INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICA TJON FOR REVISJON OF THE JUDGMENT OF 11SEPTEMBER 1992 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING THE LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER DISPUTE
(EL SALVADOR/HONDURAS: NICARAGUA INTERVENING)
(EL SALVADOR v.HONDURAS)
COMMENTS OF THE GOVEMMENT OF HONDURAS ON THE DOCUMENTS WHOSE PRODUCTION
WAS AUTlfiORIZED BYTHE CHAMBER ON 29 JULY 2003
19 August 2003
[Translation by the Registry] - 2-
COMMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF HONDURAS ON THE DOCUMENTS WHOSE PRODUCTION
WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE CHAMBER ON 29 JULY 2003
1. The Republic of Honduras has taken note of the decision of the Chamber in regard to the
request submitted by El Salvador on 23 June 2003 pursuant to Article 56, paragraph 1 of the Ru1es
of the Court to be permitted to produce a number of documents in the case conceming the
Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land,
Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)
(El Salvador v. Honduras).
The Cham ber, having beard the parties. acting under Article 56, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,
decided to authorize El Salvador to produce the following documents:
Documents 1.1.-1.8 included, conceming "Implementation of the Judgment of the International
Court of Justice of Il September 1992".
Document III.l, namely the "Copy of the Order from the Outmost Excellent Viceroy about the
reconnaissance of the coast of Nicaragua".
The Cham ber further decided not to authorize production of the certificate of the Director of
the Madrid Naval Museum annexed to the Observations of Honduras of 10 July 2003.
2. The Republic of Honduras, in accordance with the authorization of the Chamber pursuant
to Article 56, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, respectfully presents the following comments on
the new documents which El Salvador has been authorized to produce:
A. Document 1.1. "Official letter 94/02 from 27 August 2002, that the Minister of Foreign Affairs
addresses to the Security Council". This letter is consistent, from a formai point of view, with
the public undertakings or obligations given by various Heads of States, bath of El Salvador
2
and of Honduras, 3 in the joint declarations of Il September 199i, 19 January 1998 and
27 August 1999 . Despite these encouraging promises, ten years later the harsh reality remains
unchanged: words given and obligations entered into have not been followed by action.
El Salvador has not executed the Judgment.
1
Annex 1. For example. paragraph 3 of the Joint Communiqué of 1992, which reads as follows: "Their intention
to respect and to execute in good faith the Judgment given today by the International Court of Justice, which brings final
closure to the Land, Island and J1aritime Frolllier Dispute bctween their respective States."
2Annex 3, Vol. II of the Written Observations of Honduras, pp. 38-39. In the Agreement of I9 January 1998 for
the Execution of the El Salvador-HonduraBorder Demarcation Programme. the Heads of States declared:
'·having resolved to demarcate the entire length of the land boundary defined by the General Peace Treaty
of 1980, and in the sectors delimited by the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of
Il September 1992, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ... Ill. To allow the El Salvador-HondurasSpecial
demarcation Commission a period of 12 months to demarcate ali the sectors defined by the General Peace
Treaty and the sectors delimited by the Judgment of the InternationalCourt of Justice of
Il September 1992, in accordance with the provisions of the manu al and rules and procedures approved
for the Honduras-El Salvador land boundary demarcation .VII. The present Agreement shall enter into
force on the date of its signature."
3/bidem, p. 46. In their joint declaration of 27 August 1999, the Heads of States wrote
"THREE: Their decision to complete the demarcation of the land boundary within 12 months,
from this day, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Agreement9 January 1998 on the
Execution of the El Salvador-Honduras Border Demarcation Programme, according to the schedule
jointly approved by the Special Demarcation Commission, ... " - 3 -
B. Document 1.2. "Report from the Salvadorian press from 31 October 2002". "The sign posting
of the border with Honduras starts." This press excerpt speaks for itself, and clearly indicates
that " ... the Presidents of El Salvador and Honduras started yesterday at 10.00 a.m. the
frontier demarcation of the six ex-disputed land portions which jurisdiction was solved by the
International Court of Justice of the Hague in September 1992" (emphasis added); that is to
say, demarcation finally began over ten years behind schedule.
C. Document 1.3. "Report from the Honduran press from 13 February 2003, "Demarcation of the
Frontier with El Salvador." This press excerpt illustrates a show of "good diplomacy" on the
part of the President of Honduras, playing host to the President of El Salvador. Over and above
its "good diplomacy", Honduras has actively urged and encouraged dynamic execution of the
Judgment by El Salvador, as can be seen from the press communiqué of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Honduras of30 October 2002 4•
D. Document 1.4. "Official letter 80/03 from 19 February 2003, that the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of El Salvador addn:sses to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras with attached
documentation". The suggestions of El Salvador in these documents, with a view to conveying
the impression that it has acted in good faith and with the intention of executing the Judgment
of 1992, have been placed in their true 1ight by the letter of 12 March 2003 from Honduras to
the Secretary-General of the Pan-American lnstitute of Geography and History, circulated
under cover of Security Council document S/2003/430, paragraphs 2,3,4,5 and 6 whereof are
5
quoted as a footnote hereunder . Honduras could not and would not have been in a position to
question the validity, clarity and legitimacy ofthe Judgment of 1992.
E. Documents 1.5., 1.6., 1.7., ][.8. only serve to confirm that there existed no basis or ground to
delay further the demarcation of the land boundary, which was scheduled to begin three months
after the Judgment was delivered, in accordance with the reciprocal international obligations
entered upon by both El Salvador and Honduras.
4
Annex 2.
5
Annex 3.
'"2.ln article 6 of the Special Agreement between El Salvador and Honduras, signed in the city of
Esquipulas, Guatemala, on :~M4ay 1986, submitting the land, island and maritime frontier dispute
between the twoStates to a decision of the International Court of Justice, the Parties undertook to enforce
the Chamber's Judgment full:; and in good faith. To that end, the Special Demarcation Commission
established by them under the Agreement of Il February 1986 was to begin demarcating the boundary
line delimitedy the Judgment no later than three months after the date of the Judgment and was to
pursue its activities diligently until demarcation was complete.
3. ln view of El Salva.dor's unwillingness to perform the obligation assumed in article 6 of the
Special Agreement, on 18 F~brua 2ry2 the Government of Honduras was forced to request the
intervention and assistance of the United Nations Security Council, under Article 94 (2) of the Charter, in
giving effect to the Judgment.
4. Although 10 years had elapsed since the Judgment was rendered, on 16 September 2002 the
Presidents of El Salvador and Honduras once again called on the El Salvador-Honduras Special
Demarcation Commission to demarcate ali sectors of the boundary delimited by the 1992 Judgment
within18 months.
5. ln response to the President's cali, it was only in November 2002 that El Salvador began to
make prior reconnaissance visits to the sectors delimited by the 1992 Judgment of the International Court
of Justice
6. Since those prior reconnaissance visits began 10 years after the Judgment was rendered, it was
not until November 2002 that small differences were noted between the coordinates fixed by the
International Court of Justice and sorne geographical features to which those coordinates referred, a
phenomenon inherent in land delimitations based on information provided by the parties during court
proceedings." -4-
F. Document 111.1. "Copy of the Order from the Outmost Excellent viceroy about the
reconnaissance of the coast of Nicaragua". Honduras has the following comments to make on
that document:
(a) The Spanish texts of the documents fumished by Honduras and El Salvador are identical,
because they are both copies of the original held at the Madrid Naval Museum;
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, Honduras expresses its regrets that the French translation
appended in Annex 4 was inadequate and would like to extend its apologies to the
Chamber for this unintentional and unfortunate situation, whilst attaching herewith a new
translation ofthat document into French 6;
(c) The objective of including the document in question in Annex 4 of the Written
Observations of the Government of Honduras was to establish beyond ali doubt the
objective of the expedition entrusted to the brigantine El Activa, and, in particular, the
precise instruction given by the Viceroy to explore the Gulf of Amapala;
(d) This document constitutes additional and relevant evidence of the truthfulness and
authenticity of the documents prepared by the expedition of brigantine El Activa. The fact
that El Salvador has produced an improved translation is, it would appear, a sign that it
does not challenge its content.
3. The Republic of Honduras understands that the procedural right to cali witnesses and
experts to give evidence during the oral proceedings, in accordance with Article 57 of the Rules of
Court, expired in mid-July 2003, and that no list had been communicated by that date. Honduras
would further emphasize that, in the event that El Salvador should at any stage in the proceedings
wish to cali a witness or expert pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court,
Honduras reserves its right to object thereto.
The Hague, 19 August 2003
(Signed) Julio Rend6n BARNICA
Co-Agent ofthe Republic of Honduras.
Annex 4. - 2-
JOINT COMMUNIQUÉ
The President of the Republic of El Salvador, Alfredo Félix Cristiani Burkard, and of the
Republic of Honduras, Rafael Leonardo Callejas Romero, meeting at the border post of Amatillo
on this eleventh day of September 1992, conscious of the rights, duties and obligations ensuing for
El Salvador and Honduras from the Judgment delivered on this day by the International Court of
Justice in the case conceming the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute between the two
countries, hereby declare:
The unshakable aspiration of their peoples and governments to peace, respect for the princip les
of international law and aims set out in the Charters of the United Nations Organization and of
the Organization of American States, in particular with regard to the peaceful settlement of
disputes.
Their intention to respect and execute in good faith the Judgment given today by the
International Court of Justice, which brings final closure to the Land, Island and Maritime
Frontier Dispute between their respective States.
Confirm their absolute conviction that the final solution to this historie procedure will
contribute significantly to increasing levelsf trust and consolidating peace and stability in the
region, and that it will inspire the process of Central American integration, the ultimate
aspirationof the peoples of the region.
Reassert, against the background of a new phase in bilateral relations between the two
countries which has begun today, their firm will and commitment to further strengthening the
existing links and fratemal relations between their respective peoples, having regard to the fact
thatit opens new perspectives of development and co-operation on the basis of mutual benefit.
Emphasize their shared creation of a Joint Commission responsible for addressing issues of a
human nature which could arise as a consequence of the Judgment, in order to guarantee
respect for the rightsf the citizens of both countries in the areas concerned.
Trusting in God and in their shared destiny of peace, democracy and development of their
peoples, are confident that the example set by El Salvador and Honduras in solving their
disputes in a civilized manner through reason and good sense, will contribute to greatly
strengthening the principles of international law and to maintaining peace and international
security.
Alfredo Felix Cristiani BURKARD Rafael Leonardo Callejas ROMERO
President of the Republic of President of the Republic of
El Salvador Honduras -2-
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFF AIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF HONDURAS
COMMUNIQUÉ NO. 27
The Presidents of Honduras and of El Salvador, respectively Ricardo Maduro and Francisco
Flores,following the instructions given at the meeting held at Marcala on 16 September of this year
to the national divisions of both countries of the El Salvador-Honduras Special Demarcation
Commission, with the aim of completing the demarcation procedure along the whole of their
common border in the framework of an accelerated programme of 18 months starting on
30 October of this year, have decided that on that day the following will be done:
1. Construction of the first boundary marker of the borderline as defined by the International
Court of Justice, situated on the left riverbank ofthe River Sumpul between the villages of San José
de Jocotan in Honduras and Las Pilas in El Salvador will be completed.
2. Thereafter, in the vicinity of El Poy, the plaque affixed to the monument commemorating
the commencement of the aforesaid accelerated programme will be unveiled, and the same
monument will simultaneously serve to inaugurate symbolically the furthermost markers of the two
sectors immediately delimited by the said International Court, which will be situated aslows:
Tepanguisir Sector: tripoint at the summit of Cerro Montecristo; summit of Cerro El Zapotal
Cayaguanca Sector: Pefia de Cayaguanca; confluence of quebrada Chiquita or Oscura with
the River Sumpul.
3. This action will clearly and conclusively show the shared intention of both Governments
to complete the entire demarcation of the common border between the two countries within the
time-limits prescribed.
Ocotepeque, 30 October 2002
Department of Institutional Communication - 3 -
ILLUSTRATION TO COMMUNIQUÉ NO. 27 DATED 30 ÜCTOBER 2002
(1) Commemorative monument situated at El Poy, corresponding to Section II (General Peace
Treaty), marker dating from late 1980s.
(2) Monument of the border polygon at Sumpul River, Sector 2 (ICJ Judgment), marker dating
from November 2002 (between San Joséde Jocotan (H) and Las Pilas (ES)).
(3) Montecristo Tripoint: Section I (General Peace Treaty) and beginning of Sector 1
(ICJ Judgment), marker dating from 1930s.
(4) Cerro El Zapotal: beginning of Section II (General Peace Treaty) and end of Sector 1
(ICJ Judgment), marker dating from late 1980s.
(5) Pefia de Cayaguanca: end of Section II (General Peace Treaty) and beginning of Sector 2
(ICJ Judgment), marker dating from late 1980s.
(6) Confluence of the quebrada Chiquita or Oscura with the River Sumpul: beginning of
Section III (General Peace Treaty) and end of Sector 2 (ICJ Judgment), marker dating from late
1990s.
Section I : 00.0 km
Section II : 10.0 km
Section III : 50.0 km
Sector 1 12.5 km
Sector 2 18.5 km Tin=t~nComuniNo. 27, 30 ~22002ubt:e
81~~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~4~~~·*~~---·~·~~--.~·-·--·~,~·----·
~r-----~- -----
.-~~
_()
~·.....--___,
'
II e irSe2tcrDcEl
(SMonumeriŒ]ales
:J cëŒ191oa
1
1--·~ ANNEX3
LETTER ADDRESSED BY HONDURAS TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE PAN AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY, DATED 12 MARCH 2003, AND CIRCULATED UNDER
COVER OF SECURITY COUNCIL DOCUMENT S/2003/430 OF 15 APRIL 2003
·····-~-~-----·---- United Nations St2oo3/43o
(~) SecurityC'ouncil Distr.: General
15April 2003
~ ~ English
Original: Spanish
Letter dated 8 April 2003 from the Permanent Representative of
Honduras to the United Nations addressed to the President of the
Security Council
On instructio1> from my Governmcnt, 1 have the honour to request that tht:
attached letter datt!d 12 Mar2003.and th!:!documentsappended then:to, addressed
by Mr. Raul Andino Torres, Chairman of the Honduras National Section of the
El Salvador-Honduras Demarcation Commission, to Mr. Carlo ~. Carballo Yanes,
Secretary General of th!:! Pan American lnstitutof Geography and History, in
connection with the Judgment rendered by the InternationalCourt of Justicein the
El Salvador/Honduras case (st:e annex•) be distributed as a document of the
Security Council.
(Signed) Manuel Acosta Bonilla
Ambassador
Permanent Representative
• The annexcd documenarc beincir~ula itthdlanguages of submiss10n only. The maps arc
availablfor~unsultat 11hnSc~rctariat.
03-33104 (E) 240403 240403
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111S/2003/430
Annex to the letter dated 8 April 2003 from the Permanent
Representative of Honduras to the United Nations addresscd to
the President of the Sccurity Council
12 March 2003
1 have the honour 10 requ~ ~hat ) ou appoint a technicul..pert of rccognized
competence and impartialrty who is not a national or a resident uf eithcr El Salvador
or Honduras to act as third <Jndfinal arbitrator in resolving technical differencein
the demarcation of the border bdwecn El Salvador and Honduras. pur>uant to article
25 of the General Treaty of P..:ce of 30 Uctobt:r19!\0 between the Republics of El
Salvador and Honduras
ln my capacity a~ Chairnr<Jn uf !liellundurus 1\ational S..:ction of the El
Salvador-Honduras Spccral D~marcatr onmmission .:stabli sh hde Agrecment
signed between the two States in S<1nSalvador Republic oi El Salvador. on Il
February 1986, 1 have th.: hunnur to infmr11;ou •.>!.thfollowin~.
1. On Il Septemb~ 1r'f.the special Chamb..:r of the Jmenwt10nal Court of
Justice rend.:red its fin.1l Judgm.:nt in the case conccrning the Lund,
/!;/und and Mun/1111.: r·ronlier DISf!llle (El Sahadur/Hunduras;
Nicaragua lntervenmg).
2. ln article 6 of the Specral Agreement bctween El Salvador and Honduras,
signed in the city of Esquipulas, Guatemala, on 24 May 1986, submitting
the land, island and maritime frontier dispute between the Iwo States to a
decision of the International Court of Justice, the Parties undertook to
enforce the Chamber's Judgm~n ftlly and in good taith. To that end, the
Special Demarcation Commission established by them under the
Agreement of Il fcb1 uary ':f86was 10 begin demarcating the boundary
line delimited b) the Judgnu:nt no later than three months aftcr the date
of the Judgment and was to pursue its activities diligently until
demarcation wa~ compktc.
3. ln view of El Salvador'> unwillingne» to perform the obligation assumed
in article 6 of the Specral Agreement, on 18 February 2002 the
Government of llonduras was forced to request the intervention and
assistance of the Unitt:d Nations~ecuri Ctoyncil, undcr Article 94 (2) of
the Charter, in giv1ng effcct to the Judgment.
4. Although 10 year> haj clapsed >ince the Judgment was rende red, on 16
September 200: the l'n.:sidcnt:; of El Salvador and Honduras once again
called on the El Salv<Jdor-HoildurJs Speci<JIDemarcation Commission to
demarcate ail sector:, of thL·boundar:- ddrmw.:d b! th.: 1992 Judgment
within 18 months.
5. ln response to the Presidents' cali. it was only in Novcmber 2002 thal El
Salvador bcgan to make prior reconnaissance visits tu the scctors
delimited by the 1992 Judgment of the International Court of Justice.
6. Since those prior n.:connaissance visits began 10 years fter the Judgment
was rendercd, it was not umil November 2002 that small ditlcn:nccs \\cre
noted betwt:en the coordinates fixcd by tlu:International Court of Justice
and some geographical feature> to whicl! lhuse coordinatcs rc::fcrred, a
2 S/2003/430
phenomenon inherent in land delimitations based on information
provided by the parties during court proceedings.
7. During the se:;sion of the Special Demarcation Commission held in the
city of Metapa,n, Republic of El Salvador, from 24 to 28 February 2003, 1
proposed to the El Salvador National Section that Mr. Paul L. Peeler, Jr.
should be appointed as third arbitrator to resolve technical differences in
the demarcation of the border, pursuant to paragraph 1of article 25 of the
above-mentioned General Treaty of Pcace.
8. That proposai was not accepted either explicilly or implicitly by the El
Salvador National Section, as can be seen from the appended copy of the
corresponding. minutes.
9. Since the possibility of choosing a third arbitrator by mutual agreement
bas already been exhausted to no avail, 1 hereby invoke paragraph 2 of
article 25 of the General Treaty of Peace, under which the Republics of
El Salvador and Honduras conferred on the Pan American lnstitute of
Geography and History of the Organization of American States specifie
jurisdiction to appoint the third arbitrator, who must fulfil the same
requirements as the technical expert referred to in paragraph 1.
ln view of the fcregoing, 1 hereby request the Pan American Institute of
Geography and His.tory, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by the
Republics of El Salvador and Honduras under article 25 of the above-mentioned
General Treaty of Peace, to appoint the third arbitrator to resolve technical
differences in the demarcation of the border, taking into account the provisions of
paragraph 3 of that article, which states that the decision of the third arbitrator,
which shall be final, must be issued within a period not exceeding 30 days from the
date on which that perscn communicates his acceptance of the position.
1 base this reques1 on article 25 of the General Treaty of Peace between the
Republics of El Salvador and Honduras, the Agreement between the Republies of El
Salvador and Honduras establishing a Special Commission for the Demarcation of
the El Salvador-Honduras Frontier Line pursuant to the General Treaty of Peace of
30 October 1980 and article 6 "Enforcement of Judgment" of the Special Agreement -
between El Salvador and Honduras submitting the land, island and maritime frontier
dispute between the twc States to a decision of the International Court of Justice.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
(Signed)Raul Andino Torres
Chairman
Honduras National Section
Appended documents:
1. Operative part of the Judgment of the Chamber of the International Court of
Justice rendered on 11 September 1992 (and its cartographie annexes).
2. General Treaty of Peace between the Republies of El Salvador and Honduras,
signed on 30 October 1980 in Lima, Peru.
3S/2003/430
3. Agreement between the Republics of El Salvador and Honduras establishing a
Special Commission for the Demarcation of the El Salvador-Honduras Frontier
Line pursuant to the General Treaty of Peace of 30 October 1980, signed on Il
February 1986.
4. Special Agreement between El Salvador and Honduras submitting the land,
island and maritime frontier dispute between the two States to a decision of the
International Court of Justice, signed on 24 May 1986.
5. Minutes of the session of the Special Demarcation Commission held in the city
of Metapân, Republic of El Salvador, from 24 to 28 February 2003.
6. Curriculum vitae of the third arbitrator proposed by Honduras.
4 ANNEX4
COPY OF THE ÜRJ[)ER OF HIS VERY EXCELLENT VICEROY CONCERNING
THE RECONNAISSANCE OF THE COAST OF NICARAGUA,
MEXICO, 7 DECEMBER 1793 - 2 -
"Copy of the Order of His Very Excellent Viceroy concerning the Reconnaissance of the
Coast ofNicaragua. Mexico, 7 December 1793" MN. Ms. 280, folios 167-170.
The reconnaissance of the coast which is to be carried out pursuant to my Order of 21 May
last must be limited only to the part situated between Acapulco and Sonsonate, whilst observing the
latitude of the main points, the tide of the ports and accurately producing a corresponding map
thereof.
The Gulf of Amapala must be considered as secondary, and although it is not necessary to
examine it in detail, it must be studied sufficiently to obtain an adequate view of it.
The reconnaissance of the Isles of Cocos and of the other isles between El Realejo and the
Galapagos does not need to be carried out as yet. lt is not necessary to travet to Peru, and no plans
to do so exist at present in view of the fact that supplies of [illegible words] may be obtained from
Cabite, which the Compafiia Asiatica (Asian Company) is seeking to sell to the Real Hacienda
(Royal Treasury).
Bath the vesse! Concepcion and a small schooner with corresponding small crafts will be
available for the joumey, and both vessels will be under the command of Lieutenant Don Salvador
Metendez as they will navigate side by side, the command of the small schooner being entrusted to
navigator Don Gonzalo Lopez de Haro whenever necessary.
Once duly empowered, the aforementioned crew will rapidly set sail for Acapulco, where
they will arm themselves with the artillery left there by the Gertrudis, and will carry out their
mission as close as possible to the coast in order to list ali its inlets, ports or rivers and mark them
on the chart.
The astronomical instruments stored in San Bias will be handed over to the Commander,
together with a formai list thereof for thevent that he wishes to make use of them.
Specifie instructions will be given on the internai rules of the expedition in order to achieve
the best possible results, and the logbooks and maps will be handed to me personally in arder that
appropriate use may be made of them.
On the basis hereof, 1 entrust the command of bath vessels to Lieutenant Don Salvador
Melendez, who, together with the Commissioner, will be responsible for the provision of food
stocks, in arder to avoid any delays on arrivai of the frigate Concepcion de Loreto. Commander de
Melendez shall give such orders as he deems necessary in arder to accomplish the present mission
to the highest possible levetf satisfaction.
May Gad bless Your Grace for years to come.
Mexico, 7 December 1793
Revilla Gigedo. Acting Commander of San Bias
Third Volume- 170 folios
[Signature} T. G.
Comments of the Government of Honduras on the documents whose production by El Salvador was authorized by the Chamber