Application instituting proceedings

Document Number
007-19491015-APP-1-00-EN
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

PREMIÈREPARTIE

REQUETE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE

ET PIÈCESDE LA PROCÉDURE ÉCRITE

PART 1

APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
AND DOCUMENTS OF. THE WRIT'I'EN

PROCEEDINGS SECTION A.-APPLICATIOX INSTITUTING
PROCEEDINGS

TO THE PRESIIIENT AND JUDGES OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HAGUE
[Translation by the Registry]
1.-The undersigned, Agent of the Government ofthe Republic
of Colombia, duly authorized by the said Government, haç the
honour to submit tothe InternationalCourt of Justice the folloming
Application instituting proceedings in the dispute between the
said Government and the Government of Peru.

2.-On July ~Sth, 1911, during the Congress known as the
Bolivarian Congress ( Congreso Bolivariano), the Governments
of Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela signed at
Caracas an Agreement on Extradition now in force between the
signatory States, which, in its Article18, recognizes the institu-
tion of asylum in conformity with the principles of international
law .

3.-During the Sixth International Conference of herican
States held at Havana, the American Republics, on Febmary zoth,
~1928 ,igned a Convention on Asylum which has been duly
ratified and is now in force in Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Xicaragua,
Panama, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay.

4.-Referring to the said conventions and to the principles of
international law as applied in America, Colombia asserts :

(a) that she is entitled in the case of persons who have claimed
asylum in her embassies, legations, warships, military camps or
military aircraft, to qualify the refugees, either as offenders for
common crimes or deserters from the army or navy, or as
political offender;
fb) that the territorial State, namely, in this case, Peru, is bound
to give "the guaranties necessary for the departure othe refugee,
with due regard tothe inviolability of his person, from the country".
5.-The Government of Peru rejects the thesis of the Govern-
ment of Colomtia. The resulting difference, which is relatcd to the
interpretation of treaties and to the principles of American inter-
national law on asylum, is the object of the present dispute. APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDlNGS (15 X 49) 9

6.-In the evening of January ~rd, 1949, Mr. Victor RaUl Haya
de la Torre, Pemvian citizen, chief of a political group in that
country, came to the Colombian Embassy and begged the
Ambassador to grant him asylum in the Embassy.

7.-The Colombian Ambassador granted the protection sought
by Mr. Haya de la Torre, who presented himself as a political
refugee.

8.-The next day, on January 4th. the Colombian Ambassador
sent to the Afinistry of Foreign Affairs and Religion of Pem the
written notification required by the Convention on Asylum of
February 20th. 1928, and requested from the Peruvian Govern-
ment the guaranties necessary for the departure of Mr. Haya de la
Torre. In other words, the Colombian Ambassador requested the
granting to hlr. Haya de la Torre of a safe-conduct, with the
customary facilities.

9.-In a note dated February xzth, 1949. the Colombian Am-
bassador once more informed the Peruvian Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Religion of the wish of the Colombian Government to
obtain for Mr. Victor Rad1 Haya de la Torre, whom the Colombian
Goveriiment qualified as a political offender, "the guaranties to
which he is entitled under thc Havana Convention on Asylum".

IO.-On February zznd, 1949, the Peruvian Government replied
to the Colombian Aiiibassador that, in strict application of the
existing Convention between Perii and Colombia, it did not consider
itself held to grant the requested safe-conduct.

II.-By a note dated hfarch 4th, 1949,the ColombianAmbassador
insisted on obtaining from the Peruvian Government the delivery
of the requested document.

12.-The Peruvian Government, in its reply dated Jfarch 19th.
1949,asserted that Pem was not under any legal obligation to accept
the unilateral interpretation of asylum given by the Colombian
Ambassador.
13.-In his note of March 28th, the Colombian Ambassador, while
objecting to the views of the Peruvian Government, declared

that the Colombian Government deemed it useless to proloug the
exchange of notes and believed itpreferable to put an end to direct
diplomatic negotiations. Consequently, the Ambassador added that
the Colombian Government offered to the Peruvian Government APPLICATIOS lSSTlTUTlSG PROCEEDIXGS (1j S 49) IO

as a way out of the controversy the choice of any one of the
legal actions open to Colombia and Peru as American States,
namely: enquiry and conciliation, arbitration, judicial proceedings
and a consultative conference of the Ninisters of Foreign Affairs
of these States.

14.'-The Peruvian Government, in its note of April Gth, 1949.
accepted the institution of judicial proceedings before the Inter-
national Court of Justice.

15.-The two Governments attempted in vain to draw up a
special agreement to submit their dispute to the Court. Finally,
by an Act (Acta) signed at Lima on August 31st, 1949, they agreed

that each party would have the right to submit its application
unilaterally to the Court ivithout this measure being considered as
inimical by the other party.

16.-The present Application is based :

A.-On the general and special obligations arising for the Gov-
emments of Peru and Colombia from the following instruments :

(a) the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of July 18th. 1911 ;
(b) the Convention on Asylum adopted and signed at the Sixth
Intemational Conference of American States in 1928.

B.-On the special juridical nature of the American institution
of asylum, as recognized by the law applied in American States
and the practice followed by them since the last century.

C.-Generally, on the rules of international law and custom
followed in America.

17.-The Court's jurisdiction in the present dispute is based on
the foilowing texts :

(a) Article 7 of the Protocol of Fnendship and Co-operation
between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Peru,
signed at Rio de Janeiro, May 24th. 1934. which came into
force in both States on September 27th, 1935 ;

(b) on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statnte of the Court ;
(c) on Article 40 of the said Statute and Article 32 of the Rules
of Court. APPLICATION INSTITUTISG PROCEEDISGS (15 X 49) 11
18.-For some aspects of the procedure, the attention of the

Court is called to the provisions of the Act (Acta) of August 31st.
1949, which has been duly notified to the Court.

19.-In view of the foregoing and subject to the subsequent
presentation to the Court of any Memorials, Counter-;\iemorials
and, in general, of any documents or evidence,

May it please the Court :

To pass judgment on and answer, whether the Government of
the Republic of Peru enters an appearance or not, and after such
time-limits as the Court may fix in the absence of an agreement
between the Parties, the following questions :

First qziestion.-Within the limits of the obligations resulting
in particular from the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of
July 18th. 1911, and the Convention on Asylum of February 20th.

1928,both in force hetween Colombia and Pem and in general from
American international law, was Colombia competent, as the
country granting asylum, to qualify the offence for the purposes
of said nsylum ?

Second qireslion.-In the specific case under consideration, was
Peru,as the territorial State, bound to give the guaranties necessary
for the departure of the refugee from the country, with due regard
to the inviolability of his person ?

20.-The Government of Colombia declares that for the purpose
of al1notifications and communications relating to the present case
it selects for its address the Legation of Colombia at The Hague.

21.-Whereas the case submittcd to the Court calls for the inter-
pretation of two treaties to which other States than Colombia and
Pcru are parties, the undersigned, Agent of the Colombian Govern-
ment, begs the Court to notify the present Application to the Gov-
ernments of Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Cuba, El Salvador,Guatemala, alexico, Xicaragua, Panama. Domi-
nican Republic and Uruguay.

The Hague, October ~jth, 1949.

(Siglzed) J. N. YEPES,

Agent of the Government of Colonibia. Certified true signature of Professor Jesus M. Yepes, Agent of
the Govemment of Colombia to the International Court of Justice.

The Hague, October ~jth, 1949.

(Signed) HERNASTOBAR,
Seal : Acting Chargk d'Affaires.
Legation of Colombia.

Bilingual Content

PREMIÈREPARTIE

REQUETE INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE

ET PIÈCESDE LA PROCÉDURE ÉCRITE

PART 1

APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
AND DOCUMENTS OF. THE WRIT'I'EN

PROCEEDINGS SECTION A. - REQUÉTE
INTRODUCTIVE D'INSTANCE

MONSIEUR LE PRÉSIDENT ET RiESSIEURS LES JUGES
DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE' JUSTICE, LA HAYE

I. - Le soussigné, agent du Gouvernement de la République
de Colombie, dûment autorisé par ce Gouvernement, a l'honneur
de présenter à la Cour internationale de Justice la requête suivante,
dans le litige qui a surgi entre ledit Gouvernement et le Gouver-
nement du Pérou.

z. - Le 18 juillet 1911, au cours du Congrès dit bolivarien
(Congreso Bolzziariaszo),les Gouvernements de l'Équateur, de la
Bolivie, de la Colombie, du Pérou et du Venezuela, ont signé à
Caracas un Accord sur l'extradition qui se trouve actuellement
en vigueur entre les États signataires et qui, dans son article 18,
reconnaît l'institution de l'asile, en conformité des principes du
droit international.

3, - Lors de la VIme Conférence internationale américaine
qui s'est tenue à La Havane, les Républiques américaines ont
souscrit,à la date du zo février1928, une Convention sur l'asile
qui a été dûment ratifiée et qui est en ce moment en vi ueur
pour la Colombie, le Pérou, le Brksil, le Costa-Rica, Cuba, f'qua-
teur, le Salvador, le Guatemala, le Mexique, le Nicaragua, le
Panama, la République dominicaine et l'Uruguay.
4. - Se basant sur Ies pactes susvis6s et sur les principes .

du droit international américain, la Colombie soutient :
a) qu'elle a le droit, dans le cas des personnes qui auraient
cherché asile dans ses ambassades, légations, navires de guerre,
camps ou aéronefs militaires, de qualifier ces(asiles»,soit comme
délinquants de droit commun ou comme déserteurs de terre ou
de mer, soit comme délinquants politiques ;
b) que I'Btat territorial, soit, enl'occurrence, le Pérou, doit
accorder (les garanties nécessaires pour que le réfugiésorte du
pays, l'inviolabilité de sa personne étant respectée II.
5.- Le Gouvernement du Pérou contredit ces thèses du
Gouvernement colombien, et les divergences qui en résultent, et
qui se rapportent à'l'interprétation des traitéset des p-cipes
du droit international américain sur l'asile, constituent l'objet
du litige. SECTION A.-APPLICATIOX INSTITUTING
PROCEEDINGS

TO THE PRESIIIENT AND JUDGES OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE HAGUE
[Translation by the Registry]
1.-The undersigned, Agent of the Government ofthe Republic
of Colombia, duly authorized by the said Government, haç the
honour to submit tothe InternationalCourt of Justice the folloming
Application instituting proceedings in the dispute between the
said Government and the Government of Peru.

2.-On July ~Sth, 1911, during the Congress known as the
Bolivarian Congress ( Congreso Bolivariano), the Governments
of Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru and Venezuela signed at
Caracas an Agreement on Extradition now in force between the
signatory States, which, in its Article18, recognizes the institu-
tion of asylum in conformity with the principles of international
law .

3.-During the Sixth International Conference of herican
States held at Havana, the American Republics, on Febmary zoth,
~1928 ,igned a Convention on Asylum which has been duly
ratified and is now in force in Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Xicaragua,
Panama, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay.

4.-Referring to the said conventions and to the principles of
international law as applied in America, Colombia asserts :

(a) that she is entitled in the case of persons who have claimed
asylum in her embassies, legations, warships, military camps or
military aircraft, to qualify the refugees, either as offenders for
common crimes or deserters from the army or navy, or as
political offender;
fb) that the territorial State, namely, in this case, Peru, is bound
to give "the guaranties necessary for the departure othe refugee,
with due regard tothe inviolability of his person, from the country".
5.-The Government of Peru rejects the thesis of the Govern-
ment of Colomtia. The resulting difference, which is relatcd to the
interpretation of treaties and to the principles of American inter-
national law on asylum, is the object of the present dispute. 6. - Dans la soirée du 3 janvier 1949, Monsieur Victor Raiil
Haya de la Torre, citoyen du Pérou, chef d'un groupement poli-
tique de ce pays, se présentaà l'ambassade de Colombie et demanda
à l'ambassadeur de lui accorder l'asile dans l'immeuble de I'am-
bassade.

7. - L'ambassadeur de Colombie octroya à Monsieur Haya
de la Torre, qui invoquait la qualité de persécuté politique. l'asile
sollicité par celui-ci.

8. - Le lendemain, 4 janvier, l'ambassadeur de Colombie
s'adressa par écrit au ministère des Relations extérieures et du
Culte du Pérou lui faisant la notification prévue par la Convention
sur l'asile du 20 février 1928 et exigeant du Gouvernement pém-
vien les garanties nécessairespour que Monsieur Haya de la Torre
pût quitter le pays, soit, en d'autres termes, pour qu'il lui fût
accordé un sauf-conduit avec les facilités d'usage.

9. - Dans une note dat6e du rz février 1949, l'ambassadeur
de Colombie exprima une fois de plus au ministre péruvien des
Relations extérieures et du Culte le désir du Gouvernement
colombien d'obtenir en faveur de Monsieur Victor Raiil Haya
de la Torre, qualifié par la Colombie comme délinquant politique,
les sûretés qui, conformément à la Convention de La Havane
sur l'asile, doivent lui ètre accordéesn.

IO. - Le 22 février 1949, le Gouvernement du Pérou répondit
à l'ambassadeur de Colombie, lui faisant savoir qu'il ne se consi-
dérait pas obligé, du point de vue de la stricte exécution de la
convention en vigueur entre le Pérou et la Colombie, d'octroyer
le sauf-conduit réclamé.

II. - Par une communication en date du 4 mars 1949, l'am-
bassadeur de Colombie insista auprès du Gouvernement péruvien
pour que celui-ci voulût bien délivrer le document en question.

12. - Le Gouvernement du Pérou, dans sa réponse en date
du 19 mars 1949, affirma que le Pérou n'était pas juridiquement
obligé d'accepter la. qualification unilatérale de l'asileà laquelle
avait procédél'ambassadeur de Colombie.
13. - Dans sa note du 28 mars, l'ambassadeur de Colombie,

après avoir contesté les thèses du Gouvemement du Pérou, déclara
que le Gouvemement colombien estimait inutile de poursuivre
l'échange de notes en cours et croyait préférable de mettre un
terme aux négociations diplomatiques directes. En conséquence,
ajoutait l'ambassadeur, le Gouvernement de Colombie proposait APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDlNGS (15 X 49) 9

6.-In the evening of January ~rd, 1949, Mr. Victor RaUl Haya
de la Torre, Pemvian citizen, chief of a political group in that
country, came to the Colombian Embassy and begged the
Ambassador to grant him asylum in the Embassy.

7.-The Colombian Ambassador granted the protection sought
by Mr. Haya de la Torre, who presented himself as a political
refugee.

8.-The next day, on January 4th. the Colombian Ambassador
sent to the Afinistry of Foreign Affairs and Religion of Pem the
written notification required by the Convention on Asylum of
February 20th. 1928, and requested from the Peruvian Govern-
ment the guaranties necessary for the departure of Mr. Haya de la
Torre. In other words, the Colombian Ambassador requested the
granting to hlr. Haya de la Torre of a safe-conduct, with the
customary facilities.

9.-In a note dated February xzth, 1949. the Colombian Am-
bassador once more informed the Peruvian Minister of Foreign
Affairs and Religion of the wish of the Colombian Government to
obtain for Mr. Victor Rad1 Haya de la Torre, whom the Colombian
Goveriiment qualified as a political offender, "the guaranties to
which he is entitled under thc Havana Convention on Asylum".

IO.-On February zznd, 1949, the Peruvian Government replied
to the Colombian Aiiibassador that, in strict application of the
existing Convention between Perii and Colombia, it did not consider
itself held to grant the requested safe-conduct.

II.-By a note dated hfarch 4th, 1949,the ColombianAmbassador
insisted on obtaining from the Peruvian Government the delivery
of the requested document.

12.-The Peruvian Government, in its reply dated Jfarch 19th.
1949,asserted that Pem was not under any legal obligation to accept
the unilateral interpretation of asylum given by the Colombian
Ambassador.
13.-In his note of March 28th, the Colombian Ambassador, while
objecting to the views of the Peruvian Government, declared

that the Colombian Government deemed it useless to proloug the
exchange of notes and believed itpreferable to put an end to direct
diplomatic negotiations. Consequently, the Ambassador added that
the Colombian Government offered to the Peruvian Governmentau Gouvernement péruvien de choisir, en vue de résoudre la
controverse, l'une quelconque des voies juridiques ouvertes à la
Colombie et au Pérou en tant qu'États américains, à savoir:
l'enquêteet la conciliation, l'arbitrage, le recours judiciaire et la

réunion consultative des ministres des Affaires étrangères de ces
États.
14. - Le Gouvernement du Pérou accepta, par sa note du
6 avril 1949. le recours judiciaire par-devant la Cour internationale

de Justice.
15. - Les deux Gouvernements tentèrent, sans résultat, d'arri-
ver à iin accord compromissoire pour soumettre leur différend à

la Cour et convinrent finalement, par le Procès-verbal (Acta)
signéà Lima le 31 août 1949, que chacune des deux parties pour-
rait présenter unilatéralement sa requête devant la Cour, sans
qu'une telle mesure pût êtreconsidérée comme unacte inamical
envers l'autre partie.

16. - La présente requêtese fonde :

A. - Sur les obligations généraleset spéciales qui découlent
pour les Gouvernements du Pérouet de la Colombiedes instruments
cités ci-après :

a) l'Accord bolivarien sur l'extradition du 18 juillet 1911 ;
b) la Convention sur l'asile approuvée et signée à la VImeConfé-
rence internationale américaine de 1928.

B. - Sur la nature juridique particulière de l'institution amé-
ricaine de l'asile reconnu par le droit positif américain et par la
pratique des États d'Amérique depuis le siècle dernier.

C. - En général,sur les normes du droit international positif
et coutumier américain.

17. - La compétence de la Cour dans le présent litige est
établie par les textes suivants :

a) l'article7 du Protocole d'amitié et de coopération entre la
République de Colombie et la République du Pérou qui fut
signéà Rio-de-Janeiro le 24 mai 1934 et entra en vigueur
pour les deux Etats le 27 septembre 1935 ;
b) l'article 36, alinéa 1, du Statut de la Cour ;

c) l'article 40 de ce mêmeStatut et l'article 32 du Règlement
de la Cour. APPLICATIOS lSSTlTUTlSG PROCEEDIXGS (1j S 49) IO

as a way out of the controversy the choice of any one of the
legal actions open to Colombia and Peru as American States,
namely: enquiry and conciliation, arbitration, judicial proceedings
and a consultative conference of the Ninisters of Foreign Affairs
of these States.

14.'-The Peruvian Government, in its note of April Gth, 1949.
accepted the institution of judicial proceedings before the Inter-
national Court of Justice.

15.-The two Governments attempted in vain to draw up a
special agreement to submit their dispute to the Court. Finally,
by an Act (Acta) signed at Lima on August 31st, 1949, they agreed

that each party would have the right to submit its application
unilaterally to the Court ivithout this measure being considered as
inimical by the other party.

16.-The present Application is based :

A.-On the general and special obligations arising for the Gov-
emments of Peru and Colombia from the following instruments :

(a) the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of July 18th. 1911 ;
(b) the Convention on Asylum adopted and signed at the Sixth
Intemational Conference of American States in 1928.

B.-On the special juridical nature of the American institution
of asylum, as recognized by the law applied in American States
and the practice followed by them since the last century.

C.-Generally, on the rules of international law and custom
followed in America.

17.-The Court's jurisdiction in the present dispute is based on
the foilowing texts :

(a) Article 7 of the Protocol of Fnendship and Co-operation
between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Peru,
signed at Rio de Janeiro, May 24th. 1934. which came into
force in both States on September 27th, 1935 ;

(b) on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statnte of the Court ;
(c) on Article 40 of the said Statute and Article 32 of the Rules
of Court.II REQUÊTE ISTRODUCTIVE D'IXSTASCE (15 x 49)
18. - Pour certains aspects de la procédure, l'attention de

la Cour est attirée sur les dispositions contenues dans le Procès-
verbal (Acta) du 31 août 1949 et qui a étédûment communiqué
à la Cour.

19. - En vertu des motifs et des faits ci-dessus exposés, et
sous réserve de tous mémoires, contre-mémoires et, en général,
de tous moyens et preuves à présenter ultérieurement,

Plaise à la Cour :

Juger et rbsoudre, tant en présence qu'en l'absence du Gou-
vernement de la République du Pérou, et après tels délais que,
sous réserve d'un accord entre les Parties, il appartiendra à la
Cour de fixer, les questions suivantes:

Première yzrestion.- Dans le cadre des obligations qui décou-
lent, en particulier, de l'Accord bolivarien sur l'extradition du
18 juillet 1911 et de la Convention sur l'asile du zo février 1928,
tous deux en vigueur entre la Colombie et le Pérou, et, d'une
façon générale,du droit international américain, appartient-il
ou non A la Colombie, en tant que pays accordant l'asile, de
qualifier la nature du délit aux fins du susdit asile ?

Dezrxièmeylrestion. - Dans le cas concret matière du litige,
le Pérou, en sa qualité d'Etat territorial, est-il ou non obligé
d'accorder les garanties nécessaires pour que le réfugiésorte du
pays, l'inviolabilité de sa personne étant respectée ?

20.- Le Gouvernement de Colombie déclareque, pour toutes
notifications et communications relatives à la présente affaire, il
élit domicile à la légation de Colombie A La Haye.

21. - Attendu que l'affaire soumise à la Cour comporte, l'in-
terprétation de deux traités auxquels sont parties d'autres Etats,
en dehors de la Colombie et du Pérou, le soussigné agent du
Gouvernement colombien demande à la Cour que la présente
requête soit notifiée aux Gouvernements de i'Equateur, de la
Bolivie, di1 Venezuela, du Brésil, du Costa-Rica, de Cuba, du
Salvador, du Guatemala, du Mexique, du Nicaragua, du Panama,

de la République dominicaine et de l'Uruguay.

Fait à La Haye, le 15 octobre 1949.

L'Agent du Gouvernement de Colombie,
(Signé) J. 1\1Y.EPES. APPLICATION INSTITUTISG PROCEEDISGS (15 X 49) 11
18.-For some aspects of the procedure, the attention of the

Court is called to the provisions of the Act (Acta) of August 31st.
1949, which has been duly notified to the Court.

19.-In view of the foregoing and subject to the subsequent
presentation to the Court of any Memorials, Counter-;\iemorials
and, in general, of any documents or evidence,

May it please the Court :

To pass judgment on and answer, whether the Government of
the Republic of Peru enters an appearance or not, and after such
time-limits as the Court may fix in the absence of an agreement
between the Parties, the following questions :

First qziestion.-Within the limits of the obligations resulting
in particular from the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of
July 18th. 1911, and the Convention on Asylum of February 20th.

1928,both in force hetween Colombia and Pem and in general from
American international law, was Colombia competent, as the
country granting asylum, to qualify the offence for the purposes
of said nsylum ?

Second qireslion.-In the specific case under consideration, was
Peru,as the territorial State, bound to give the guaranties necessary
for the departure of the refugee from the country, with due regard
to the inviolability of his person ?

20.-The Government of Colombia declares that for the purpose
of al1notifications and communications relating to the present case
it selects for its address the Legation of Colombia at The Hague.

21.-Whereas the case submittcd to the Court calls for the inter-
pretation of two treaties to which other States than Colombia and
Pcru are parties, the undersigned, Agent of the Colombian Govern-
ment, begs the Court to notify the present Application to the Gov-
ernments of Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Costa Rica,
Cuba, El Salvador,Guatemala, alexico, Xicaragua, Panama. Domi-
nican Republic and Uruguay.

The Hague, October ~jth, 1949.

(Siglzed) J. N. YEPES,

Agent of the Government of Colonibia. Vu pour la légalisation de la signature du professeur Jesus
M. Yepes, agent du Gouvernement de Colombie auprès de la
Cour internationale de Justice.

La Haye, le 15 octobre 1949.
(Signé) HERNAN TOBAR,

Sceau : Chargé d'affairea.i.
Lkgation de Colombie. Certified true signature of Professor Jesus M. Yepes, Agent of
the Govemment of Colombia to the International Court of Justice.

The Hague, October ~jth, 1949.

(Signed) HERNASTOBAR,
Seal : Acting Chargk d'Affaires.
Legation of Colombia.

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Application instituting proceedings

Links