Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
ASYLUMCASE
Judgment of 20INovember 1950
TheoriginoftheColombian-Peruvian Asylumcaseliesin andit hasbeendeclaredbeforetheCourtthatthisDecreewas
the asylum grantedonJanuary 3rd.1949,t~ytheColombian not applicableto thesaid proceedings.Furthermore, during
Ambassadorin Limato M. VictorRafilHays de la Torre, the period fromOctober4th to the beginningof February,
head ofapoliticalpartyinPeru,theAmericanPeople'sRev- 1949,Peruwasin astateofsiege.
olutionaryAlliance.OnOctober 3rd, 1948,,a military rebel- On January 4th!, 1949, the Colombian Ambassadorin
lion broke out in Peru and proceedings wereinstituted Lima informed the Peruvian Governmentof the asylum
againstHayade laTorreforthe instigationanddirectionof grantedtoHayadelaTom; atthe same timeheaskedthata
thatrebellion.HewassoughtoutbythePenivianauthorities, safe-conductbe isrued to enable the refugee to leavethe
butwithoutsuccess;andafterasylumhad beengrantedtothe country.OnJanuary 14th,he further statedthatthe refugee
refugee, the Colombian Ambassadorin Lima requesteda hadbeenqualifiedasapolitical refugee.ThePeruvian Gov-
safe-conducttoenableHayadelaTom, w:homhequalified ernment disputed this qual'ficatand refused to granta
asapoliticaloffender,toleavethecountry.'fie Government safe-conduct.A diplomati correspondence ensuedwhich
ofPerurefused, claimingthat HayadelaTom hadcommit- terminatedinthesignature,inLima,onAugust31st. 1949,
ted commoncrimesand wasnotentitledtoenjoy the benefits of an Actby whichthe twoGovernmentsagreed to submit
ernments submittedto the Courtcertain questionsconcern- thecasetotheInternationalCourtofJustice.
ingtheir dispute;thesequestionsweresetoutinanApplica-
tion submitted by Colombia and in a Counter-Claim
submittedbyPeru.
In its Judgment, the Court, by fourteen votes to two,
declaredthat Colombiawasnotentitledto qualifyunilater- Colombia maintained foretheCourtthat, accordingto
ally and in a manner bindingupon Peru tlhenature of the theConventioninforce-t9 eBolivarian Agreemeno tf 1911
offence;by fifteen votesto one, itared;thattheGovem- on ExtraditiontheHavana Conventionof 1928 on Asylum,
refugee. On the other hand, the Courtrejectedby fifteene the MontevideoCo~iventionof 1933on PoliticalAsylum-
votesto one thePeruvian contention thatlayade la Torre andaccordingto AmericanInternationalLaw, shewas enti-
wasaccusedofcommoncrimes;theCourtnotedthattheonly tledtoqualifythenatureofthe offenceforthe purposesofthe
countagainstHayadela Torrewasthatofmilitaryrebellion qualificationinquestionwereprovisional,therecouldbenohe
and military rebellion wnot, in itself, a commoncrime. doubtonthatpoint:thediplomaticrepresentativwouldcon-
Lastly,bytenvotesto six, theCourt,withoutcriticisingthe siderwhetherthe quired conditionshadbeensatisfied,he
attitudeof theColombian Ambassadoirn Lima, considered wouldpronouncehis opinionand if thatopinionwerecon-
that the requiremenforasylumtobegrantedinconformity tested,acontroversywould thenarisewhich mightbesettled
withthe relevanttreatieswere notfulfilledhe timewhen accordingtothemethods providedbytheParties.
hereceivedHayadelaTorre.Indeed, accordingtothe inter-
pretation whichthe Court put upon the Convention of But it resulted fiom the proceedingsin the case that
Havana, asylum could not be an obstacleto proceedings Colombiaclaimed therightofunilateralanddefinitivequali-
institutedby legal authorities operatingin ~lccorwithe invoked-the Bolivs~riangreement,whichisthe'Iteatyonichit
the law. extradition-confined itselifnone Articletorecognizingthe
institutionof asylunnin accordancewith the principlesof
internationallaw. Buttheseprinciplesdo notentail the right
ofunilateralqualification.Ontheotherhand,whentheBoli-
varianAgreement laid downrules forextradition,itwas not
possibletodeducefromthemconclusionsconcerningdiplo-
matic asylum.Inthecaseofextradition,therefugeewason
Courtfareset outintheJudgment:ewasbroughtbeforethe theterritoryof theStateofrefuge:ifasylumweregrantedto
him,suchdecisionwouldnot derogatefrom the sovereignty
On October3rd. 1948,a militaryrebellionbrokeout in of the Statesin whichthe offencewas committed.On the
Peru;itwassuppressedthe sameday.Onthefollowingday,a contrary,in the caseof diplomaticasylum,therefugeewas
decree waspublishedcharginga politicalparty, the Ameri- on the territoryof the Statein whichhe hadcommittedthe
can People'sRevolutionaryParty,withhavingprepared and offence: thedecisiongrantasylumderogated from thesov-
directed the rebellion.The head of tParty,VictorRatil ereigntyof thetemtorial State and removedthe offender
MayadelaTorre,was denouncedasbeingresponsible.With from thejurisdictionofthatState.
othermembersofthe party,hewasprosecutedonachargeof As for the second treaty invoked by Colombia-the
rnilitaryrebellion. As he was still at liberty on NovembeHavanaConvention--itdidnotrecognizethe rightofunilat-
16th. summonseswere publishedorderinghim to appear eral qualificationeither explicitlyor implicitly.The third
beforetheExaminingMagistrate.OnJanuary3rd. 1949,he treaty-the Conventionof Montevideo-had not beenrati-
Meanwhile,on October th27th, 1948, a Military Juntahad fiedbyPeruandcouldbeinvoked against that country.
assumedpowerinPeru andhadpublisheda decreeproviding Finally,as regarded Americaninternationallaw, Colom-
forCourts-martial forsummaryjudgmentin casesof rebel- biahad notprovedtheexistence,eitherregionallyorlocally,
lion, seditionandrioting;butthisdecreewar;notapplied to ofa constantanduniformpracticeofunilateralqualification
the legal proceedingsagainstHaya de la Torreand others, asarightoftheStateofrefugeand an obligationupontheter-ritorialState. The facts submittedtotheCourtdisclosedtoo violentanduncontrolledactionof irresponsibleelementsof
muchcontradictionand fluctui~tiotnomakeitpossibletodis- thepopulation;thedangerwhichconfrontedHayadela Torre
cerntherein a usagepeculiarto Latin America and accepted was that of havingto face legal proceedings.The Havana
aslaw. Conventionwas notintendedto protect acitizenwho had
It thereforefollowed thatColombia,astheStategranting plottedagainstthe institutionsof his countryfromregular
asylum, was not competent to qualify the nature of the legal proceedings.It was not sufficientto be accusedof a
offenceby a unilateraland clefinitivedecisionbinding on asylumcould only intervene against thaectionofjustice inm;
Peru. , caseswherearbitraryactionwas substitutedfor the rule of
Ilaw. Ithad not been provedthat thesituationin Peruat the
time implied thesubordinationofjusticeto theexecutiveor
the abolitionof judicialguarantees.
Besides,the HavanaConvention was unablletoestablisha
ColombiaalsomaintainedthatPeruwas undertheobliga- legalsystemwhich wouldguaranteetopersons accusedof
tiontoissue a safe-conducttoenablethe refugeetoleavethe politicaloffencestheprivilegeofevadingtheirnationaljuris-
countryinsafety.TheCourt, settingasideforthe time being diction.Suchaconceptionwouldcomeintoconflictwithone
the questionof whetherasylumwas regular1.y gmntedand of the oldest traditionsof Latin America, thatof non-
maintained,notedthat thecla~~sientheHavana Convention intervention.For if the Havana Conventionhad wishedto
which providedguaranties fcrrthe refugeewas applicable cal crimesinthecourseofrevolutionaryevents, forthesolei-
solely to a case where the territorial Statedemandedthe reason thatit shouldbepresumed that suchevents interfere
departureof therefugee from itsterritory:it wasonlyafter withthe administrationofjustice, this would leadtoforeign
sucha demand that thediplor~~atiA cgent whograntedasy- interferenceofaparticularlyoffensivenatureinthedomestic
lum could, in turn, require a safe-conduct.There was, of affairsof States.
course, a practice accordingto whichthe diplomaticAgent
immediately requested asafe-c:onduct, hichwasgrantedto Asfor the numerouscases citedby Colombia,the Court
him:butthis practice,whichwasto beexplainedbyreasons was ofopinion thatconsiderationsof convenienceor politi-
ofexpediency,laidnoobligationupontheterritorialState. calexpediencyseemedtohave promptedtheterritorialState
In thepresentcase, Peru hadnotdemandedthedeparture to recognizeasylum without suchasdecision beingdictated
of the refugee and was thereforenot bound to delivera byany fixlingoflegalobligation.AsyluminLatin America
safe-conduct. extra-legalfactors.which owedits developmentlargelyto
Whilst declaring thatat the time at which asylum was
granted,onJanuary3rd, 1949,there wasnocaseofurgency
withinthe meaningoftheHavanaConvention,theJildgment
declared that thisin no way constituted acriticismof the
In a counter-claim,Peru had askedthe Courtto declare Colombian Ambassador.His appreciationof the case was
thatasylumhad beengrantedtoHayadelaTom inviolation notarelevantfactortothe questionofthevalidityoftheasy-
of the Havana Convention, first,because Hayade la Torre lum:onlytheobjectiverealityofthefactswasofimportance.
was accused, not of a political offencebut of a common The Courtthereforecameto theconclusion that thegrant
crime and, secondly, becau~sethe urgency which was ofasylurnwasnotinconformitywithArticle2, paragraph2,
requiredundertheHavana Coilventioninordeirtojustifyasy- oftheHt~vana Convention.
lumwasabsentinthatcase. ThetwosubmissionsofColombiawererejected,the first
HavingobservedthaP t eruh~d atnotimeaskedforthesur- by fourteenvotesto two (Judge Azevedo andM. Caicedo,
renderof the refugee,theCoucretxamined thefirst point.In Judge ad hoc), the secondby fifteen votesto one (Judge
thisconnection,theCourt notedthat theonlycharge against Caicedo). As for the counter-claimof the Governmentof
therefugee was thatof militaiyrebellion, which was not a Peru,itwasrejectedbyfifteenvotestooneinsofarasitwas
common crime. Consequently, the Court rejected the foundedona violationof theArticleoftheHavanaConven-
counter-claimof Peru on that point, declaringit to be ill- tion providing that asylumshall not begrantedto persons
founded. accusedof commoncrimes. But on thesecond point, the
On the questionof urgency,the Court, having observed counter-claimwasallowed byten votestosix.(JudgesAlva-
thattheessentialjustificationofasylumlayintheimminence rez, Zoricic, Badawi Pasha, Read and Azevedo and M.
or persistenceof a dangerto theperson ofthc:refugee,ana- Caicedo.,Judgead hoc.)
lysedthefactsofthecase. Thedissentingopinions ofJudgesAlvarez, BadawiPasha,
Read, Azevedo, and M. Caicedo, Judge ad hoe, were
Threemonthshad elapsedIxtweenthemilitary rebellion appendedto theJudgment. Inrespectofthe secondpointof
andthegrantofasylum.-Therew : asnoquestionofprotecting thecounter-claim,JudgeZoricicsubscribedtotheopinionof
Hayadela Torreforhumanitarianconsideraticws againstthe Judge Read.
Summary of the Judgment of 20 November 1950