Public sitting held on Wednesday 16 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Co

Corrigé
Corrected

CR 2013/26

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THE HAGUE LA HAYE

YEAR 2013

Public sitting

held on Wednesday 16 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Tomka presiding,

in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

________________

VERBATIM RECORD
________________

ANNÉE 2013

Audience publique

tenue le mercredi 16 octobre 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président,

dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) et Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c.Costa Rica)

____________________

COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -

Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor

Judges Owada
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood

Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard

Registrar Couvreur

 - 3 -

Présents : M. Tomka, président
M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président

MM. Owada
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood

Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari, juges
MM. Guillaume
Dugard, juges ad hoc

M. Couvreur, greffier

 - 4 -

The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez , Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Organization of American
States, Washington D.C.,

as Agent;

H.E. Mr. Jorge Urbina, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

as Co-Agent;

Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,

as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;

Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,

Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; associate member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Samuel Wordsworth Q.C., member of the Engli sh Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court
Chambers,

Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
member of the Costa Rican Bar,

Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in Queensland, Australia, and in England and Wales,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Republic of
Colombia,

Mr. Gustavo Campos, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of

the Netherlands,

Ms Ana Marcela Calderón, Minister Counsellor at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

as Advisers.

The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

as Agent and Counsel;

Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, former Member and former Chairman of the
International Law Commission, - 5 -

Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica auprès de
l’Organisation des Etats américains, Washington D.C.,

comme agent ;

S. Exc. M. Jorge Urbina, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica aupr ès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,

comme coagent ;

M. Sergio Ugalde, conseiller spécial auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,

comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;

M. James Crawford, A .C., S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l’Université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international, avocat,

M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit international à l’Institut de hautes études intern ationales et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court
Chambers,

M. Arnoldo Brenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des af faires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre du barreau du Costa Rica,

Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Queensland (Australie) et Angleterre et pays de Galles),

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. Ricardo Otarola, ministre-conseiller, consul général du Costa Rica en République de Colombie,

M. Gustavo Campos, ministre-conseiller, consul général du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Ana Marcela Calderón, ministre- conseiller de l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,

comme conseillers.

Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,

comme agent et conseil ;

M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento (Etats- Unis d’Amérique), ancien membre et ancien
president de la Commission du droit international, - 6 -

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre -La Défense, former member and
former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit

international,

Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., member of the Bars of
the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. César Vega Masís, Director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,

Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,

Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,

Mr. Lawrence H. Martin, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., member of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

as Counsel;

Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit internatio nal de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Ms Clara E. Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and
New York,

as Assistant Counsel. - 7 -

M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit

international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux

de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats ;

M. César Vega Masís, directeur des affaires juridiques, de la souveraineté et du territoire au
ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,

M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,

M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,
M. Lawrence H. Martin, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des

barreaux de la Cour suprême des Etats- Unis d’Amérique, du district de Columbia et du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,

comme conseils ;

M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,

Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,

M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Mme Clara E. Brillembourg, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des
barreaux du district de Columbia et de New York,

comme conseils adjoints. - 8 -

The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is open. We meet this morning for the

second round of the oral observations of Costa Rica on its Request for the indication of provisional

measures. I now call upon Professor James Crawford. You have the floor, Sir.

Mr. CRAWFORD:

NINE ESTABLISHED P ROPOSITIONS

A. Introduction

1. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in this speech, I will

address the core facts established by the evidence on which the Court has to make its decision on

Costa Rica’s request . There are nine of them. I will not deal with the host of peripheral issues

raised by Nicaragua yesterday, because you need to focus only on the essentials. Not dealing with

these peripheral issues is not, of course, to be taken as an admission of any of the allegations made.

2. Before dealing with these nine core propositions, I would make three preliminary and

more general points.

3. The first preliminary point concerns the suggestion made by Professor Pellet that Costa

Rica’s request is in some way “abusive” 1 (that was his word). The Court will have remarked how

rapidly President Ortega responded to Costa Rica’s protest of 16 September 2013: the very next

2
day . It is unusual in our experience for a Nicaraguan H ead of State to give such prompt and

personal attention to a Costa Rican protest . But, according to Nicaragua, he did so

3
unaided  Mr. Reichler testified that his legal team was otherwise engaged . While Mr. Reichler

is in testifying mode, perhaps he will tell you when he first saw the letters. In any event, a rapid

succession of orders and instructions was apparently given and just as rapidly complied with . The

4
one thing that Nicaragua omitted to do, notwithstanding our reminder of 3 October 2013 and its

protest about overflight of 1 October 2013, was to tell anyone about this prompt and meticulous

correspondence. At the time of our Request, and until the very end of last week, the only

1
CR 2013/25, p. 50, para. 20 (Pellet).
Letter from the Secretary of National Public Policies to the Executive President of the National Port Authority,
Reference SPPN-E-13-711, 17 Sep. 2013, Ann. 1 to Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ, 11Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197.

CR 2013/25, p. 25, para. 30 (Reichler).
4
Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo B arrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, to
Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 3 Oct. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-568-13, Attachment PM-23. - 9 -

information we had about Nicaragua’s position involved allegations about rainfall and aquatic

plants. Moreover, the information we provided in our letter of 16 September included not just

satellite images, but precise co -ordinates . That information turned out to be correct .

Professor Pellet’s suggestion that the action Costa Rica promptly took  when it had received no

adequate explanation  was “abusive”; that suggestionis quite extraordinary.

4. My second preliminary point is a related one . Nicaragua says that it had ordered

Mr. Pastora and the National Port Authority to cease construction and cleaning works and to

withdraw any personnel and equipment from the disputed territory on 22 September, before the

Request was made on 24 September. As I have said, these facts were only brought to the attention

of the Court and Costa Rica last Friday 6. There were many opportunities to do so before that.

(a) They were not brought to Costa Rica’s attention following the intense media coverage of the

dispute, in both countries.

(b) They were not brought to Costa Rica’s attention on 22 September, the day Commander Ortega

was said to have given his order 7.

(c) They were not brought to Costa Rica’s attention on 24 September, when the Request for new

provisional measures was made, or when the Foreign Minister wrote to Nicaragua saying that

its explanation of 18 September was implausible and reiterating Costa Rica’s request for

8
information and assurances . There was no response to that letter of 24 September at any time.

(d) They were not brought to the Court’s attention, or to Costa Rica’s attention, on 30 September,

when you notified the Parties that you would hold oral hearings this week.

5Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affais and Worship, Costa Rica, to
Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 16Sep. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-536-13, Attachment PM-1.
6
Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ, 11Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197.
7
Letter from the Executive President of the National Port Authority to the Government Delegate for the Dredging
Works of the San Juan de Nicaragua, Ref. PE-VSM-0592-09-2013, 22 Sep. 2013, Ann. 8 to Letter from Nicaragua to
ICJ, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197; and Letter from the Executive President of the National Port Authority to the
Technical Manager of the National Port Authority, Ref. PE-VSM-0591-09-2013, 22 Sep. 2013, Ann. 7 to Letter from
Nicaragua to ICJ, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197.
8Diplomatic Note sent by Gioconda Ubeda Rivera, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica,
to Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 24 Sep. 2013, Ref. DM-D VM -550-2013,

Attachment PM-20. - 10 -

(e) They were not brought to Costa Rica’s attention on 1 October 2013, when the N icaraguan

Foreign Minister wrote protesting about overflight . 9

(f) They were not brought to Costa Rica’s attention on 3 October 2013, when Costa Rica

responded to the protest against overflight, and referred to the Nicaraguan activities in the

10
disputed territory .

5. Yesterday counsel for Nicaragua gave you two explanations for this delay, neither of them

very plausible. First, he said that “Nicaragua decided that it should deliver its answer to [the

Court], rather than to Costa Rica” 11. Well, fair enough, but a letter addressed to the Court should

take no more time than a letter to Costa Rica, and certainly it does not justify a delay of 26 days.

Secondly, he said that it took some time to “assemble its legal team, analyse the facts, and prepare

12 13
its submission to the Court”, including translations . He says it “hurried” to do so . As counsel

to a number of States, I would say that no governmental client of mine would consider 26 days to

be “hurried”; nor would it consider 26 days to translate nine pages of correspondence to be

reasonable. Besides which, the point is not that Nicaragua did not substantiate its new

position  its third narrative  until Friday evening; the point is that it did not tell anyone  not

anyone  that that was its position.

6. Even when Nicaragua’s breach was finally revealed to the Court — finally, on Friday —

the Agent still s tood by the Foreign Minister’s N ote of 18 September, expressly referring to it,

formally reiterating it, and not disclaiming any part of it 14. Nicaragua’s counsel continued to stand

15
by it yesterday .

7. My third preliminary point — most important of all — concerns the evidence before you

on this Request, apart from the correspondence filed on Friday . With that exception, all the

9
Diplomatic Note sent by Orlando Gomez, Vice -Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, to Enri que Castillo
Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, 1 Oct. 2013, Ref. MRE/DM/DGAJST-
VMOG/293/10/13, Attachment PM-22.
1Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, to

Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 3 Oct . 2013, Ref. DM-AM-568-13, Attachment PM-23.
1CR 2013/25, p. 25, para. 30 (Reichler).

1CR 2013/25, p. 25, para. 30 (Reichler).
13
CR 2013/25, p. 25, para. 30 (Reichler).
1Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 10 Oct. 2013, Reference HOL-EMB-193, p. 2.

1See, e.g., CR 2013/25, p. 21, para. 16 (Reichler); CR 2013/25, p. 27, para. 36 (Reichler); CR 2013/25, p. 27,
para. 37 (Reichler); and CR 2013/25, p. 48, para. 17 (Pellet). - 11 -

evidence before you has been filed by Costa Rica. Nicaragua had weeks’ notice of this hearing, it

has produced nothing. There is no evidence from Nicaragua as to the present state of the eastern

caño, but Nicaragua must  does  know that. People from the National Port Authority dug the

caño. The officers and men at the nearby military encampment observed the work  as the

Nicaraguan Agent effectively conceded yesterday 16. Yet no evidence is produced. Nicaragua

produces no evidence to challenge our expert evidence as to t he risk of irreparable prejudice

presented by the eastern caño; indeed, it effectively accepts our evidence in that regard. I will

come back to that in a moment.

B. The Present State of Affairs

8. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I turn now to the Request, and I am going to outline

nine basic propositions that are either undisputed or cannot reasonably be disputed, in light of the

evidentiary record, commenting as I go on some particular points made by Nicaragua.

Proposition 1: Nicaragua constructed the caños

9. It is uncontested that a senior member of the Nicaraguan Government, assisted by a

17
Government department, constructed the two artificial caños in the disputed territory . The

Nicaraguan Government department carrying out the works in the di sputed territory is the

18
“government agency responsible for river transportation and ports”, according to Nicaragua . The

explanation given by Nicaragua’s counsel that “while [Mr. Pastora] was performing these cleaning

19
works in the area [he] took it upon himself to extend his activities into the disputed territory” is

simply not credible. These new caños are clearly the result of careful planning, something which is

16
CR 2013/25, p. 16, para. 35 (Argüello).
17CR 2013/25, p. 11, para. 17 (Argüello); CR 2013/25, p. 21, para. 15 (Reichler); CR 2013/25, p. 22, para. 17
(Reichler); CR 2013/25, p. 24, para. 24 (Reichler); and CR 2013/25, p. 46, para. 12 (Pellet). See also Letter from the

Technical Manager of the National Port Authority to the Executive President of the National Port Authority,
Ref. GT-LAQG-0886-09-2013, 20 Sep. 2013, Ann. 3 to Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ, 11Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197
(“cleaning works began in August in order to guara ntee the natural flow of the San Juan River into the river mouth Delta.
These works include the use of a suction dredger.”).
18CMN, para. 4.28. See also CMN, para. 2.51 (EPN is “the State institution charged with administering the
Nation’s ports, improving the country’s navigation systems, and optimizing ship traffic capacity”); Declaration of

Technical Manager of the National Port Company (EPN), Lester Antonio Quintero Gómez, 16 Dec. 2010, MCR
Ann. 164, para. 1 (the EPN “is the state agency charged with the development of port authorities in Nicaragua’s marine,
river, and lake regions, as well as all required port facilities requsic] for the transportation of both people and
goods”).
19CR 2013/25, p. 24, para. 24 (Reichler). - 12 -

20
evident from their straight design, particularly the eastern one , and they have been cons tructed

precisely at the point where they can benefit the most from the change in gradient of the course of

the San Juan River. They are, from a river diversion point of view, a big technical improvement on

the 2010 caño. It is not as if Mr. Pastora simply lost his way or strayed into the disputed territory

by accident and decided to dig a hole by himself.

10. It is also now uncontested that the Nicaraguan Army was aware this work was going

on 21. How could they not be? Whether it was known by a “young l ieutenant”, or by the

Commander of the Army, is irrelevant . The work which was done by Nicaragua was known by

Nicaragua to be underway.

11. To summarize, to say that Nicaragua “did not send” is absurd. Of course Nicaragua

“sent”. We do not know whether President Ortega sent. Perhaps we will never know. But people

were sent, and by Nicaragua.

Proposition 2: Those constructing the caños had ostensible authority to do so

12. Mr. Pastora and the National Port Authority were organs of the Nicaraguan St ate. They

had ostensible and as far as appears actual authority  at least until 22 September 2013  to carry

out the works in the disputed territory . Following the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011, they were

never prohibited from doing so by any Nicaraguan instruction in evidence.

13. The only evidence on the record is the specific authorization for Mr. Pastora and the

National Port Authority to carry out the project for the “Improvement of Navigation on the San

22
Juan de Nicaragua River” . We heard nothing about ultra vires action on the previous Request .

The only Nicaraguan instruction to the National Port Authority and to Delegate Pastora not to enter

the disputed territory post-dates the construction of the two new caños , and Mr. Reichler could not

show otherwise . The director responsible for the project at the Nicaraguan Ministry of the

Environment and Natural Resources testified to you in December 2010 that the Ministry is able to

2See University of Costa Ric a Centre for Research in Sustainable Development, Department of Civil
Engineering, “Technical assessment of the artificial canals on Isla Portillos”, Oct. 2013, Attachment PM-19 (in judges’
folders, day 1, tab 19).

2CR 2013/25, p. 16, para. 35 (Argüello).
22
MARENA Administrative Resolution No. 038 -2008, 22 Dec. 2008, CMN, Ann. 33, p. 79; amended by
MARENA Administrative Resolution No. 038-2008-A1, 30 Oct. 2009, CMN, Ann. 34. - 13 -

23
amend or withdraw this kind of authorization at any time . Nineteen m onths have passed since

your March 2011 Order requiring Nicaragua not to send its personnel to the disputed territory .

Where is the withdrawal of that authorization? Nicaragua has not produced it.

Proposition 3: Nicaragua breached the 2011 Order by constructing the caños
24
14. This is not now in dispute . Professor Pellet said “ peut-être” : what a concession

coming from him! Mr. Reichler described it as “cleaning” 25 but the word “dredging” passed his

26
lips . There is nothing peut-être about it. This was the Nicaraguan State in full-scale action, with

the Army standing vigilantly close by.

15. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I turn to the question of risk of irreparable harm .

This is the question of the significant risks that result from Nicarag ua’s works on the eastern

caño  significant risks of diversion of the Rio San Juan, and of adverse environmental and other

impacts, including in the upstream sector . Mr. Wordsworth made the point in opening .

Nicaragua’s answer was “we have stopped”, as Professor McCaffrey’s brief presentation

essentially emphasized.

16. Here there are four relevant agreed or indisputable propositions and I will deal with them

in turn.

Proposition 4: The risk of irreparable prejudice is even more serious than first thought

17. M r. President, Members of the Court, m atters are more serious than we realized .

Overnight, we received more satellite imagery. These are at t ab 2 of your folders; they show the

position on 5 October. You see the image now on the screen. I accept there is no dredger on that

date. “Look Mum, no dredger!” But what the Court needs to focus on is how the works on the

beach have progressed from 18 September. You see now the newly excavated trench, marked at

the top of the screen. We estimate the distance between the end of the trench on 5 October and the

waterline at seven metres. A good half day’s work for a platoon with shovels. Nearby, the military

23
Affidavit of Hilda Espinoza Urbina, National Director of the Department of Environm ental Quality at the
Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua (MARENA), 20 Dec. 2010, MCR, Ann. 165,
para. 9 (f).
24CR 2013/25, p. 51, para. 22 (Pellet).

25CR 2013/25, p. 29, para. 42 (Reichler).
26
CR 2013/25, p. 21, para. 15 and p. 30, para 51 (Reichler). - 14 -

camp. At the bottom of the screen, there is a new opening on the caño that can just be seen, and I

will return to this in a moment.

18. Now you can see the photograph of 18 September, showing the trench at the end of the

27
caño, at the top of the image . If we return to the image of 5 October, you see the work on the

trench is now much more advanced; indeed, it is virtually complete . I will come back later to the

extraordinary failure on Nicaragua’s part to give the Court any fair assessment of the current

position. It knew that works were further advanced than Costa Rica or the Court had been told , it

said nothing. Now, I am sure my friends opposite of counsel were not aware of this; they gave you

what they had been given: nine late letters, in this case. For now, however, I am focusing on

significant risk.

19. Professor Thorne said this at paragraph4.7 of his report (screen on):

“In the case of the eastern ca ño, the trench already dug part way across the

beach could be extended to achieve this with very little difficulty . Once the trench is
completed, increasing wet season runoff fro m the catchment of the Rio San Juan will
raise the elevation of the water surface in the River compared to that in the sea, . . .
with sufficient force to scour its bed and enlarge the ditch through the beach .
Connecting the River to the Caribbean Sea vi a the eastern caño would provide a short

cut to the sea for water flowing along the Rio San Juan . Through time, this short cut
would convey progressively more of the flow, which would reduce the discharge in
the San Juan River downstream of the ca ño, causing it to deposit silt, with a
significant risk that it would close entirely at times of low runoff during the next and
subsequent dry seasons.” 28

20. But the position, as we have just learnt, is that the trench across the beach has already

been extended. It is virtually complete. You can see the breadth of it, again on 5 October, on your

screens. In the four days between the photograph of 18 September, and President Ortega’s order to

cease all work, the personnel working in the disputed territory must have worked very hard indeed.

21. There is something else remarkable about this new image from 5 October . You can see

at the upstream end of the ca ño on the San Juan River, at the bottom of the picture, that a new

entrance to the ca ño has been created; it is circled on the screen. It joins the caño a short way

along. So, there are two routes for water from the r iver to enter the caño. If you were to remove

27Close up of Attachment PM-14.

28Prof. Colin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Ca ños on Isla Portillos,
10 Oct. 2013, AttachmentPM-33, p. 6, para. 4.7 (judges’ folder, day 1, tab 20). - 15 -

the small triangular island created by these two channels, there would be a large opening; quite

large enough to divert theriver, if the only evidence that you haveis to be believed.

22. Mr. President, Members of the Court, w e have shown the se new images to

Professor Thorne. His view is that the increasing wet season runoff from the catchment is likely

now  that is, over the coming weeks  to raise the elevation of the water surface in the river

compared to that in the sea, creating the gradient necessary to drive the flow through the caño with

sufficient force to scour its bed and enlarge the di tch through the beach . The “if the work is

completed” argument, that formed the mainstay of Professor McCaffrey’s pleading, has a hole in it

the size of the hole in thebeach.

23. Before I move on, I would like to mention an issue of transparency . Mr. Reichler

yesterday asked why the clear images of 14 September were not provided to Nicaragua with our

29
first protest letter of 16 September . The reason is that we obtain satellite imagery from a Costa

Rican company, which gets it from international satellite operators . I t takes around ten days

between the time the image is ordered by the company and the time it is delivered to the

Government. The 14 September image was received in late September. The 5 October image was

received last night. But as I have said, the 16 September letter included accurate co -ordinates, and

it should have been the work of a moment, with modern military technology in communications, to

confirm them. Quicker, I think, than it takes to ring the Nicaraguan weather forecasting service.

Proposition 5: Costa Rica’s expert evidence is unchallenged

24. The evidence of Costa Rica’s two expert reports  from the University of Costa Rica

and from Professor Thorne  is unchallenged by any expert or other evidence, and there has been

a notable failure on Nicaragua’s part to explain why it has not put in any expert evidence . To a

large extent, Nicaragua adopted our two reports, at the same time saying  incorrectly  that

Mr. Wordsworth left out crucial passages in those reports 30. The passages in question made it clear

that the experts were addressing the situation:

2CR 2013/25, p. 22, para. 19 (Reichler).

3CR 2013/25, p. 38, para. 6 (McCaffrey). - 16 -

(a) “[o]nce the dredger completes its work and these obstructions are removed” (page 14 of the

31
University of Costa Rica report that Mr.Wordsworth took you to) ; or that

(b) once the trench is completed (which is paragraph 4.7 of Professor Thorne’s report that

32
Mr. Wordsworth also took you to) .

25. The simple point is that the experts could only address in their reports the situation as it

appeared from the information avai lable to them as at mid -September 2013. Until last nigh t, the

latest information Costa Rica had dated from 18 September. Nicaragua has not submitted any

updated evidence on the situation after 18 September. Now w e can see the situation as at

5 October, now that we can do that Professor Thorne has been able to give a more up -to-date

picture of the real and imminent risk . How matters stand as of 16 October, Nicaragua knows; we

33
do not, you do not. This is Professor Pellet’s “abusive” request .

Proposition 6: The expert evidence is not “unsupported assertion without scientific basis”

26. I quote Professor McCaffrey’s words. It is r ather bizarre, in the light of the fact that

Nicaragua does not challen ge the two reports and does not produce any reports of its own, that

Professor McCaffrey could say that “Costa Rica’s predictions of future harm are nothing more than

unsupported assertions without scientific basis” 34. Costa Rica’s two expert reports cannot

conceivably be described as unscientific  there is no evidentiary basis for that contention.

Nicaragua has a river scientist, Dr. Kondolf. Where is he, you might ask? Would he testify that

there is no risk of the eastern caño, as it now stands, breaking through to the nearby sea?

27. And if the point is that Costa Rica is not able to make firm predictions of future harm,

then the point is a bad one. As we made clear, we are not asking you to make final determinations
35
of fact at this stage, it is not part of your function at provisional measures . Wha t matters is

whether there is a real and imminent risk  risk, nothing more.

31
University of Costa Rica Centre for Research in Sustainable Development, Department of Civil Engineering,
“Technical assessment of the artificial canals on Isla Portillos”, Oct. 2013, Attachment PM-19 (in judges’ folder , day 1,
tab 19).
32Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Ca ños on Isla Portillos,

10 Oct. 2013, AttachmentPM-33, p. 6 (in judges’ folder, day 1, tab 20).
33CR 2013/25, p. 50, para. 20 (Pellet).
34
CR 2013/25, p. 37, para. 11 (McCaffrey).
35
CR 2013/24, p. 25, para. 3 (Wordsworth). - 17 -

28. So we were genuinely perplexed when Professor McCaffrey criticized

Professor Thorne’s evidence, saying “he cannot come to any conclusion about the effect of the
36
2013 caños despite the fact that this is his field of expertise” . This is hopelessly misconceived .

The Court is not concerned with conclusions about impact; it needs to know about risk . As

Professor McCaffrey said, Professor Thorne is not able to “ determine the potential environmental

impacts”. Of course he cannot. The question is one of risk, not determination of consequences, if

the risk is realized . And Professor Thorne does not even have access to th is site. I suppose

Dr. Kondolf does, or could have, but he is not here. And if I may recall what Professor Thorne said

in full on impacts to the ecosystem, and not just the snippet Professor McCaffrey took you to

[screen on]:

“It is difficult to predict precise impacts on the ecosystem on the basis of the
limited available information. [That is the bit that Professor McCaffrey read; but the
passage continues:] However, there is certainly a real risk that diverting some portion
of the flow in the Rio San Juan into the 2013 caños would have multiple impacts on
37
the River, biota that inhabits the River as well as the ecological services it supplies.”

29. Real risk  quite. Professor McCaffrey said that it was not enough to show the

possibility of risk, and he took you to a sentence from the provisional measure s Order in the

38
Aegean Sea case . Again, it is worth noting what that passage says in full. The Court said:

“Whereas, on the other hand, the possibility of such a prejudice to rights in

issue before the Court does not, by itself , suffice to justify recourse to its exceptional
power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate interim measures of protection;
whereas, under the express terms of that Article, this power is conferred on the Court

only if it considers that circumstances so require in order t o preserve the respective
rights of either party; and whereas this condition, as already noted, presupposes that
the circumstances of the case disclose the risk of an irreparable prejudice to rights in
issue in the proceedings.” 39

30. The risk  that is the relevant test; not certain conclusions on impact.

31. And it follows that the criticism that the University of Costa Rica was unable to make a

precise determination of tractive force is equally misplaced 40. These are engineers, not magicians.

36CR 2013/25, p. 38, para. 11 (McCaffrey).
37
Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Ca ños on Isla Portillos,
10 Oct. 2013, AttachmentPM-33, p. 7, para. 4.11 (in judges’ folder, day 1, tab 20).
38CR 2013/25, p. 37, para. 10 (McCaffrey).

39Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Interim Protection, Order of 11 September 1976, I.C.J.
Reports 1976, p. 11, para. 32; emphasis added.
40
CR 2013/25, p. 38, para. 12 (McCaffrey). - 18 -

They can make an approximation, as Mr. Wordsworth explained, based on the gradient and width

of the caños. U nlike Nicaragua, they have no access to the site to take measurements of the

respective depth of the river and the ca ño. And Nicaragua has not told us th ose crucial facts.

Nicaragua sits on the side-lines as if it knows nothing  caño? what caño?  and it snipes at one

or other aspect of our evidence.

32. I should add that the Court always takes into account, in assessing the fact s  an

assessment here purely provisional the relative opportunity each party has to establish the facts.

Proposition 7: Nicaragua has failed to inform the Court of material facts

33. You have heard much about the fact that the caños have not been completed. But at the

same time Nicaragua let an out -of-date picture of the situation rest before you without correction .

And, moreover, you heard not one word about the intention behind construction of the caños. You

have only got to look at the 5 October overhead to see what t he intention was, res ipsa loquitur.

No evidence; no challenge to the independent expert view of Professor Thorne that the intention
41
was to divert a portion of discharge from the San Juan into a new course ; no explanation other

than the absurd explanat ion of Mr. Pastora about aquatic plants. The construction of at least the

eastern caño was an attempt to create a new course for waters of the r iver to the Caribbean Sea.

That conclusion is inescapable. While we a re speaking about cleaning, it is about time that

Nicaragua came clean on th at point. Forget th at attribution for now, forget the case that

Mr. Pastora was off on a frolic of his own . We ask Nicaragua, formally, to tell us in the second

round  to tell you  what was the intention behind the construction of the eastern caño,

regardless of who did it. What was the eponymous constructor trying to do?

Proposition 8: The caño continues to exist

34. Counsel for Nicaragua on Tuesday repeatedly emphasized that the work had stopped, as

if that were enough. It is not enough. The caño has not disappeared just because the dredger has

gone. The works on the eastern caño have not been deconstructed. They are more advanced than

we realized when opening on Monday. The works, if not now complete, are as good as complete,

4Professor Colin Thorne,Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Caños on Isla Portillos,
10 Oct. 2013, AttachmentPM-33, p. 5, para. 4.4 (in judges’ folder, day 1, tab 20). - 19 -

given that the waters of the r iver will rise, in the weeks ahead, in the weeks ahead, and find their

way to the sea. Remediation is not a luxury. It is not an option. This makes the third provisional

measure sought by Costa Rica, in one variant or another, absolutely crucial. We will leave it in the

Court’s hand to determine the variant. But it is absolutely crucial. You cannot think that the Rio

San Juan can be diverted through that channel without irreparable consequences in terms of this

dispute. Professor Kohen will return to this.

Proposition 9: Nicaragua’s northern military encampment is on the disputed territory

35. Yesterday, Nicaragua admitted that the camp near the eastern caño is a military

42
camp  “a Nicaraguan militar y detachment encampment” , confirming Costa Rica’s suspicion

and confirming that Nicaragua had not merely violated two and a half of its three assurances given

43
to you on the first provisional measures hearing, but all three of them .

36. Nicaragua says the camp is not on the disputed territory 44. But you defined the disputed

territory as Isla Portillos, between “the right bank of the disputed caño, the right bank of the San

Juan River . . . and the Harbor Head Lagoon” 45. The camp is on the territory betwee n the right

bank of the river and the Harbor Head Lagoon. It is on the disputed territory as you defined it .

You said “the title to sovereignty claimed by Costa Rica over the entirety of Isla Portillos is

46
plausible”  the entirety. You made no exceptio n for the strip of beach between the small

lagoon at the northern end of the eastern caño and the Caribbean Sea. The camp is on the disputed

territory.

37. Nicaragua presented you with a map yesterday which showed an extended sandbar along

47
the Caribbean coast, a “barrier beach”, Mr. Reichler called it . He said it was clearly depicted by

42
CR 2013/25, p. 29, para. 44(Reichler).
43CR 2013/24, p. 36, para. 7 (Crawford).

44CR 2013/25, p.30, para. 48 (Reichler).
45
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 19, para. 55.
46
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 201 (I)1, p. 19, para. 58; emphasis added.
47CR 2013/25, p. 29, para. 45 (Reichler). - 20 -

Costa Rica as Nicaraguan. He said “Nicaragua’s right to station troops  or anyone else  in that
48
location [on the barrier beach] is therefore indisputable.”

38. You can see now on your screens, and at tab 4 of your folders, the 1988 map that

Nicaragua relies on, superimposed on the satellite image of 14 September of this year. The sand

bank  or “barrier beach”  is now completely out to sea . The Nicaraguan camp is clearly on

Isla Portillos, the territory depicted on the map as Costa Rican.

39. In the image now on your screen, and at tab 5 of your folders, you see co- ordinates for

the sandbar and the Nicaraguan military camp . The sandbar co -ordinates are marked in yellow

towards the top of the image. The co-ordinates of the Nicaraguan military camp are marked in red.

It is not a naval base, it is not a submarine base, it is a military camp; it is not on a submerged

sandbar, it is on the disputed territory.

C. Conclusions

40. Mr. President, Members of the Court, from these nine propositions, incontestable as we

say they are, two conclusions follow . The first conclusion is that Nicaragua’s assurances should

not be accepted by the Court, having regard to the risk s presented and the relative burdens of

compliance in the circumstances of Nicaragua’s breach of your earlier Order  indeed Nicaragua’s

breaches. But we can focus on the eastern caño as the relevant breach.

41. The second conclusion is that Costa Rica is entitled to restoration of the status quo as it

was before the breach, having regard to the risks involved. I deal with the first point.

(1)Nicaragua’s assurances should not be accepted by the Court

42. On Monday I gave you six reasons why the Court sh ould not accept these assurances in

lieu of an Order. Mr. Reichler should not have persuaded you that those reasons are not valid.

43. One: Nicaragua has still not admitted the facts , the facts as they are now. T here has

been some development , admittedly, a fourth narrative, as it were, but that provides no comfort .

49
Nicaragua now finally accepts that its personnel were constructing and dredging the caños . It

4CR 2013/25, p. 30, para. 47 (Reichler).

4CR 2013/25, p. 11, para. 17 (Argüello); CR 2013/25, p. 21, para. 15, p. 22, para. 17 and p. 24, para. 24
(Reichler); and CR 2013/25, p. 46, para. 12 (Pellet). - 21 -

finally accepts that its personnel have entered the disputed territory in breach of your Orde r and

carried out activities there . It finally accepts that its army, camped in close and convenient

proximity to the lagoon at the end of the eastern caño, must have known of it . It accepts that it is

responsible for the acts of Mr. Pastora, its Government Delegate, and it is r esponsible for the acts
51
of its g overnment department, the National Port Authority . These reluctant concessions can

hardly be considered timely: they finally came yesterday, 36 days after we wrote to protest,

52
36 days after we provided the co-ordinates of the new caños . But Nicaragua has still not

admitted that its Mr. Pastora, his dredgers and the National Port Authority personnel were

authorized to go there in the first place . For the reasons I have explained, they had ostens ible

authority to do so, and there is nothing in the evidentiary record to suggest otherwise.

44. And if you needed any more proof that Nic aragua has not been forthcoming  and a

State in breach of one of your Orders should provide proof if it can  you now have it: the image

of 5 October confirms that Nicaragua carried out substantial work between 18 September and

5 October. The trench across the beach is now fully complete. Nicaragua has uttered not one word

about it. Not one word.

45. Two: Our second reason; Nicaragua has done this before, and it has promised not to do

it again, and it has done it again . It said it did not intend to send personnel to the region 53; it told

54
you its only operation was to be the replanting of trees ; and here it is : cleaning, clearing,

cleansing dredging, constructing caños, cutting down trees.

46. Three: Nicaragua has violated its assurances before. Mr. Reichler said that the

suggestion that Nicaragua had breached its assurances was contradicted by the evidence. But he

also confirmed that Nicaragua has breached the ass urances it gave to the Court in 2011. On

18 January 2011 Nicaragua told the Court that “none of its armed forces w ere . . stationed on Isla

50
CR 2013/25, p. 17, para. 35 (Argüello).
51CR 2013/25, p. 29, para. 42 (Reichler);

52Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, to
Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nic aragua, 16 Sep. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-536-13, Attachment PM-1.
53
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 24, para. 75.
54Reply of the Republic of Nicaragua to the question put by Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwooat the end
of the hearing on provisional measures requested by Costa Rica in the case concerning Certain Activarried out by

Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), 18 Jan. 2011, Ref. 18012011-01, p. 6. - 22 -

55
Portillos” . On 19 January, as our photographic evidence showed, the Nicaraguan army camp was

still there56. Nicaragua now says  it “was closed down permanently a few days later” and “has

57
never been reoccupied” . Whether it remained a day, a week or a year is immaterial . Nicaragua

told you it was not ther e and it was, by its own admission; and now there is a military camp, in

another place on Isla Portillos.

47. During yesterday’s session, Nicaragua presented itself as an “example of compliance

58
with the Judgments of the Court” , telling us that the const ruction of the new caños was a simple

blunder, one that, at most, slightly tarnished an otherwise perfect record. In fact, since the

provisional measures were ordered, Nicaragua has shown a perfect record in breaching all of them .

In my first speech, I r eferred to the Sandinista youths that the Nicaraguan press claims have so far

visited the disputed area, some of them continuing work on the 2010 caño 59. Nicaragua’s counsel

60
reproved me for giving no evidence for this statement and asserted that no such evidence exists . I

apologize to the Court for omitting the footnote. But the evidence does exist. Costa Rica’s Note to

Nicaragua of 16 September not only protested the construction of new caños, but it pointed out that

the Nicaraguan media reported on 9 September that some 10,000 youths had already visited the

area 61. The relevant article is at tab 6 of your folders.

48. Four: if the Court declines to order provisional measures, its authority will have been,

and will be seen to have been, flouted. I stand by that. Nicaragua admitted that it has breached the

2011 Order. It has told you it admits everything, yet it provides no evidence  not a single piece

of evidence  about the present state of the ca ño, its depth, its carrying capacity, its length. It

5Certain Activities Carried ou t by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 23, para. 71.

5MCR, Ann. 223; MCR, para. 3.53; Comments by Costa Rica on the Reply of Nicaragua to the questions put by
Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwood at the end of the hearing on provisional measures requested by Costa Rica in
the case concerning Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Are a (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),
20 Jan. 2011, Ref. ECRPB 017-11.

5CR 2013/25, p. 28, para. 41 (Reichler).
58
CR 2013/25, p. 17, para. 38 (Argüello).
59
CR 2013/25, p. 28, para. 40 (Reichler). See also CR 2013/25, p. 13, para. 22 ( Argüello).
6CR 2013/25, p. 28, para. 40 (Reichler).

6Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, to
Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nic aragua, 16 Sep. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-536-13, Attachment PM-1. - 23 -

does not tell you that it has performed substantial work on the trench on the beach since

18 September. Its protestations of good faith and transparency cannot be taken seriously.

49. Five: provisional measures are urgent . We now know them to be m ore urgent that we

knew them to be even yesterday, due to the significant extension of the trench across the beach

since 18 September. This is more than enough to conclude that there is a risk of irreparable harm .

If remediation works are not carried out with urgency, if the trench and the caño is not backfilled,

there is a likelihood of irreparable harm  not merely a risk; the eastern ca ño carries the present

risk, in weeks  not months, not years  of diverting the San Juan to the Caribbean Sea .

Nicaragua has presented no evidence to the contrary.

50. Sixth: I told you on Monday that if Nicaragua is to be taken at its word, the provisional

measures will have little impact on it . If Nicaragua is to be judged by its deeds, by what it has

done, the provisional measures will have a significant impact on Costa Rica. I think that you have

the point, and I will not dwell on it.

(2)Costa Rica is entitled to the restoration of the status quo

51. I turn to the second conclusion. On this I can be merciful ly brief. If Nicaragua has

breached your provisional measures Order, and if there is on a reasonable judgment, a risk of harm

to the status quo, Costa Rica is entitled to the restoration of the status quo. That is the point of
62
provisional measures. Mr. Reichler kindly said that I usually get points of law correct . This ,

Mr. President, Members of the Court, is one of them.

Thank you Mr. President, Members of the Court. I ask you to call on Professor Kohen.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Crawfor d. Je pass e maintenant la parole au

professeur Marcelo Kohen. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.

6CR 2013/25, p. 26, para. 34 (Reichler). - 24 -

M. KOHEN :

L ES OBSERVATIONS ORALES DU N ICARAGUA RENFORCENT LE BESOIN D ’INDIQUER
LES MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DEMANDÉES

1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, nous avons assisté hier à l’effort

considérable accompli par le Nicaragua pour essayer de montrer que, malgré le fait qu’il a construit

deux nouveaux «caños» dans le territoire litigieux, il n’y aurait aucun besoin pour la Cour

d’indiquer de nouvelles mesures conservatoires. Pourtant, a près les observations orales du

défendeur, il devient plus indispensable encore d’ordonner les mesures conservatoires demandées

par le Costa Rica.

2. Mon exposé sera divisé en trois parties :

 je réfuterai tout d’abord les prétentions de la Partie adverse qui visent à assimiler les nouvelles

mesures demandées avec celles ordonnées par votre Cour il y a deux ans et demi, ou à faire

croire que ces nouvelles mesures consistent à plaider une nouvelle fois la de mande en

modification de mesures conservatoires du 23 mai 2013.

 Ensuite, je montrerai, à la lumière de votre jurisprudence, qui a été citée par la Partie

nicaraguayenne, que les prétendues assurances du Nicaragua, sur lesquelles nos contradicteurs

ont tant insisté, ne sont absolument pas suffisantes dans le contexte actuel.

 Enfin, j’exposerai les raisons pour lesquelles, après avoir entendu nos contradicteurs , le

periculum in mora apparaît de manière plus aiguë, rendant l’indication des mesures demandées

encore plus nécessaire.

3. Le Nicaragua est resté remarquablement silencieux sur un bon nombre d’arguments du

Costa Rica qui militent en faveur de l’indication de nouvelles mesures conservatoires et qui

distinguent celles-ci de celles ordonnées par votre Cour le 8 mars 2011. Je me bornerai donc à

réfuter les arguments avancés par la Partie adverse hier, les considérations de lundi gardant toute

leur valeur. - 25 -

A. De nouvelles mesures conservatoires pour de nouveaux
agissements nicaraguayens

4. Hier, mon c ollègue Alain Pellet a commencé son exposé par l’affirmation bizarre selon

laquelle votre Cour ne peut se prononcer sur les demandes du Costa Rica. Bien sûr que si !

James Crawford vient amplement de vous démontrer que l’analyse des conseils nicaraguayen s

quant aux prétendues absences d’un risque de préjudice irréparable et d’urgence n’est pas fondée.

Le conseil nicaraguayen est par ailleurs revenu sur son interprétation de la sentence Cleveland

selon laquelle tout ce que le Costa Rica peut demander sera it une indemnisation . Argument qu’il

avait déjà vainement développé devant vous lors de la première demande en indication de mesures

conservatoires 64. Je passe donc à l’examen fait par le Nicaragua des mesures conservatoires

demandées.

5. En bref, le Nicaragua soutient que ces mesures seraient soit une réaffirmation des mesures

conservatoires de 2011, soit une deuxième demande de modification de celles -ci, ou même les

65
deux choses à la fois . Ni l’une ni l’autre, Monsieur le président!

6. Nous avons ex pliqué que ces mesures, provoquées par la récente action nicaraguayenne

pendente lite, sont nouvelles, donc distinctes, et qu’elles viennent ainsi s’ajouter à celles ordonnées

par votre Cour en 2011. Voilà un point que nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre semblent ne pas

comprendre. Pourtant, les choses sont claires, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges. Votre Règlement

distingue trois hypothèses : révocation des mesures ordonnées, modification des mesures ordonnées

et indication de nouvelles mesures 66. Nous ne demandons nullement de révoquer ou rapporter vos

mesures de 2011, nous demandons à ce que soient ordonnées des mesures conservatoires

spécifiques face à la nouvelle construction par le Nicaragua de deux «caños» en territoire litigieux.

Les nouvelles mesures conservatoires viennent donc s’ajouter à celles que vous avez ordonnées.

En disant cela, je réponds dès lors d’un seul coup à toutes les fausses accusations entendues hier

matin, et selon lesquelles le Costa Rica chercherait à avoir le contrôle illimité du territoire litigieux

63CR 2013/25, p. 45, par. 10 (Pellet).

64CR 2011/2, p. 32, par. 20 (Pellet).
65
CR 2013/25, p. 39, par. 15 (McCaffrey), p. 51, sous-titre 3 (Pellet), p. 12, par. 20 (Argüello).
66
Règlement de la Cour, art. 73, 75 et 76. - 26 -

67
pendant la décision sur le fond . Je reviendrai sur la question du lien entre les premières et les

nouvelles mesures conservatoires, en particulier lors de l’examen de la troisième mesure demandée

par le Costa Rica. Examinons donc brièvement les quatre mesures demandées à la lumière des

griefs de la Partie adverse. Je commence par la première, que vous verrez à l’écran.

[Projection n o 1.]

7. Le Nicaragua soutient que cette mesure reprend simplement la première mesure ordon née

le 8 mars 2011 . Nous avons déjà expliqué la différence entre l’envoi ou le maintien d’agents sur

69
le territoire litigieux et la réalisation de travaux sur le territoire litigieux . S’il n’y avait pas eu de

travaux sur ce territoire, on pourrait en effet supposer qu’il ne pourrait y en avoir sans envoyer des

agents. Mais le fait incontestable est qu’il y a eu des travaux. Et qu’il n’est pas certain que ces

travaux aient cessé. En effet, tout ce que le Nicaragua a prouvé c’est que le président Ortega a

ordonné d’arrêter les travaux, mais le défendeur n’a apporté la moindre preuve de leur cessation

effective. Par ailleurs, si l’on croit l’agent du Nicaragua, il s’avère difficile même pour les

membres de l’armée nicaraguayenne de questionner les agissements de M. Eden Pastora . 70

Confronté à des travaux qui modifient la configuration physique du territoire litigieux, la première

mesure demandée se distingue alors clairement de celle que vous avez ordonnée en premier lieu

en 2011. Par ailleurs, et même s i l’on veut rapprocher ces deux mesures, comme l’a fait le

Nicaragua, les circonstances décrites dans le cas d’espèce «exigent une indication plus spécifique

de mesures» 71 «s’ajoutant à celles qui ont été indiquées par l[a précédente] ordonnance de la

72
Cour» , pour reprendre la terminologie que votre Cour a employée dans une affaire que le conseil

73 o
du Nicaragua a bien malencontreusement comparée avec celle-ci . [Fin de la projection n 1.]

67 CR 2013/25, p.12, par. 21, p. 15, par. 27 (Argüello), p. 32, par. 59 (Reichler).

68 CR 2013/25, p. 52, par. 25 (Pellet).

69 CR 2013/24, p. 56-57, par. 28-29 (Kohen).

70 CR 2013/25, p. 16, par. 35 (Argüello).

71 Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosni-Herzégovine
c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 septembre 1993, C.I.J. Recueil 1993,
p. 347, par. 46.

72 Ibid., p. 349, par. 59.

73 CR 2013/25, p. 52-53, par. 25-26 (Pellet). - 27 -

8. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, dans la p hoto satellite que nous

avons reçue hier soir [projection n 2], datée du 5 octobre, on constate que les travaux de

canalisation se sont poursuivis sur la plage et se trouvent tout près de la mer des Caraïbes, même,

donc, après le dépôt de notre demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, contrairement à ce

que le Nicaragua vous a dit hier. Cela justifie ainsi déjà amplement l’indication de cette nouvelle

o
mesure. [Fin de la projection n 2.]

9. La deuxième nouvelle mesure demandée par le Costa Rica est aussi considérée par le

Nicaragua comme une reprise de la première ordonnée en 2011. Les commentaires que j’ai faits

précédemment s’y appliquent également. Cependant, cette mesure a également donné lieu à une

fausse interprétation par la Partie défen deresse hier. Vous voyez son te xte à l’écran.

o
[Projection n 3.]

10. Le Nicaragua prétend que cette mesure équivaut à demander encore une fois à la Cour de

modifier la première mesure conservatoire pour inclure tous les citoyens nicaraguayens qui se

74
trouvent en territoire litigieux . Indépendamment de l’interprétation que l’on fasse de votre

première mesure conservatoire à cet égard, le Costa Rica ne vient pas plaider une nouvelle fois ce

qu’il a demandé le 23 mai 2013 et que vous avez décidé le 16 juillet 2013. Le Nicaragua base son

interprétation sur le dernier membre de phrase «ou par toute personne relevant de sa juridiction ou

venant de son territoire». Le texte est clair, Monsieur le président. Il se réfère aux installations et

matériels introduits par le Nicaragua «ou par toute personne relevant de sa juridiction ou venant de

son territoire». Il n’y a donc pas de nouvelle demande de modification de la première mesure

conservatoire, comme le prétend la Partie adverse.

11. Nous avons expliqué le s raisons de cette deuxième nouvelle demande, liée aux travaux

qui ont conduit à la construction de nouveaux canaux en territoire litigieux. Encore une fois, le

Nicaragua n’a pas fourni la preuve d’un retrait quelconque des installations et matériels, il a

simplement prouvé que le président Ortega a ordonné le retrait du matériel. Plus grave encore, le

Nicaragua est venu expliquer hier que la plage de Isla Portillos ne fait pas partie du territoire

litigieux et que ces installations ont le droit d’y reste r , ce qui présuppose bien évidemment que

74CR 2013/25, p. 12 et 14, par. 20 et 25 (Argüello), p. 32, pa r. 58 (Reichler).
75
CR 2013/25, p. 17, par. 40 (Argüello), p. 29, par. 44 (Reichler). - 28 -

l’équipement aussi. En sus des raisons déjà invoquées lundi, cette nouvelle interprétation du

défendeur justifie déjà amplement l’indication de la deuxième nouvelle mesure conservatoire [fin
o
de la projection n 3].

12. La troisième mesure conservatoire a aussi écopé d’une mauvaise interprétation par la

76 o
Partie nicaraguayenne . Vous avez le texte à l’écran [projection n 4].

13. J’ai déjà expliqué pourquoi cette mesure ne supplante ni ne modifie la deuxième mesure

conservatoire que vous avez ordonnée en 2011. Il s’agit d’une mesure spécifique qui concerne

exclusivement les deux «caños» récemment construits par le Nicaragua et qui vise uniquement à

remédier à ce que le Nicaragua a fait, avant que l’action des eaux ne s’ajoute à l’action humaine.

Monsieur le président, le Costa Rica a été en contact permanent avec le secrétariat de la convention

de Ramsar depuis le début de ce malheureux différend. Non seulement le Gouvernement

costa-ricien ne souhaite pas se passer de cette collaboration, mais il souhaite au contraire s’appuyer

sur cette efficace assistance pour les travaux nécessaires de restauration dans la zone humide qui a

subi la construction des deux canaux. La troisième mesure demandée doit s’appliquer, com me

toutes les autres, dans le cadre du respect des mesures que vous avez indiquées en 2011 et qui

gardent toute leur valeur. Le Costa Rica ne manquera pas de respecter votre deuxième mesure

conservatoire, tant vis- à-vis du secrétariat de la convention de Ramsar, que de votre Cour

elle-même et du Nicaragua.

e
14. M Reichler a estimé que mon explication sur les travaux de restauration nécessaires

étaient des «big plans for the disputed area, which would have a very great impact on Nicaragua if

77
the requested provisional measures were indicated » . Il n’a pas expliqué, et c’est une

interrogation que je me pose, par ailleurs, quels seraient les véritables effets majeurs sur le

Nicaragua si le Costa Rica entreprenait des travaux pour remédier à ce que le Nicarag ua a fait

lui-même en construisant deux canaux alors qu’il n’aurait pas dû, de son propre aveu, le faire.

15. Il a aussi été question du besoin d’utiliser le fleuve San Juan pour atteindre la zone des

78
deux nouveaux canaux . Il s’agit pratiquement  je le répète  de la seule manière d’y accéder,

76 CR 2013/25, p. 12- 13, par. 21 et p. 15, par. 27 (Argüello), p. 333, par. 59 (Reichler), p40, par. 18
(McCaffrey), p. 53, par. 27 (Pellet).
77
CR 2013 /25, p. 33, par. 60 (Reichler).
78
CR 2013/25, p. 40, par. 18 (McCaffrey). - 29 -

compte tenu de la nature du terrain, qui rend difficile, voire impossible, d’arriver par voie terrestre

ou même par hélicoptère. J’ai dit qu’il ne s’agit pas de se prononcer sur une question qui relève du

fond, mais bien de permettre d’accéder à la région par voie aquatique, en vue d’effectuer ces

travaux, sans préjuger des positions des Parties pendente lite. Et je me demande, par ailleurs, quel

serait le problème que poserait au Nicaragua la présence de ces navires sur le San Juan ? [Fin de la

projection n 4.] [Projectionn 5.]o

16. La quatrième mesure demandée n’appelle pas beaucoup de commentaires. Elle contient,

comme il est de rigueur, une obligation pour les Parties d’informer la Cour sur l’exécution des

mesures ordonnées. Et compte tenu de l’urgence, le Costa Rica prie respectueusement la Cour de

o
fixer un délai bref d’une semaine pour fournir cette information [fin de la projection n 5].

B. Les «assurances» nicaraguayennes à la lumière de la
jurisprudence de la Cour

17. J’en viens maintenant à un point dont tous les orateurs d’hier ont fait grand cas, ce qui

s’accommode bien à une, disons, certaine stratégie procédurale soigneusement choisie. Cette

stratégie qu’on pourrait appeler «la stratégie des assurances», la voilà : le président Ortega a

ordonné la cessation des travaux et le retrait du matériel. Le Nicaragua s’engage à ne pas

poursuivre des travaux et à respecter les mesures conservatoires. Donc, les mesures demandées par

79
le Costa Rica sont inutiles, superflues, sans intérêt pratique, «moot» .

18. Mon bon collègue et ami Pellet a fondé cette prétention en comparant les «assurances»

nicaraguayennes de dernière minute à ce que votre Cour a fait dans le cadre d’autres demandes de

mesures conservatoires. Le conseil du Nicaragua a malheureusement oublié certains éléments des

affaires qu’il a mentionnées et qui méritent d’être évoqués ici.

19. Il a commencé d’une manière qui me semble tout à fait pertinente pour arriver à la

conclusion contrai re à sa démonstration. Il a commencé par notre affaire et par la première

demande costa-ricienne de mesures conservatoires. Mon estimé collègue a rappelé que, dans la

mesure où le Nicaragua avait en 2011 informé la Cour que les travaux dans la zone du «c año»

avaient pris fin, celle -ci en avait pris note et avait estimé que certaines mesures demandées par le

79
CR 2013/25, p. 21, par. 13 (Argüello), p. 26, par. 32 (Reichler), p. 34, par. 1 (McCaffrey), p. 42, par. 1 4) et
p. 56, par. 33 (Pellet). - 30 -

Costa Rica n’étaient donc pas nécessaires 80. Eh bien, que s’est -il passé Monsieur le président ?

Nous le savons bien maintenant et ceci n’est même pas controversé. Les travaux nicaraguayens ont

malheureusement repris, certes un peu plus loin, mais dans la zone litigieuse. Ce petit «détail», le

fait que malgré les assurances de nouveaux travaux ont été entrepris par le Nicaragua fait, me

semble-t-il, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, toute la différence. Et rend «moot», pour utiliser

l’anglais comme le fait mon collègue français, les «assurances» nicaraguayennes.

20. Le conseil nicaraguayen a également cité à l’appui de son argumentation les demandes

de mesures conservatoires dans les affaires Certaines procédures pénales engagées en France 81,

82 83
Usines de pâte à papier , et Obligation de poursuivre et d’extrader . Des différences entre ces

affaires et la nôtre sont à relever, Monsieur le président. Dans ces trois affaires, il s’agissait de la

première fois que l’une des parties demandait des mesures conservatoires. Ici, vous avez déjà

ordonné des mesures conservatoires que l’une des Parties n’a pas respectées et dont les nouveaux

agissements motivent une nouvelle demande de mesures conservatoires.

21. Pour sa part, dans l’affaire Hissène Habré, c’était la Belgique elle -même qui avait

indiqué à la Cour :

«qu’une déclaration solennelle prononcée devant la Cour par l’agent du Sénégal au

nom de son gouvernement pourrait suffire à la Belgique pour considérer que sa
demande en indication de mesures conservatoires n’aurait plus d’objet, si ladite
déclaration était claire et sans condition, et qu’elle garantissait que toutes les mesures
nécessaires seraient prises par le Sénégal pour que M. Habré ne quitte pas le territoire

sénégalais tant que la Cour n’aurait pas rendu sa décision définitive ; et que la
Belgique a précisé souhaiter que, si une telle déclaration était faite, la Cour la reprenne
dans le dispositif de l’ordonnance qu’elle serait amenée à rendre» 8.

22. Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le président, le Costa Rica a proposé vendredi dernier

au Nicaragua de constater un accord au respect des mesures conservatoires demandées et que la

80 CR 2013/25, p. 49, par. 18 (Pellet).

81 Certaines procédures pénales engagées en France (République du Congo c. France), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 17 juin 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 109-110, par. 33-35.
82
Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoire s, ordonnance du
13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 134, par. 83-84.
83
Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 155, par. 2.
84 Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires,

ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 146, par. 33. - 31 -

Cour le reprenne dans une ordonnance, ce qui aurait d’ailleurs évité cette procédure orale, mais le

Nicaragua a refusé cette proposition.

23. Pour sa part, l’affaire relative à Certaines procédures pénales concernait des prétendues

menaces aux immunités d’un chef d’Etat, et la France a tout simplement expliqué devant votre

Cour qu’il n’y avait aucun risque dans son système juridique de ne pas reconnaître l’immunité du

président congolais. Je cite le conseil et agent de la France : «Ce n’est pas une promesse, c’est un

85
constat d’ordre juridique» . Une situation, vous en conviendrez Mesdames et Messieurs les juges,

bien distincte de celle d’un Etat qui a accompli des actes de dégradation physique d’un territoire

soumis à une mesure conservatoire et qui vient maintenant vous dir e et nous dire, qu’il ne le fera

plus.

24. Les conseils nicaraguayens ont cité à plusieurs reprises votre ordonnance dans l’affaire

du Plateau continental de la mer Egée. Ils n’ont pourtant pas remarqué un passage qui semble très

pertinent pour notre affaire. Votre Cour, en examinant les raisons pour ne pas indiquer des mesures

conservatoires dans l’affaire gréco-turque, signalait «que l’on ne s’est pas plaint de ce que ce genre

d’exploration sismique risquait de causer un quelconque dommage physique au lit de la mer, à son

86
sous-sol, ou à leurs ressources naturelles» . Eh bien, Monsieur le président, dans notre cas on

s’est plaint et le dommage physique est avéré. Il suffit de regarder l’une quelconque des

photographies qui illustrent cette demande en indication de mesures conservatoires.

25. Voilà donc la jurisprudence que le Nicaragua a citée et qui, de toute évidence, ne

conforte pas sa position. Elle conforte plutôt les besoins d’indiquer des nouvelles mesures

conservatoires.

26. Pour toutes les raisons que nous vous avons indiquées, y compris le fait que des simples

assurances nicaraguayennes ne peuvent pas empêcher le risque de préjudice irréparable créé par la

construction et l’existence de deux nouveaux «caños», les «assurances» nicaraguayennes ne sont

pas recevables comme motif pour écarter la présente demande en indication de mesures

conservatoires.

85 Certaines procédures pénales engagées en France, mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 17 juin 2003,
C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 110, par. 33.
86
Plateau continental de la mer Egée (Grèce c. Turquie), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
11 septembre 1976, C.I.J. Recueil1976, p. 10, par. 30. - 32 -

C. Les observations orales nicaraguayennes rendent plus impérieuse l’indication
de nouvelles mesures conservatoires

27. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, les exposés oraux d’hier n’ont

non seulement pas écarté le besoin d’indiquer de nouvelles mesures conservatoires, ils ont, je dirais

même, malheureusement, ajouté de nouveaux éléments qui rendent plus pressante encore

l’indication par votre Cour de ces mesures. Hier, nous avons appris que le commandant

Edén Pastora, ne savait pas où se trouvait le territoire litigieux. Cela fait deux ans et demi que vous

avez indiqué des mesures et le responsable nicaraguayen qui dirige le s travaux sur le fleuve

San Juan ne savait pas où se trouvait le territoire litigieux ! Hier, Monsieur le président, nous

avons aussi appris que la partie nord de Isla Portillos jouxtant la mer serait nicaraguayenne. Mon

collègue James Crawford vous a dé jà expliqué la situation de la bande de sable qui, de toute

évidence, n’est pas la plage de Isla Portillos. Hier, M eReichler vous a confirmé qu’il y a des

installations militaires nicaraguayennes sur cette plage et qu’il n’y a aucune raison de les retire r
87
parce qu’il s’agit du territoire nicaraguayen .

28. Le Nicaragua n’a par ailleurs donné aucune information concrète sur son prétendu retrait

du territoire litigieux où il a construit les deux nouveaux canaux, mais nous savons maintenant que

le Nicaragua se croit en droit de rester sur la plage de Isla Portillos et y reste. Laissons pour le fond

la discussion sur la souveraineté. Nous discutons maintenant des mesures conservatoires.

Incontestablement, la plage fait partie du territoire litigieux objet de vos mesures conservatoires.

La prétention du Nicaragua, formulée hier même devant vous, aggrave le risque de poursuite des

travaux pour relier les nouveaux canaux à la mer des Caraïbes, pose de sérieux risques qui vont

bien au-delà de questions environnementales, comme vous l’avez déjà signalé au paragraphe 75 de
88
votre ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 et rendent même plus urgent l’indication de mesures

conservatoires.

29. Monsieur le président, la Partie adverse vous dit que tout ce qui motive notre demande

n’est pas si grave, que les dommages sont «mineurs» et pas irréparables et que les travaux sont en

tout état de cause «incomplets» mais qu’ils ne seront pas poursuivis. Mais, Mesdames et Messieurs

87CR 2013/25, p.29, par. 44 (Reichler).
88
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 24, par. 75. - 33 -

les juges, avez-vous reçu une quelconque information en provenance du Nicaragua, en particulier

des auteurs de ces travaux en territoire litigieux ? Quel était le but de ces canaux ? Où est le

rapport de M. Pastora ou de l’autorité nationale portuaire sur ce qu’ils ont entrepris entre août et au

moins  selon le Nicaragua  le 23 septembre 2013 ? Le Nicaragua, qui fait prétendument grand

cas des études d’impact environnemental, n’a rien  absolument rien  montré à cet égard.

30. Si ces deux caños sont incomplets, ont été faits sans aucune autorisation et en définitive,

à en croire nos contradicteurs, seraient sans importance, je pose alors la question suivante : où est le

problème pour le Nicaragua d’accepter que des travaux visant à restaurer autant que possible la

situation préexistante soient effectués ?

31. Mon collègue Alain Pellet a affirmé que le Costa Rica cherche un «blanc -seing» pour

entrer en territoire litigieux. Mais qui cherche ce blanc-seing, Monsieur le président ? La demande

nicaraguayenne de non -indication de mesures conservatoires ne ressemble-t-elle pas à une

demande de laisser tout comme le Nicaragua l’a laissé ? Le défendeur vous suggère en fin de

compte de le blâmer un peu, si vous voulez, dans les motifs de votre ordonnance peut -être, mais

surtout de ne rien ordonner de nouveauen attendant l’arrêt sur le fond. Laisser les caños où ils sont

et laisser faire la nature, voire l’humain, qui sait. Voilà en résumé, le message nicaraguayen.

32. Il y a dans cette position nicaraguayenne un sérieux oubli, ou plutôt, mépris, de la

fonction des mesures conservatoires et de la façon dont les parties doivent se comporter

pendente lite. C’est de cela, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, rien de plus, rien de moins, dont il

est question ici. Le Costa Rica ne veut pas et ne doit pas recouvrer un territoire morcelé, coupé par

des canaux, et inondé par l’action de la Partie adverse durant la procédure en cours. Ce n’est pas

comme cela qu’on protège les droits des parties en attendant l’arrêt sur le fond.

33. Le Costa Rica devrait-il attendre jusqu’à la fin d’une procédure, dont on ignore même

quand elle adviendra, et subir les aléas naturels et humains qui pourraient intervenir sur ce territoire

dont la géographie vient d’être modifiée par l’autre Partie ? La réponse, Mesdames et Messieurs

les juges, s’avère négative.

34. Il y va de la notion même des mesures conservatoires, du comportement des parties

durant la procédure, des droits des parties dans l’attente de l’arrêt sur le fond et du pur et simple

respect de la fonction judiciaire. - 34 -

35. Je vous remercie de l’attention que vous m’avez portée et vous prie, Monsieur le

président, de bien vouloir donner la parole à l’agent du Costa Rica pour présenter ses conclusions.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. I give now the floor to

Ambassador Ugalde Álvarez, Agent for the Government of Costa Rica. You have the floor, Sir.

Mr. ÁLVAREZ:

C ONCLUSIONS AND S UBMISSIONS

1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I am honoured to appear before you to

close CostaRica’s oral argument on this Request for New Provisional Measures.

2. Professors Crawford and Kohen have explained today that the conditions for the

indication of new provisional measures set out in Article 41 of the Court’s Statute are satisfied.

Article 41 gives you the power to indicate “any provisional measures which ought to be taken to

preserve the respective rights of either party”.

3. They have also explained why Costa Rica considers that Nicaragua’s belated explanations

and false promises do not provide sufficient protection of Costa Rica’s rights. Nicaragua’s

assurances do not provide Costa Rica any comfort, and they should not provide any comfort to the

Court. Yesterday Nicaragua told you in one breath that it had breached your 2011 Order; it told

you in the next that its word is to be trusted, that it fully complies with your decisions. And as t he

new images Costa Rica has been able to present to the Court today demonstrate b eyond doubt, the

measures Costa Rica requests are urgently needed to prevent irrepa rable prejudice to its rights. In

these circumstances, the requested measures are not to punish Nicaragua; the consequences of its

breach of your Order will be a matte r for you on the merits. Costa Rica merely asks the Court to

exercise its power to preserve and protect Costa Rica’s rights; rights which are at imminent risk of

being irreparably harmed.

4. Mr. President, distinguished M embers of the Court, I will proceed to read out the

submissions presented to the Court on behalf of Costa Rica.

5. Costa Rica requests the Court to order the following provisional measures: - 35 -

(1) the immediate and unconditional suspension of any work by way of dredging or otherwise in

the disputed territory, and specifically the cessation of work of any kind on the two furt her

artificial caños in the disputed territory, as shown in the satellite images attached as

Attachment PM-8;

(2) that Nicaragua immediately withdraw any personnel, infrastructure (including lodging tents)

and equipment (including dredgers) introduced by it, or by any persons under its jurisdiction or

coming from its territory, from the disputed territory;

(3) that Costa Rica be permitted to undertake remediation works in the disputed territory on the

two new artificial caños and the surrounding areas, to the extent necessary to prevent

irreparable prejudice being caused to the disputed territory; and

(4) that each Party shall immediately inform the Court as to its compliance with the above

provisional measures not later than one week of the issuance of the Order.

6. Mr. President, Members of the Court, allow me to express my thanks to you for your

attention, as well as to the interpreters, the staff of the Court and the Registry, and to all those who

have contributed to the smooth performance of our task. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador Álvarez. This brings to an end the

second round of oral argument of Costa Rica. The Court will meet again tomorrow at 10 a.m. to

hear the second round of oral argument of Nicaragua. The Cou rt expects that Nicaragua will

provide oral answers to questions of Judges Donoghue and Gaja sent yesterday, because these

questions are formulated on the basis of information available to the Court as of yesterday. If

Costa Rica wishes to provide brief c omments on answers of Nicaragua, the Court will reconvene

tomorrow from 12.30 p.m. until 1 p.m. The sitting is closed.

The Court rose at 11.25 a.m.

___________