United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) - United States files Memorial

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517KJ TheHague.Tel. 92 44 41 Gables: Intercourt,The Hague

Communiqué -
uno[ficial
for ~mmediate release

Last .communiqué in 1979 No. 8011
series was No. 7917 17 January 1980
-

United States Diplornatic and,Consular Staff in Tehran
(~nited States of America v. Iran)

United States files Mernorial'
. .

The following information is communicated to the press by the
Registry of the International court of Justice:

Following the delivery on 15 December 1979 of the '0rder indicating
provisional measures,, the proceedings have taken the'course laid do-
in the Statute and the Rules of Court.

By an Order of 24 December 1979 the Prenident of the Court fixed
15 January 1980 as the time-limit for the filicg of a Memorial by thc
United States, and 18 February 1980 as that for the fTling of a
Counter-Mernorial by the Islamic Republic of Iran, with liberty for the
Islamic Republic, if it appointed an agent for the purpose of appearïng
before the Court and presenting its observations on the case, to apply
for reconsideration of the latter ti~ne-limit.

.,
The United States has filed its Memorial within the time71imit
appoi.nted.

The proceedingn on the question of.provisiona1 measures are
suinmarized below. This s-y is given for the convenience of the press
and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

On 29 Novernber 1979 the ~ovirnmeit of the United States of America

instituted proceedings against Iran iq a case arising out of the
situation at itç embassy in Tehran and the seizure and'detention as ,
hostages of United States diplomatic and consular staff in Iran. It
requested the Court to adjudge and declare, intcr alia, that the
Goverment of Iran had violated its international legal obligations to
the United ~ta'tes as providecl by various treaties, was under a particul'ar
obligation immediately to secire the release of al1 United States
nationals detained at the entassy and to assure that they and al1 other
United States nationals in Iran were allowed to leave the country safely,
should pay the United tat tes reparation for the saidviolations and
should submit the perçons responsible for the crimes committed to the

competent authorities for 'the purpose of prosecut ion.

In.. . - In its Application the United States founded the Court's
'jurisdiction on the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1363 on, respectively,
. Dip1omati.c and Consular Relations, and Article 1 of their Optional
Protocols concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes,
Article xXI(2)of the Treaty of kty, Economic Relations and Consular
Rights between the United States of America an& Iran of 1955 and
Article 13(1) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of

Crimes against Internationally Protected Perçons, including Diplomatic
Agents, of 1973.

On the same date the United States filed a request for the indication
of provisional measures in accordance with Article 41 of the Statute of
the Court.

The Application and request were immediately communicated to the
hlinister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, and on 30 November and
3 December 1979 the Court informed the United States and Iran by telegran

of its readiness to hear their observations concerning the request for
the indication of provisional measures.

On 9 December 1979 the Goverment of Iran, in a letter to the Court,
expressed the opinion that the Court could not, and should not, take
cognizance of the case. In its view the q~estion of the hosteges
represented "only a narginal.and secondary aspect of an overall problem",
examination of the repercussions of the Islamic revolution of Iran was
'1a matter essentin3ly and directly within the national sovereignty of

Iran" ,.the request for the indication of provisional measures implied the
Court's passine; jument on the actual substance of the case, and such
measures, intendeù to .protect the interests of the parties, could not be
unilateral as in the request subinitted by the United States.
.. .
On 10 December 1979 the Court held a public hearine at which arments
and subxissions were sut forward on behelf of the UniteR States but at which
no representative c7f the Goverm~nt of Iran appeared. In-the submissiocs the
Court was requested to indicate inter alia. that the Government of Iran
should immediately release al1 hostages of United States nationality and

facilitate their departure from Iran and that of al1 other United States
officials; imnediately clear the premises of the United Stztes embassy,
chancery and consulate in Tehran of al1 persons whose presence was not
authorized by the United States chargé d'affaires and restore the premises
to United States control; ensure that al1 perçons attached to the
United States Embassy and consulate were accorded full freedom of movement
as well as the privileges and immunities to which they were entitled, .
necessary to the discharge of thir functions; not place on trial any
person attached to the embassy or consulates of the United States;
neither detain nor permit the detention of any such person in connection
with any proceedings; and neither take nor permit action that would
threaten the lives, safety or well-being of the hostages.

Before, during and after the hearing, questions were put to, and
information requested of the A,zent of the United States by the Court and
some of its Members, md replies were duly furnished.

On 15 December 1979 the Court mcde an Order, which was read at a
public sitting on that date, stnting inter alia that:

- from the information before the Court, and froni the terms of

Article 1 of each of the above-mentioned Protocols to the Vienna
Conventions of 1961 and 1963 on Diplomatic or Consular Relations,
it was manifest that the provisions of those articles furnished a

basis.. . basis on 'which its jurisdiction might be founded wi.th regard to
the claims of the United States un'der those conventions;

- the seizure of the ünited States embassy and consulates and the
detention of internationally protected persons as hostages could
not, having regard to the importance of the legal principles
involved, be regarded as something "secoridary" or "marginal";

- a dispute concerning diplomatic and consular premises and the
:. detention of internationally protected persons fell by its very
nature within international jurisdiction;

- the purpose of the United States in its request appeared to be not
.to obtsin a judgment on the nerits but.to preserve, while the
case was pending,' the substance of the rights'it claimed;

- while the Court must at al1 times be alert to protect the rights
of both parties in proceedings before it, that did not mean it was
precluded from entertaining a request from one party simply because
the nieasures sought were unilateral;

- accordingly the Court had found no legal groundç for not
entertaining the. United States request ;
.. .

- it considered that .there was no more fundamental prereqdsite for
the conduct of relations between States than. the inviolabi1i.t~ of
diplomatic envoys and embassie~, and that respect for the
privileges and immunities of consular staff and the inviolability
of consular premises were likewise principles deep-rooted in
international law ;

- tsking into account the facts dleged by the United States and the
ri&ts it sought to have protected, and noting that the continuance
of the situation in question exposed hunan beings to privation,
hardshlp, anguish and even danger to life and health, the Court
found that the circunstances required it to indicate provisional

measures, as provided by Article 41 of its Statute, in order to
preserve the rights claimed;

- its decision in no way prejudged the question of its jurisdiction
to deal with the merits of the case, or any question relating to
the merits themselves, and left unaffected Iran's right to submit
arguments against its jurisdiction or in respect of the merits.

The Court, unanimously, indicated, pending its final decision in the
case, the following provisional measures:

A. (i) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should
immediately ensure that the premises of the United States embassy,
chancery and consulates be restored to the possession of the
ünited States authorities under their exclusive control, and

should ensure their inviolability and effective protection as
provided for by the treaties in force between the two States, and
.by general international law;

(ii) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should ensure
the inmediate release, without any exception, of al1 persons of
United States nationality who are or have been held in the
embassy of the United States of Arnericr. or in the E.linistry of
Foreign Affairs in Tehran, or have been held as hostages elsewhere,

and.. . and af,ford full protection to al1 such perçons, in accordance
with the treaties in force between the twc States, and with
general international law;

(iii) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should, as
from that moment, afford to al1 the diplornatic and consular
personnel of the United States the full protection, privileges
and inmunities to which they are entitled under-the treaties in

force between the two States, and under general international
law, including immunity from any forai of crisiinal jurisdiction
and freedon and facilities to leave the territory of Iran;

B. The Government of the United States of America and the Goverment
of the Islamic Republic of Iran should not take any action and
should ensure that no action is taken which may aggravate the
tension between the two countries or render the existing dispute
more difficult of solution.

The Court in issuing the Order was composed es follows:
President Sir Hunphrey Waldock, Vice-President Elias and Judges Forster,
Gros, Lachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh, Ruda, Mosler, Tarazi, Oda, Ago,
El-Erian, Sette-Camara arid Baxter.