal Qatar may produce by 1 March 2000.
1
Yours very truly,
i
i
1
' JAWADSAliMALNIA YOD
MIN!STE R FSTATE
AGENTOFHSrAJlOf!~~T7-EICJ,------------- ··-
Agent of the Stateo{Qalar before the
lnternational Court of Justice
,_
\
Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, Esq.
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517 KJ The Hague
The Netherlands
24 Janumy 2000
1
i
Re. r Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
Sir, 1
1
I have the honour to refer to your letter dated 6 Jtmuary :zuuo, unaer cover of \vhich you
tranSmitted to me a copy of a !etter dated28 December 1999 from the Agent of Bahrain in which
he teferred to the Court's decision regardlng the filing of supplemental documents, as
communicated to the Parties by your letter of9 December 1999.
'
In itS letter, Bahrain appears to suggest thatitwould be somehow disadvantaged by the Court's
decision of9 December 1999.
Qatar would first recall that that decision of the Court allows both Parties to produce
supP,lemental documents up to 1 March 2000, in conformity with the principle of simultaneity of
1
wTitten pleadings in the present case, as laid down in paragraph 39 of the Court's Judgment of
l July 1994. In application of that principle, Qatar is of the view that the right to produce
supp!emental documents must terminate at the same time for both Parties, and that there is no
inhe,rent disadvantage to Bahrain in this situation.
Sec9nd, Qatar must point out that if Bahrain has really been disadvantaged by the Court's
deci1ion, Qatar has been similarly disadvantaged by the decision that it would not be allowed to
procluce the written witness statements that it had announced its intention of submitting despite
Bal~· fiini ofwitness statements in its Reply.
do Embassy of theStateof Qatar,1 South Audley StreetLondon W1Y500
Tel (44.171) 493 22 Où-rax {44.171} 493 26 61
Correspondance