,------------------------
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:
[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2000/40
8 December 2000
Arrest Warrant of 11 April2000
<Democratie Republic ofthe Congo v. Belgium)
The Court rejects Belgium's reguest that the case be removed from the List and
finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves, are not such
as to reguire the indicationf provisional measures
THE HAGUE, 8 Decernber 2000. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) today unanimously
rejected the request of Belgium that the case concerning the Arrest Warrant of Il April 2000
(Democratie Republicof the Congo v. Belgium) be removed from the List, and found by fifteen votes
ta two that the circumstances, as they now presented themselves to the Court, were not such as to
require the exercisef its powerto indicate provisional measures, as the DRC had wished.
The meritsof the dispute concem an international arrest warrant issued on 11April 2000 by a
Belgian investigatingjudge against Mr. Yerodia AbdoulayeNdombasi- Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the DRC at the time, now Minister of Education- seeking his provisional detention pending a
request for extradition ta Belgium for "serious violations of international humanitarian law". In its
request for the indication of provisional measures, the DRC bad inter alia asked the Court to make an
arder for the immediatedischargef the disputed arrest warrant.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court starts by recallingthat,the course of the hearings, it was informed by Belgium that
on 20 November 2000 a Cabinet reshuffle bad taken place in the Congo, as a result of which
Mr. Yerodia Ndombasi bad ceased to exercise the functions of Minister for Foreign Affairs and bad
been charged with those of Minister of Education; and that this infonnation was confinned by the
Congo.
Belgium had maintained that, as a result of the Cabinet reshuffle, the Congo's Application on
the merits had been deprived of its abject and should therefore be removed from the List. In this
regard, the Court observes that,o date", the arrest warrant issued agaMr.tYerodia Ndornbasi "bas
not been withdrawn and still relates to the same individual, notwithstanding the new ministerial duties
that heis perfonning" and that "at the hearings the Congo maintained its daim on the merits". lt
accordingly concludes that "the Congo'sApplication bas not at the present time been deprived of its
abject" and that "it cannat therefore acctoBelgium'srequest for the case to be removed from the
List".
As regards the request forthe indication of provisional measures, the Court finds that it tao still
bas an obje ~ ts,ite the Cabinet reshuffle, since inter alia the arrest warrant continbesin the
name of Mr. Yerodia Ndombasi and the Congo contends that Mr. Yerodia Ndombasi continues to
enjoy immunitieswhich rt!nderthe arrest warrant unlawful.
The Court then turns to the issue of itsjurisdiction. In the course of the hearings Belgium bad
contended that the Court could not at this stage of the proceedings take account of the declarations of
acceptance of its compulsory jurisdiction made by the Parties because the Congo had not invoked
those declarations until a late stage. The Court observes that the said declarations are within the -2-
knowledge bath of itself and of the Parties to the present case and that Belgium could readily expect
that they would be taken into consideration as a basis for the jurisdiction Court in the present
case. Belgium bad also pointed out that its declaratiexcl thedcompdulsory jurisdiction of the
Court concerning situations or factsn regard to which the parties have agreed or may agree to have
recourse to another method of pacifie settlement", and that negqtiations at the highest leve! regarding
the arrest warrant were in fact in progress when the Congo seised the Court. The Court states that
Belgium bas not provided the Court with any further details of those negotiations, or of the
consequences which it considered they would have in regard to the Court's jurisdiction, in particular
its jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures. The Courtcl thatdte declarations made by
the Parties constitute prima facie a basis on which its jurisdiction couid be founded in the present case.
After having recalled that the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures "bas as its
abject to preserve the respective rights of the parties pending the decision of the Court", that it
"presupposes that irreparable prejudice should not be caused to rightsareithe subject of dispute"
and that "such measures are justified solely if there is urgency\', the Court notes that, following the
Cabinet reshuffleof 20 November 2000, "Mr. Yerodia Ndombca eseito exercise the functions of
Minister for Foreign Affairs and was charged with those of fyiinister of Education, involving Jess
frequent foreign travel.It concludes that "it has accordingly :not been established that irreparable
prejudice might be caused in-the immediate future to the Congo's rights nor that the degree ofurgency
is such that those rights need to be protected by the indic1tion ofprovisional measures".
The Court adds that, "while the Parties appear to be willing to consider seeking a friendly
settlement oftheir dispute, their positions as set out before [it] regarding their respective rights arestill
a long way apart".Itpoints out that, "while any bilateral negotiations with a view to achieving a direct
1
and friendly settlement will continue to be welcomed, the outyome of such negotiations cannat be
foreseen"; that "it is desirable that the issues befthe Court should be detennîned as saon as
possible" and that "it is therefore appropriate to ensure that a decision on the Congo's Application be
reached with ali expedition". The Court further states that the Ûrder made in the present proceedings
in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court:to deal with the merits of the case, or
with any questions relating to the admissibility of the ApplicatioQ-or to the merits themselves.
Composition of the Court
!
The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda,
Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra,-Aranguren,
Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal; Judges ad hoc Bula-Bula, Van den Wyngaert;
Registrar Couvreur. ,
1
Judges Oda and Ranjeva have appended declarations ~o the Order. Judges Koroma and •
Parra-Aranguren have appended separate opinions ta the Ordk Judge Rezek and Judge ad hoc
Bula-Bula have appended dissenting opinions to the Order. Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert has
appended a declaration to the Order.
Pursuant to a recent decision of the Court, declarations bd separate and dissenting opinions
appended to the Order are no longer presented sequentially, but feature for the first time in the arder of
precedence of their authors. ·
1
The full text of the Order and of the declarations and opinions is available on the Court's
website (http://www.icj-cij.org). A summary of the Order wiiiÇe issued later. ·
Information Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretar+ 31 70 302 23 36),
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (+ 31 70 302 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]
- The Court rejects Belgium's request that the case be removed from the List and finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves, are not such as to require the indication of provisional measures
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - The Court rejects Belgium's request that the case be removed from the List and finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves, are not such as to require the indication of provisional measures