DECLARA TION OF INTERVENTION OF
KINGDOM OF SPAIN
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF
KINGDOM OF SPAIN
INTERVENTfON PURSUANT TO ARTfCLE 63 OF THE STATUTE
OF THE INTERNA TfONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
To the Registrar, Intemational Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the
Government ofKingdom ofSpain:
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the
Government of Kingdom of Spain:
l. On behalf of the govemment of Kingdom of Spain, 1 have the honour to submit to the
Court a Deelaration of Intervention pursuant to Artiele 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute of
the Court in the merits phase ofthe Case conceming The Allegations olGenocide under
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment olthe Crime olGenocide (Ukraine v.
Russian Federation).
l. On behalf of the government of Kingdom of Spain, I have the honour to submit to the
Court a Declaration of Intervention pursuant to Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute of
the Court in the merits phase of the Case concerning The Allegations of Genocide under
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v.
Russian Federation).
2. Artiele 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that a deelaration of a S tate , s
desire to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Artiele 63 of the
Statute shall specify the case and the convention to which it relates and shall contain:
2. Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that a declaration of a State's
desire to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the
Statute shall specify the case and the convention to which it relates and shall contain:
(a)
particulars olthe basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party to
{he convention;
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party to
the convention;
(b)
identification 01 the particular provisions 01 the convention the construction 01
(b)
identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction of
which it considers to be in question;
which it considers to be in question;
(c)
a statement 01 the construction 01 those provisions lor which it contends; (d) a
(c)
a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it contends; (d) a
¡¡st 01 documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
list of documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. Those matters are addressed in sequence below, following sorne preliminary
observations.
3. Those matters are addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary
observations.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATfONS
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation in
a dispute concerning the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention").
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation in
a dispute concerning the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention").
5. In paras. 4-12 of its Application instituting proceedings, Ukraine contends that there is a
dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the meaning of Artiele IX
relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment ofthe Genocide Convention.
5.
In paras. 4-12 of its Application instituting proceedings, Ukraine contends that there is a
dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article IX
relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention.
6. On substance, Ukraine claims that the use offorce by the Russian Federation in or against
Ukraine since 24 February 2022 on the basis of alleged genocide, as well as the
recognition that preceded the military operation, is incompatible with the Convention,
quoting Artieles 1- III thereof (paras. 26-29 of the Application).
6. On substance, Ukraine claims that the use of force by the Russian Federation in or against
Ukraine since 24 February 2022 on the basis of alleged genocide, as well as the
recognition that preceded the military operation, is incompatible with the Convention,
quoting Articles I-III thereof (paras. 26-29 of the Application).
7. Following a request for provisional measures from Ukraine, the Court ordered on 16
March 2022 that:
7. Following a request for provisional measures from Ukraine, the Court ordered on 16
March 2022 that:
(1) the Russian Federation shall inunediately suspend the mi1itary operation that it
commence on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine;
( 1) the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operation that it
commence on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine;
(2) The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which
may be directed or supported by it, as well as any orgaruzations and person which
may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military
operations referred to in points (1) above; and
(2) The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which
may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and person which
may be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military
operations referred to in points ( 1) above; and
(3) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute
before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
(3) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute
before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
8. As of date ofthis Deelaration, Russia has failed to comply with the Order, has intensified
and expanded its military operations on the territory of Ukraine and has thus aggravated
the dispute pending before the Court.
8. As of date of this Declaration, Russia has failed to comply with the Order, has intensified
and expanded its military operations on the territory of Ukraine and has thus aggravated
the dispute pending before the Court.
9. On 30 March 2022, as contemplated by Artiele 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court, the Registrar duly notified the Government ofthe Kingdom ofSpain as a party to
the Genocide Convention that by Ukraine's application the Genocide Convention "is
invoked both as a basis for the Court's jurisdiction and the substantive basis of
[Ukraine's] elaims on the merits". The registrar also noted that:
9. On 30 March 2022, as contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court, the Registrar duly notified the Government of the Kingdom of Spain as a party to
the Genocide Convention that by Ukraine's application the Genocide Convention "is
invoked both as a basis for the Court's jurisdiction and the substantive basis of
[Ukraine's] claims on the merits". The registrar also noted that:
"Ukraine seeks to lound the Court 's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained
in Article IX 01 the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not
committed a genocide as dejined in Articles I! and JI! 01 the Convention, and mises
questions concerning the scope 01the duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article
J 01 the Convention. Jt therelore appears that the construction 01 [the Genocide
ConventionJ will be in question in this case"'.
"Ukraine seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained
in Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not
committed a genocide as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention, and raises
questions concerning the scope of the duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article
I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the construction of [the Genocide
Convention] will be in question in this case'.
10. Between 21 July 2022 and 15 December 2022, 33 States filed deelarations ofintervention
under Artiele 63, paragraph 2, ofthe Statute ofthe Court. By an Order dated 5 June 2023,
the Court decided that the deelarations of intervention under Artiele 63 of the Statute
submitted by 32 States were admissible at the preliminary objections stage of the
proceedings in so far as they concerned the construction of Artiele IX and other
10. Between 21 July 2022 and 15 December 2022, 33 States filed declarations of intervention
under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court. By an Order dated 5 June 2023,
the Court decided that the declarations of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute
submitted by 32 States were admissible at the preliminary objections stage of the
proceedings in so far as they concerned the construction of Article IX and other
provisions of the Genocide Convention that are relevant for the determination of the
jurisdiction of the Court.
provisions of the Genocide Convention that are relevant for the determination of the
jurisdiction of the Court.
11. In the Judgment rendered on 2 February 2024, the Court coneluded that it has jurisdiction,
on the basis of Artiele IX of the Genocide Convention, to entertain submission (h) in
paragraph 178 of the Memorial of Ukraine, whereby Ukraine requests the Court to
11. In the Judgment rendered on 2 February 2024, the Court concluded that it has jurisdiction,
on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to entertain submission (b) in
paragraph 178 of the Memorial of Ukraine, whereby Ukraine requests the Court to
"[aJdjudge and declare that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsiblelor
"[a}djudge and declare that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsible for
J Letter from the Registrar ofthe Court of30 March 2022 - see Annex A.
'Letter from the Registrar of the Court of 30 March 2022 - see Annex A.
committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk and
Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine", and that thís submission is admissible.
23
committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk and
Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, and that this submission is admissible.
23
12. It is the understanding of Kingdom of Spain that the Genocide Convention is of utmost
importan ce to prevent and punish genocide. The prohibition agaínst genocide is a jus
cogens norm in ínternational laWl. The rights and obligations enshrined by the
Convention are owed to the international cornrnunity as a whole (rights and obligations
12. It is the understanding of Kingdom of Spain that the Genocide Convention is of utmost
importance to prevent and punish genocide. The prohibition against genocide is ajus
cogens norm in international law'. The rights and obligations enshrined by the
Convention are owed to the international community as a whole (rights and obligations
erga omnes partes)4.
erga omnes partes).
13. By this present Deelaration, the Kingdom of Spain avails itself of the right to intervene
in the merits phase conferred upon it by Artiele 63, paragraph 2, ofthe Statute. This Court
has recognized that Artiele 63 confers a "right" of intervention
5
• The Court has also
13. By this present Declaration, the Kingdom of Spain avails itself of the right to intervene
in the merits phase conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute. This Court
has recognized that Article 63 confers a "right" of intervention
5•
underlined that an intervention "is limited to submitting observations on the construction
ofthe convention in question and does not allow the intervener, which does not become
a party to the proceedings, to deal with any other aspect ofthe case before the Court;
and whereas such intervention cannot affect the equality ofthe Parties to the dispute". 6
The Court has also
underlined that an intervention "is limited to submitting observations on the construction
of the convention in question and does not allow the intervener, which does not become
a party to the proceedings, to deal with any other aspect of the case before the Court;
and whereas such intervention cannot affect the equality of the Parties to the dispute".°
14. Consistent with the restricted scope for interventions under Artiele 63 of the Statute,
Kingdom of Spain will present its interpretation of the relevant Artieles of the Genocide
Convention in line with customary rules of interpretation as reflected in Artieles 31-33
ofthe Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties
6
.
14. Consistent with the restricted scope for interventions under Article 63 of the Statute,
Kingdom of Spain will present its interpretation of the relevant Articles of the Genocide
Convention in line with customary rules of interpretation as reflected in Articles 31-33
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
15. In its intervention of 28 lune 2023, Kingdom of Spain had focused solely on Artiele IX
of the Convention relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. The present intervention will
deal with Artiele 1 and Artiele II of the Convention for the merits of the case.
15. In its intervention of 28 June 2023, Kingdom of Spain had focused solely on Article IX
of the Convention relating to the jurisdiction of the Court. The present intervention will
deal with Article I and Article II of the Convention for the merits of the case.
2 Aflegations ofgenocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening), Pre1iminary Objections, Judgement of2 February 2024.
3
4 /fegations of genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening), Preliminary Objections, Judgement of 2 February 2024.
Case Concerning Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, LeJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 111, paras.
3 -162.
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 111, paras.
'-162.
Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of23 January 2020, LeJ. Reports 2020, p. 3 with further references;
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 3 with further references;
Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
5 Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, l.eJ. Reports 1951, p. 76; Continental Shelf(TunisialLibyan
Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to [ntervene, Judgment, Le.J. Reports 1981, p. 13, para. 21. 6
5
Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 1951, p. 76; Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 1981, p. 13, para. 21.°
Wha/ing in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration ofIntervention ofNew Zealand, Order of 6 February
2013, l.eJ. Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18 .
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February
2013, I.CJ. Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18.
6 Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: "The Court will hove recourse to the rules ofcustomary
internationaf law on treaty interpretation as rejlected in Articfes 3/ to 33 ofthe Vienna Convention on the Law
ofTreaties of23 May /969"; see also Application ofthe International Convention On the Efimination ofAff
Forms ofRacial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of4
February 2021, p. 24, para. 75 with further references.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: "The Court will have recourse to the rules of customary
international law on treaty interpretation as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties of 23 May 1969"; see also Application of the International Convention On the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 4
February 2021, p. 24, para. 75 with further references.
BASIS ON WHICH THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN IS PARTY TO THE
CONVENTION
BASIS ON WHICH THE KTNGDOM OF SPAIN IS PARTY TO THE
CONVENTION
16. The Kingdom of Spain acceded to the Convention and deposited its instrument of
accession in accordance with Artiele XI, paragraph 4, ofthe Convention on 13 September
1968.
16. The Kingdom of Spain acceded to the Convention and deposited its instrument of
accession in accordance with Article XI, paragraph 4, of the Convention on 13 September
1968.
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION IN QUESTION IN THE CASE:
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION TN QUESTION TN THE CASE:
MERlTS
MERITS
17. The Kingdom of Spain wishes to share with the Court its interpretation of Artieles 1 and
11 of the Convention, which it considers relevant for the merits of the case.
17. The Kingdom of Spain wishes to share with the Court its interpretation of Articles I and
II of the Convention, which it considers relevant for the merits of the case.
18. Artiele I of the Convention reads:
18. Article I of the Convention reads:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time 01 peace or in
time ofwar, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevenl and lo
punish.
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in
time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish.
19. According to Artiele I of the Genocide Convention, all States Parties are obliged to
prevent and punish genocide. As the Court already emphasized, The Kingdom of Spain
recalls that in fulfilling their duty to prevent genocide, Contracting Parties must act within
the limits pennitted by intemationallaw
7
. Moreover, carrying out the duty under Article
19. According to Article I of the Genocide Convention, all States Parties are obliged to
prevent and punish genocide. As the Court already emphasized, The Kingdom of Spain
recalls that in fulfilling their duty to prevent genocide, Contracting Parties must act within
the limits permitted by international law'. Moreover, carrying out the duty under Article
I must be done in good faith (Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties). As the Court has observed, the principle of good faith "obliges the Parties to
apply [ a treaty] in a reasonable way and in such a manner that its purpose can be
realized"
I must be done in good faith (Artiele 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties). As the Court has observed, the principie of good faith "obliges the Parties to
apply [a treaty] in a reasonable way and in such a manner that its purpose can be
realized"s. Good faith interpretation thus operates as a safeguard against misuse of the
Convention. As "one of the basic principies goveming the creation and performance of
legal obligations", good faith is also directly linked to the "trust and confidence [that] are
inherent in intemational co-operation"¡O
Good faith interpretation thus operates as a safeguard against misuse of the
Convention. As "one of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of
legal obligations", good faith is also directly linked to the "trust and confidence [that] are
inherent in international co-operation!
8•
20. In the Kingdom of Spain's view, the notion of "undertake to prevent" implies that each
State Party must assess whether a genocide or a serious risk of genocide exists prior to
qualifying a situation as genocide and (possibly) taking action pursuant to Artic1e 1
20.
9
. Such
In the Kingdom of Spain's view, the notion of "undertake to prevent" implies that each
State Party must assess whether a genocide or a serious risk of genocide exists prior to
qualifying a situation as genocide and (possibly) taking action pursuant to Article 1
9.
Such
an assessment must be justified by substantial evidence "that is fully conc1usive"lo.
an assessment must be justified by substantial evidence "that is fully conclusive!
7 Case Concerning Applicalion 01 lhe Convenlion on lhe Prevenlion and Punishment 01 lhe Crime 01 Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Monlenegro), Judgment, LCJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 221, para. 430;
7
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 221, para. 430;
Allegalions 01 Genocide under lhe Convention on the Prevention and Punishmenl 01 the Crime 01 Genocide
(Ula-aine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, para. 57.
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, para. 57.
8 Gabéikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, LCJ. Reports 1997, p. 7, at p. 79, para. 142.
8
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, IC.J. Reports 1997, p. 7, at p. 79, para. 142.
10 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), LCJ. Reports 1974, p. 7, at p. 142.
9 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 7, at p. 142.
9 Case Concerning Application olthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment olthe Crime olGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Monten egro), Judgment, LCJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at pp. 221-222,
9
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at pp. 221-222,
paras. 430-431.
paras. 430-431.
10 Case Concerning Applicalion olthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment olthe Crime olGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, LCJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 90, para. 209. 13
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 90, para. 209.
13
UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 43/29: Prevention of Genocide (29 June 2020), UN Doc
A/HRCIRES/43/29, para. 11.
UN Human Rights Council, Resolution 43/29: Prevention of Genocide (29 June 2020), UN Doc
A/HRC/RES/43/29, para. l l.
21. Importantly, the UN Human Rights Council called upon all States, "in order to deter
future occurrences of genocide, to cooperate, ineluding through the United Nationals
system, in strengthening appropriate coIlaboration between existing mechanisms that
contribute to the earIy detection and prevention of massive, serious and systematic
violations of human rights that, if not halted, could lead to genocide".13 It therefore
constitutes good practice to rely on the results of independent investigations under UN
auspices
11
before qualifying a situation as genocide.
21. Importantly, the UN Human Rights Council called upon all States, "in order to deter
future occurrences of genocide, to cooperate, including through the United Nationals
system, in strengthening appropriate collaboration between existing mechanisms that
contribute to the early detection and prevention of massive, serious and systematic
violations of human rights that, if not halted, could lead to genocide. It therefore
constitutes good practice to rely on the results of independent investigations under UN
auspices
11
before qualifying a situation as genocide.
22. The correct construction of Artiele 1 is hence that a State is under a due diligence
obligation to gather such evidence from independent sources, where they exist, before
aIleging that another State party of the Genocide Convention has cornmitted genocide.
22. The correct construction of Article I is hence that a State is under a due diligence
obligation to gather such evidence from independent sources, where they exist, before
alleging that another State party of the Genocide Convention has committed genocide.
23. Conceming the burden of proof, it is for the party which alleges a fact in support of its
elaims to prove the existence ofthat fact
l2
. This principIe is not an absolute one, however,
since the determination ofthe burden ofproofis in reality dependent on the subject matter
and the nature of the dispute brought before the Court; it varies according to the type of
facts which it is necessary to establish for the purposes of the decision of the case. J3
23. Concerning the burden of proof, it is for the party which alleges a fact in support of its
claims to prove the existence of that fact'. This principle is not an absolute one, however,
since the determination of the burden of proof is in reality dependent on the subject matter
and the nature of the dispute brought before the Court; it varies according to the type of
facts which it is necessary to establish for the purposes of the decision of the case.'?
24. In particular, the Court has recognized that there may be circumstances in which the
Applicant cannot be required to prove a negative fact, which it is asserting.
14
24. In particular, the Court has recognized that there may be circumstances in which the
Applicant cannot be required to prove a negative fact, which it is asserting.'
25. Against that background, The Kingdom of Spain wishes to explain that it is for the State
Party bringing a case against another State Party for a false allegation of genocide used
as a basis to justify preventive action to provide prima Jacie evidence that its action did
not fall under the definition ofgenocide as laid down in Article 11. In turn, the respondent State
asserting that its allegation was weIl-founded to justify its preventive action must provide
conelusive evidence in support since this attempted justification involves charges of
exceptional gravity. 15 After adversarial scrutiny, it would then be for the Court to
evaluate all the evidence produced by the two Parties so as to reach its own conelusions. 16
25. Against that background, The Kingdom of Spain wishes to explain that it is for the State
Party bringing a case against another State Party for a false allegation of genocide used
as a basis to justify preventive action to provide prima facie evidence that its action did
not fall under the definition of genocide as laid down in Article II. In turn, the respondent State
asserting that its allegation was well-founded to justify its preventive action must provide
conclusive evidence in support since this attempted justification involves charges of
exceptional gravity.' After adversarial scrutiny, it would then be for the Court to
evaluate all the evidence produced by the two Parties so as to reach its own conclusions.
16
26. Artiele II of the Convention reads:
26. Article II of the Convention reads:
JI See for example the reliance ofThe Gambia on the reports of the Independent International Fact-Finding
Mission on Myanmar established by the UN Human Rights Council before bringing a case to the Court; for
details see Applicalion oflhe Convenlion on the Prevention and Punishment oflhe Crime ofGenocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, at pp. 25-27, paras. 65-69.
'' See for example the reliance of The Gambia on the reports of the Independent International Fact-Finding
Mission on Myanmar established by the UN Human Rights Council before bringing a case to the Court; for
details see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, at pp. 25-27, paras. 65-69.
12 Pulp Mills onthe River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), J.c.J Reports 2010 (1), Judgment, p. 14, at p. 71, para.
162.
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), I.CJ. Reports 2010 (1), Judgment, p. 14, at p. 71, para.
162.
13 Ahmadou Sadio Dia/lo (Republic ofGuinea v. Democratic Republic ofthe Congo), Merits, Judgment, LCJ.
Reports 2010 (11), p. 639, at p. 660, para. 54.
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 20 IO (II), p. 639, at p. 660, para. 54.
u Ahmadou Sadio Dia/lo (Republic ofGuinea v. Democratic Republic ofthe Congo), Merits, Judgment, LCJ.
Reports 2010 (Il), p. 639, at p. 660, para. 55.
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, IC.J.
Reports 2010 (11), p. 639, at p. 660, para. 55.
15 Case Concerning Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, LCJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 90, para. 209.
On the notion of"charges of exceptional gravity" see also G. M. Farnelli, Consistency in the ICJ's Approach to
the Standard ofProof: An Appraisal ofthe Court's Flexibility, in: The Law and Practice ofIntemational Courts
and Tribunals, 21:1(2022), pp. 98-121, at 107-111.
'Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 90, para. 209.
On the notion of "charges of exceptional gravity" see also G. M. Farnelli, Consistency in the ICJs Approach to
the Standard of Proof: An Appraisal of the Court's Flexibility, in: The Law and Practice of International Courts
and Tribunals, 21:1(2022), pp. 98-121, at 107-111.
16 Ahmadou Sadio Dia/lo (Republic ofGuinea v. Democratic Republic ofthe Congo), Merits, Judgment, LCJ.
Reports 2010 (H), p. 639, at p. 660, para. 56.
" Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 20 10 (1D), p. 639, at p. 660, para. 56.
In the present Convention, genocide means any ofthe following aets eommitted with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnieal, racial or religious group, as
sueh:
(a) Killing members ofthe group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members ofthe group;
(e) Deliberately injlieting on the group eonditions of lije ealeulated to bring about its
physieal destruetion in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Foreibly
transferring ehildren ofthe group to another group.
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,·
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.
27. Artiele II ofthe Convention deals with the definition ofgenocide. The Kingdom ofSpain
contends that the elements ofgenocide are already well-established in the case law ofthe
Court and supports the current interpretation.
27. Article II of the Convention deals with the definition of genocide. The Kingdom of Spain
contends that the elements of genocide are already well-established in the case law of the
Court and supports the current interpretation.
28. In particular, in order for genocide to occur, there is a requirement to establish both
genocidal action (aetus reus) and a (specific) genocidal intent (mens rea) next to the
mental elements present in the acts listed in Artiele 11.
28.
17
In particular, in order for genocide to occur, there is a requirement to establish both
genocidal action (actus reus) and a (specific) genocidal intent (mens rea) next to the
mental elements present in the acts listed in Article II.'
29. The Genocide Convention is designed to prevent the physical or biological destruction
of aH or part of a protected group. When assessing the existence of genocide, the ICTY
has considered the detrimental long-term consequences the actions in question have for
the physical survival of the group, as well as the residual possibility that the group can
reconstitute itself
l8
, endorsing a quantitative and qualitative element for the aetus reuso
29. The Genocide Convention is designed to prevent the physical or biological destruction
of all or part of a protected group. When assessing the existence of genocide, the ICTY
has considered the detrimental long-term consequences the actions in question have for
the physical survival of the group, as well as the residual possibility that the group can
reconstitute itself", endorsing a quantitative and qualitative element for the actus reus.
30. Genocidal intent, ofien referred to as specific intent, is considered the intention to destroy,
in whole or in part, the group to which the victims belongs. It is to be distinguished from
other motives or reasons the perpetrator may have. It is not enough that the members of
the group are targeted because they belong to that group, that is because the perpetrator
has a discriminatory intent. Something more is required and great care must be taken in
finding in the facts a sufficiently elear manifestation of that intent.
19
30. Genocidal intent, often referred to as specific intent, is considered the intention to destroy,
in whole or in part, the group to which the victims belongs. It is to be distinguished from
other motives or reasons the perpetrator may have. It is not enough that the members of
the group are targeted because they belong to that group, that is because the perpetrator
has a discriminatory intent. Something more is required and great care must be taken in
finding in the facts a sufficiently clear manifestation of that intent.
19
31. In tum, the fact that civilian casualties occurred during the course ofarmed conflict is not
31. In tum, the fact that civilian casualties occurred during the course of armed conflict is not
per se evidence ofgenocidal action or genocidal intent.
per se evidence of genocidal action or genocidal intent.
32. Where direct evidence for specific intent is absent, the Court has determined that "in
order to infer the existence of dolus speeialis from a pattem of conduct, it is necessary
and sufficient that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts
in question".20
32. Where direct evidence for specific intent is absent, the Court has determined that "in
order to infer the existence of dolus specialis from a pattern of conduct, it is necessary
and sufficient that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts
in question".2
17 Case Concerning Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) , Judgment, LCJ. Reports 2007 (1), p. 43, at pp. 121-122,
paras. 186- J89.
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2007 (I), p. 43, at pp. 121-122,
paras. I 86- I 89.
/8 Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic (Judgement in Sentencing Appeals), 1T-98-33-A, lnternational Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (lCTY), 19 ApriJ 2004, paras. 24-31.
8 Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic (Judgement in Sentencing Appeals), IT-98-33-A, International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 19 April 2004, paras. 24-31.
19 Case Concerning Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, LCJ. Reports 2007 (l), p. 43, at pp. 121-122,
paras. 187, 189.
" Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, LC.J. Reports 2007 (l), p. 43, at pp. 121-122,
paras. 187, 189.
20 Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide (Croatia v.
" Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v.
33. Regarding the standard of proof the Court requires that it be fully convinced that
allegations made in the proceedings, that the crime of genocide or the other acts
enumerated in Artiele III have been committed, have been elearly established. The same
standard applies to the proof of attribution for such acts.
21
33. Regarding the standard of proof the Court requires that it be fully convinced that
allegations made in the proceedings, that the crime of genocide or the other acts
enumerated in Article III have been committed, have been clearly established. The same
standard applies to the proof of attribution for such acts.
21
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARA TION
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
34. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Deelaration, which documents
are attached hereto
34. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Declaration, which documents
are attached hereto
(a) Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador of
the Kingdom of Spain to the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands (30 March 2022).
(a) Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador of
the Kingdom of Spain to the Kingdom of the Netherlands (30 March 2022).
(b) Instrument ofaccession by the Government ofthe Kingdom ofSpain to the Genocide
Convention.
(b) Instrument of accession by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain to the Genocide
Convention.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
35. On the basis of the information set out aboye, the Kingdom of Spain avails itself on the
right conferred upon it by Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute to intervene in the
proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in this case.
35. On the basis of the information set out above, the Kingdom of Spain avails itself on the
right conferred upon it by Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute to intervene in the
proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in this case.
36. The government of the Kingdom of Spain has appointed the undersigned as Agent, and
Mrs María Consuelo Femenía Guardiola as Co-Agent, for the purposes with this
Deelaration. The Registrar of the Court may channel all communication through them at
the following address:
36. The government of the Kingdom of Spain has appointed the undersigned as Agent, and
Mrs Maria Consuelo Femenia Guardiola as Co-Agent, for the purposes with this
Declaration. The Registrar of the Court may channel all communication through them at
the following address:
Lange Voorhout 50 - 2514 EG, The Hague.
Lange Voorhout 50-2514 EG, The Hague.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
(Signed, Santiago Ripol Carulla, Agent of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain)
(Signed, Santiago Ripol Carulla, Agent of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain)
Annex A: Letter from the Registrar ofthe Intemational Court of Justice to the Ambassador of
the Kingdom of Spain to the Kingdom ofthe Netherlands (30 March 2022);
Annex A: Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador of
the Kingdom of Spain to the Kingdom of the Netherlands (30 March 2022);
Annex B: Instrument of ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain of the
Genocide Conventionl OR: Instrument of accession by the Government of the Kingdom of
Spain to the Genocide Convention.
Annex B: Instrument of ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain of the
Genocide Convention/ OR: Instrument of accession by the Government of the Kingdom of
Spain to the Genocide Convention.
Serbia), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2015, p. 3, at p. 67, para. 148.
Serbia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2015, p. 3, at p. 67, para. 148.
2/ Case Concerning Application ofthe Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ofthe Crime ofGenocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, l.CJ. Reports 2007 (1), p. 43, at p. 129, para.
209.
?'Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 43, at p. 129, para.
209.
•
d
l' ,
..
'·
''
I . �-
-;
"l ..
l .
'
,,
FERNANDO MARIA CASTIELLA. Y MAI
MAnU, CriSTIELLA. y MAIZ
.r-lINI13TRO DE
MINIS3TRO DE ASUNOS EXTERIORES DE ESPANA
EXTERIORlf.S DE ESP¡Jl,l
Cumplidos los requisitos exigidos por la legislaoión
Cumplidos los requisitos exigidos por la legislaci6n
española, extiendo el presente Instrumento de Adhesión de'
Espafia al Convenio para In Prevención y la Sanción del del!to
espafola, extiendo el presente Instrumento de Adhesion de
Espafa al Convenio para la Prevenci6n y la Bani~n del delito
de Genocidio aprobado por la Asamblea General de las
de Genocidio aprobado por la Asamblea General de las Nafiones
,.
,··
Unidas el 9 de diciembre de
Unidas el 9 de dicienbre de 1948/-con
..........
........._
dad del Articulo IX (jurisdicción. del
de Justicia)- a efectos de que, mediante
de conformidad con lo dispuesto
dad del Articulo IX (jurisdicci6n del
de Justicia)- a efectos de que, mediante
de conformidad con lo dispuesto
de su Artio,!
de su Articy
lo XI. Esnrula entre a ser Parte
lo XI, Espada entre a ser Parte
'onveniO/
oaveaio·7
En fe de lo
presente en J.tadrid. a vein
presente en Madrid, a vein
n fe de lo cual firmo e
tiseis
tiseis
sesenta y ocho.
sesenta ocho%
¡
!
, ,
JU AN CARLO S 1
JU AN CARLOS I
REY DE ESPAÑA
REY DE ESPAA
POR CUANTO el día 13 de septiembre de 1968, el Estado español depositó en la Secretaria
PO CUANTO el dia 13 de septiembre de 1968, el Estado espanol deposit~ en la Secretaria
General de las Naciones Unidas (Nueva York) el Instrumento de Adhesión al Convenio para la
prevención y la sanción del delito de genocidio, hecho en Nueva York el 9 de diciembre de 1948,
General de las Naciones Unidas (Nueva York) el Instrumento de Adhesion al Convenio para la
prevencion la sanci~n del delito de genocidio, hecho en Neva York el 9 de diciembre de 1948,
inluyendo empero una Reserva a la totalidad del artículo IX Üurisdicción del TribunalInterna
cional de Justicia),
inlendo empero una Reserva a la totalidad del articulo IX (jurisdicci~n del Tribunal Interna
cional de Justicia),
Habiendo cambiado las circunstancias que motivaban esta Reserva y cumplidos los requi
Habiendo cambiado las circunstancias qe motivaban esta Heserva y cmplidos los requi
sitos exigidos por la Legislación española,
sitos exigidos por la Legislaci~n espanola,
VENGO EN APROBAR la retirada de dicha Resel'va, a cuyo efecto MANDO expedir el
VENGO EN APROBAR la retirada de dicha Reserva, a cuyo efecto MANDO expedir el
presente Instrumento firmado por Mí, debidamente sellado y refrendado por el infrascrito
Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación.
presente Instrumento firmado por Mi, debidamente sellado yy refrendado por el infrascrito
Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperaci~n.
Dado en Madrid, a a.e.ÚZ& #
Dado en Madrid, a beunla yo 0de pulo de dos ul neve
dI! fUúo t;Ú dtJs nu:t ruLeDe
k
EL MINIS1RO DE A SUNTOS EXTERI ORE S y DE COOPERACI ON.
EL MINIS1RO DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES Y DE COOPERACION,
Miguel Angel MoralinaS
Miguel Angel Moratmos
(IV.l )
(IV.I)
UNITED NATIONS •
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
-
NATIONS UNIES
POSTA\.. AOOAIILSS-AORESSE POSTAL.E. UNITE.O NATIONS . N . V . '00"
POSTAL ADDRESS-ADESSE POSTALE. UNITED NATIONS. N.Y. 100IT
CAIL.IE. AODRr.SI-AOlltI:SSI[ TI:Lr.G"..
CAL ADDRESS-ADRSSE TELEGRAPHIUE NATIONS NWYORK
UNATlDN. NaWyO"K
Reference: C.N.635.2009.TREATIES-2 (Depositary Notification)
Reference: C.N.635.2009.TREA TIES-2 (Depositary Notification)
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRlME
OFGENOCIDE
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRJME
OF GENOCIDE
NEW YORK., 9 DECEMBER 1948
NEW YORK, 9 DECEMBER 1948
SPAlN: WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESERVATION IN RESPECT OF THE WHOLE OF ARTlCLE IX
(JURlSDICTION OF THE lNTERNATIONAL COURT OF N STlCE)
SPAIN: WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESERVATION IN RESPECT OF THE WHOLE OF ARTICLE IX
(JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE)
The Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary,
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary,
communicates the following:
communicates the following:
The aboye action was effected on 24 September 2009.
The above action was effected on 24 September 2009.
24 September 2009
24 September 2009
82
Attention: Treaty Services ofMinistries ofForeign Affairs and ofinternational organizations concerned.
Depositary notifications are currently issued in both hard copy and electronic format. Depositary
notifications are made available to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations at the following e-mail
address: [email protected]. Such notifications are also available in the United Nations Treaty Collection on
the Internet at http: //treaties.un.org, where interested individual s can subscribe to directl y receive depositary
notifications by e-mail through a new automated subscription service. Depositary notifications are avai lable
for pick-up by the Permanent Missions in Room NL-300.
Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries ofForeign Affairs and of international organizations concerned.
Depositary notifications are currently issued in both hard copy and electronic format. Depositary
notifications are made available to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations at the following e-mail
address: [email protected]. Such notifications are also available in the United Nations Treaty Collection on
the Internet at http://treaties.un.org, where interested individuals can subscribe to directly receive depositary
notifications by e-mail through a new automated subscription service. Depositary notifications are avai I able
for pick-up by the Permanent Missions in Room NL-300.
(IV. l)
(IV. I)
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS
NATIONS UNIES
POSTAL ADO,U¡&S-AORESSE pOSTAL.E . UNtTEO NATIONS. N . Y. toon
POgrAL ADDRESSADRHESSE POSTALE UNITED NATIONS, N.Y. 100I
CA.LE AODRcaS-ACRE_SE
CALE ADDRSS-ADRESSE TELEGRAM1QUE UNATIONS NIWYORK
..A"H1QUr.· UNATIOH. NIIWYO"K
Référence: C.N.635.2009.TREATIES-2 (Notification dépositaire)
R~f~rence : C.N.635.2009.TREATIES-2 (Notification d~positaire)
CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRlME DE
GÉNOClDE
CONVENTION POUR LA PR~VENTION ET LA R~PRESSION DU CRIME DE
G~NOCIDE
NEW YORK, 9 DÉCEMBRE 1948
NEW YORK, 9 D~CEMBRE 1948
ESPAGNE: RETRAIT DE LA RÉSERVE CONCERNANT LA TOTALlTÉ DE L'ARTICLE IX
(COMPÉTENCE DE LA COUR fNTERNATlONALE DE ruSTlCE)
ESPAGNE : RETRAIT DE LA R~SERVE CONCERNANT LA TOTALIT~ DE L 'ARTICLE IX
(COMP~TENCE DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE)
Le Secrétaire général de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, agissant en sa qualité de dépositaire,
Le Secr~taire g~n~ral de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, agissant en sa qualit~ de d~positaire,
communique :
communique :
L'action susmentionnée a été effectuée le 24 septembre 2009.
L'action susmentionn~e a ~t~ effectu~e le 24 septembre 2009.
Le 24 septembre 2009
Le 24 septembre 2009
c92
Attention : Les Services des traités des Ministeres des affaires étrangeres et des organisations
internationales concernés. Les notifications dépositaires sont actuellement publiées en formats papier et
électronique. Les missions permanentes aupres des Nations Unies peuvent consulter les notifications
dépositaires a l'adresse électronique suivante : [email protected]. Ces notifications sont également
disponibles sur le site Internet de la Collection des traités des Nations Unies el l'adresse
http://treaties.un.org, Ol! les personnes intéressées peuvent souscrire au nouveau service automatisé
Attention : Les Services des trait~s des Minist~res des affaires ~trang~res et des organisations
internationales concern~s. Les notifications d~positaires sont actuellement publi~es en formats papier et
~lectronique. Les missions permanentes aupr~s des Nations Unies peuvent consulter les notifications
d~positaires ~ l'adresse ~lectronique suivante : [email protected]. Ces notifications sont ~galement
disponibles sur le site Internet de
la Collection des trait~s des Nations Unies ~
l'adresse
d'abonnement pour recevoir directement des notifications dépositaires par courriel. Les missions
permanentes sont invitées el se procurer les notifications dépositaires mises aleur disposition au bureau NL
300.
http://treaties.un.org, o~ les personnes int~ress~es peuvent souscrire au nouveau service automatis~
d'abonnement pour recevoir directement des notifications d~positaires par courriel. Les missions
permanentes sont invit~es ~ se procurer les notifications d~positaires mises ~ leur disposition au bureau NL
300.
r
COUR INHRNATlONALf.
e.INTERNIITIONAl COURT
DE ¡USTICr:.
INHRNATIONALF..
COUR
INTEKNI\TIONAL COURT
or )USTICE
DE JUSTICE
,
OF JUSTICE
156413
156413
Le 30 mars 2022
Le 30 mars 2022
,>
rai I'honneur de me référer ama lettre (nO 156253) en date du 2 rnars 2022, par laquetlc j'ai
J'ai l'honneur de me r~f~rer ~ ma lettre (n° 156253) en date du 2 mars 2022, par laquelle j'ai
port~ ~ la connaissance de votre Gouverement que 'Ukraine a, le 26 f~vrier 2022, d~pos~ au Greffe
porté i\ la connaissance de votre Gouvemement que l'Ukraine a, le 26 février 2022, déposé au GrefTe
de la Cour internationaJe de Justice une requete introdllisant une instance contre la Fédération de
Russie en ¡'affairc reladve f¡ des
au titr:.e.A<;Ja cQl1vention pour la prévc;.mion
de la Cour internationale de Justice une requte introduisant une instance contre la F~d~ration de
Russie en l'affaire relative ~ des All~gations de g~nocide au titre de la convention pour la pr~vention
ID/! rép.I.§¡¡iQIJ. du crime dc génocide CUkrainc c. Fédération de Russic). Uno copie dc la rcqllete était
jointe acette leme. Le texte de ladite requete es! égalcment disponible sur le sile Internet de la Cour
et la r~pression du crime dc g~nocidc (Ukraine c, F~d~ration de Russie). Uno copie de la requ~te ~tait
jointe ~ cette lettre. Le texte de ladite requ~te est ~galcment disponible sur le site Intemet de la Cour
(www.icj-cij.org).
ic;j::ill..Qrg).
Le pnragraphe I de I'article 63 du Statut de la Cour dispose que
Le paragraphe I de l'article 63 du Statut de la Cour dispose quc
«(IJorsqu'i1 s'agil de ]I'inlerpr6talion d'une convention a laquelle ont participé d'autres
Etats que les parties en litige, le Greftier les avertit sans délai».
«[lJorsqu'il s'agit de l'interpr~tation dune convention ~ laquelle ont participd d'autres
Etats que les parties en litige, le Greffier les avertit sans d~lai».
Le paragraphe 1 de I'article 43 du Reglement de la Cour précise en outre que
Le paragraphe I de l'article 43 du R~glement de la Cour pr~cise en outre que
«[l]orsquc l' interprétation d'unc conventioo alaquelle onl parlicipé d'autres Etats que
les parties cn litige pcut etre en cause au sens de l'article 63, paragraphe 1, du Statut, la
COUI" examine
instructions donner au Grcffier en la mntiere».
«[I]orsquc l'interpr~tation d'une convention ~ laquelle ont particip~ d'autres Etats que
les parties en litige peut ~trc en cause au scns de l'article 6, paragraphe I, du Statut, la
Cour examine quelles instructions donner au Greffier en la mati~re».
Sur les ínstructions de la Cour, l.Jui m'ont été données conformémenl a cette derniere
Sur les instructions de la Cour, qui m'ont ~t~ donn~es conform~ment ~ cette derni~re
disposition, j'aí I'honneur de 1I0titier avotre Gouvernement ce qui suít.
disposition, j'ai Phonneur de notifier ~ votre Gouvernement ce qui suit.
Oans la rcquete susmell(iOnllée, la convention de J9"8 pour la prévention et la repression du
Dans la requ~te susmentionn~e, la convention de 1948 pour la pr~vention et la r~pression du
crime de génocide (ci-aprcs la «convention sur le génocide») est invoquée ala fois comme base de
compétence de la Cour eC a¡'appui des demandes de l'Ukraine au fond . Plus précisément, eelle-ei
entend fonder la compé!ence de la Cour sur la clause comprornlssoire figuran! ¡'¡ I'article IX de la
convention, príe la Cour de déclarer qu'elle ne cammet pas de génocide, tel que définí aux articJes 11
et 111 de la convention, et souJCve des I.juestions sur la portée de ¡'obligation de prévenir et de punir
le génocide consacrée aI'article pn:mier de la convention. Jl semble, des Jors, que I'interprétation de
cette convention pourrait ctre en
en l'affaire.
crime de g~nocide (ci-apr~s la «convention sur le g~nocide») est invoqu~e ~ la fois comme base de
comp~tence de la Cour et ~ l'appui des dcmandes dc l'Ukraine au fond. Plus pr~cis~ment, celle-ci
entend fonder la comp~tence de la Cour sur la clause compromssoire figurant ~ l'article [X de la
convention, pric la Cour de d~clarer qu'elle ne commet pas de gnocide, tel que d~fini aux articles II
et Ill de la convention, et soul~ve des questions sur la port~e de l'obligation de pr~venir et de punir
le g~nocide consacr~c ~ l'article premier de la convention. Il semble, d~s lors, que l'interpretation de
cette convention pourrait ~tre en causc en affaire.
./.
[Letlres BUX Etats parties ala convention sur le génocide
[Lettres aux Etats parties ~ la convention sur le genocide
(a I'exccption de "Ukraíne et de la Fédération de Russie)]
(~ l'exception de !'Ukrainc et de la F~d~ration de Russie)]
P.18i. de l. Paix. Camegi.plci" 2
rc= PalBec. Curncp,icplcin 2
Pulis de la Paux, Carnegicplcin 2
Peace Palace, Carncgicplein 2
Ul7 KJ La
2517KJ La Haye- Pays·Bas
Pays·[Jas
2517 KJ The liague • Nellrerhulds
2517KJ The Hague - Neihcrlds
TéléphOllt : +31 (O) 70 302 23 23 - FIlC5illldé : +31 (O) 70 364 99 28
Tel~phone : +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Facsimle : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
-reltphonc : +.11 (O) 70 302 23 23· Teler:\)(: +)1 (0)703649928
Telephone: +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 • Telefax: +31(0) 70 364 99 28
Sir( Internet : www.icj.eij.ors
Site Interact: www.icj-cij.org
Wcbsilc: www.icj-dj.org
Websitc: www.icj-cijorg
COUIt INHRNATIONAlE
C'OUR INTERNATIONALE
INTfRNATIONAl COURT
DE IUSTlCE
DE JUSTICE
OF )USTICE
INTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE
Volre pays figure sur la lisIe des parties ala convention sur le génocide. Aussi la presente lettre
Votre pays figure sur la liste des parties ~ la convention sur le g~nocide. Aussi la pr~sente lettre
doit-ellc etre regardée COIn me cOllstituant In notification prévue ém paragr¡lphe 1 de I'article 63 du
Statut. J'ajoute que cene notification ne préjuge aucunc qucstion conccmant \'application éventuelle
du paragraphe 2 de J'article 63 du Statul sur \aquelle la Cour pourrait par la suite etre appelée el se
prononcer en }'espece.
doit-elle ~tre regard~e comme constituant la notification pr~vue au paragraphe I de l'article 63 du
Statut. Jajoute que cette notification ne pr~juge aucunc qucstion concernant !'application ~ventuelle
du paragraphe 2 de l'article 63 du Statut sur laquelle la Cour pourrait par la suite ~tre appel~e ~ se
prononcer en l'esp~ce.
Veuillez agréer, Excellellce, les assuranccs de ma tres haute considération.
Veuillcz agr~er, Excellence, les assurances de ma tr~s haute consid~ration.
Le Grefficr de la Cour,
1
l
L
Le Greffier de la Cour,
- 2
-2 -
Déclaration d'intervention de l'Espagne