The followLn gfombioa from the Eegist~yof the Internattonal
Court of Justice has hem comnicated to the Frcss:
Te-dq, November ~7th~ 1950, th2 lntomational Court of Justice
delivered its Jud~p-<nt on the requcstfor an interprotation of the
Judgmnt ~rhich it hsd dülivcred on Bovmbzr 20th, In +,ho Asgl~ Case
( CoLombia-~omi). This r::quest had bet:n submittcd to the Courtin the
namo of tho Calohlm Govern~_~:nton the wry dqr whcn the judgment to be
interprctccd was dclivcrcd.
3y twclrr catos to anc tho Court, includjng two judgcs ~d-vF~~J one
deslgnated by the Calombian C-vernmt3nt and ths other 'by the Peruvian
Govsrnmcni, h,vld thzt thcrcquast was inadmisaibls.
In its Judpant, thc Court recalls that the first condition nhich
mst be fulfllled to en2ble it to give CWIinterpr~tation under the
provisions of the St2bute, is that the rosl purposcof the request should
be to obtain an interpretation of the Judpant. This rnzans thatits
objectmt be solcly to obtain cls,rificalion cs to th0 meaning culd scope
of what hzd becn decided by the Judgmont, with bjuldlilg force. Tt is nlso
necessary that therc should be e disputeSet~mcn the Parties as to the
meanhg and scope of thot Judgrrisnt.
Th@Court then xiotca Lliat the C-overnmcnt of Colombia asked it ta
reply to three questions: 1s th2 Judgmmt of i\Tovemiac20th, 1950, to be
constmed as maanjngi
2) that 1,:gal effccts are to be zttributedto the quelification
mde by the Colombi,-.n hnbassador at Lkm of thc off ence Lmputod to M. Haya
da 13 Torro ?
b) thzt Pzru is not ontitlvd to dem!d surrender of the refugee, and
that Colomhia is nat bound to surrender him ?
c) or, on %ha contrary, th7.tColombia is bound to surrmdor the
rcf ugcc ?
On the first clucstion, th2 Court found thnt tho point had not beon
submittcdto it by the Partios: thc Court h?.cl.b,xmnskoc! to docidc only
on 2,sukiniasion presontedby Colombiatn abstrzct 2nd gcneral torms.
Thc othcr two quostionzin reality motmt to an alternetivo, daalhg
with the surrendcr of thc refugee. Th32 point slso had not besn includod
In the submissians of tha Parties: the Cov.rt th~rofore could make no
decision upon it, It t$?,for thc Partics to prescnttheir respective
claLms on this point, whlch thcy a,bst~~inod from dojng, ibn Colombin
cl~,his to dotect.ffgc?.p31 ithe Judgm~nt, thcse gzps in roclity concern
ncw pointa on which decision cmnot be obtzined Isjr,mc?naof ,7n iwtter-
prstntion: this intorpretntio nicyin no w,2y go beyond the 1UnLtç of
the Jud~ent, cs fixed in ~,clv:.nce by thesubmlssions of the Parties. Finnlly, tha condition requircdby the Yt2tute thn,t there should
be n dispute is not satisfiod: no dispute between the P2rtics had been
brought to the attention of the Court, andit is shom by the vory date
of the rcquest for an intorpretntion thztsuch a dispute eould not
possiblyhn-sre nriscn In my wzy whntever,
For theso rmsons, the Court declerad that thc request for ,rn
interpretzt ion prcsznted by Calombia was Inacimissible ,
M. Caiccdo C:.stilln,,Judgc .ad hoc designated by tho Colombim
Govcrnmsnt, declared that hc was unnble to join in the Judpent. His
declar?.tion is appandcd to the Judpent.
Tho Hague, November2?tb, 1950. I)
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case - Judgment of the Court of 27 November 1950