Case concerning Navigational and Related Rights
(Costa Rica v Nicaragua)
Costa Rica's comments on Nicaragua's response to the Questions asked bv
.TudgesKoroma, Keith and Bcnnouna
Costa Rica's comments on Nicaragua's responsc to the question asked by
.Judge Koroma
1. Judge Koroma asked both parties to provicleevidence as to whether Costa Rican
locals and immigrants usecl the San Juan River in the periocl around 1858. He also
requestecl evidence m;to the nature and scope of the subsequent practice in the use of
the River by Costa Rican locals and immigrants.
2. In its answer to this question, Costa Rica provided concrete evidence that the
Sarapiquf-San Juan River route was the most important means of communication
between the central valley of Costa Rica and the United States and Europe in the period
around 1858. Both goocls and passengers were transpmted using this transit route. 1
Evidence was also providecl qf 1he use of the San Juan River as the entry route by
immigrants coming to Costa Rica.
3. ln its response, Nicaragua basically argueclthat:
(a) ''therewere no CostaRican loca1sand immigra~ts, hence t3ere was there was no
use of the.tiver by such persans" before or arouncl 1858;· and
(b) "it was not until the 1960s and 1470 that there was any significant settlement on
the Costa Rican bank of the tiver".
(a) Responsc to Nicaragua's first argument
4. In regard tù the first argument, Costa Rica established that both before and after
the signing of the 1858 Treaty, the San Juan was in fact used for the transit of
passengers and goods. The evidence presented by Costa Rica leaves no doubt, and
Nicaragua's claim that "there were no Costa Rican locals and immigrants" is simply
wroüg.
5. ln support of i.ts argument, Nicai'qgua presented, inter a/ia, extracts from an
account by Dr. Alexander Von Frantzius entitled The Riglzt Bank of the San Juan
River-a Nëtzrly Unknown Part of CcJstaRicq. 5 Nicaragua presented two English
translationsof extracts from this account. The first, according to Nicaragua, reads "On
the tight bank Qfthe San Juan R~ve bert,een the mouth bf theS~ira pnilthi Ul1ce
where the Colorado River separates, there is stiJl no human settlement". The miginai
6
Spanish text dqes not refer to "huimm seulement" but to "colonià". "Colonia", literally
Sec Costa Rica's Answer to Questions from Judges Kt)roma, Keith and Bennouna, para 3.
Ibid, par4;mc17.
Nicaragua·s Answer to Questi<,>nsfrom Judges Koroma, Keith and p.l.ouna,
Ibidp.3.
Nlcamgua·sAnswer ro.Questions from Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna, Annex.2,
pp. l, 54. . .
6 Nicamgua's Answer io Questions frm:n Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennquna, Annex 2. p. 54.
The original Spariish text reads: "En lu ribera derecha del rfo San Juan, entre là desembocudura del
Sarapiquf y lu separaci6n del Rîo Colorado, no se·encuentru tampoco todavfa ninguna coloniu"'.translüted meuns "colony", evidently refetTing to non-indigenous settlements, not
"human settlements" in general. Nicaragua's translation docs not reflcct the sense of
this phrase in the originalSp~mish.
6. The second extract from Von Frantzius' account presented by Nicaragua reflects
a similar stance: "The northern part of the Republic of Costa Rica, situatcd along the
San Juan River and boundcd by the volcanic mountain range, is ali tierra incognita''. 7
7. ln fact the existence of indigenous groups inhabiting both banks of the San Juan
River since the !6th centurl, as weil as non-indigenous residents on the Costa Rican
9
bank of the San Juan ,was already established. Actual use of the River by indigenous
peoples around the time of the signing of the Treaty of Limits was also established. 10
8. ln quoting other sources, Nicaragua hus followed this same biased approach. For
examp1e, according to Nicaragua. Admirai Peary's account saicl that "... an the.se
surveys ...were confined almost entirely to the San Juan River, and its immediate banks;
and the country on eithcr side beyond these narrow limits, was up to 1885, almost
entirely unknown. " 11 Although the text says "almost''- not a cutegotical assertion
it is clear that it couId not have been unknown to the indigenous inhabitants. Peary was
conducting a detailed survey for a canal route: lie had no knowledge of und no reason to
inquire about transit on the San Juan and itstributaries earlier in the century.
9. Another source quoted by Nicaragua 1s a purpottecl report of 1891 by "the
Physical Geogmphicallnst1tute and the Museum of Costa RiCa", presented as Annex 4
to its Answer. According to Nicaragua, this "report" claims that "Costa Rica hus to be
interested above ali in populating that part of her tcnitory that still today is a1most'
without inhabitants"P
1O. lt should be noted that this is not a report by the Physical Geographical Institute
und the Museum of Costa Rica, but rather the same acc.ount by Dt. Alexander Von
Fn\ntzius entit1ed The Right Bank c~ tfe San Juai1 River~ Naem·/y Unknmvn Part of
(;osta Rica, published in 1892 in the Aimais of the Physical Geographica1 Institute and
the Museum of Costa Rica.
Il. As a matter of fact, Von Frantzius' account refers quite often to indigenous
peoples on Costa Rican territory. For example, while describ1ng the trip of Mr. Luz
Blanco in 1847 to explore the Sucio River, a tlibutary of the Sarapiqui River, he
metltions that "in the right bank of the Sucio River [Luz Blanco] saw a large banl)na
13
plantation made by savuge. lndians". This River, according, to Von Frantzius, "is
navigable in i.tslower course, and offen; éconvenientcqnnection with the San Juan". 14
Nict\ragu;t's Answer tq Questiqns from Judges K,oroma, Keith and Benn(Hmu, p. 2.
See Costa Rica's Answer to Questions froni Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna, parüs. 10
9nd 11.
IIi Ibid, paras. 8 and 11.
Ibid, paru. 11.
Il Nicarugua's Answer ln Qliestions from Juclges Koroma, Kt!ith and Bennounu, p. 3.
12 ibid.
13 Alexander Von Franlzius, La ribera deredw del RfS(llJuan: ww parte casi desconocida de
Costa l?it"a(7862), translation by Pablo Biolley (Aiajllèln: Museo Hist6rfco CLiltur.tl Juan Simlnmatfa,
1999) p. 24 (Attachmcnt A). Also availableH.nPittier, Annals of the Physical-Geographical brstitute
212. Describing another expedition cmTied out in 1856 by Mr. Pfo Alvarado in the
horthern flat region between the San Carlos and the F1ioRivers, Yon Frantzius says that
"la]fter having crossed this plain, Plo reached an elevation where lie the first huts of the
15
Guatusos, who extend from there to. the Frio River". Later on, Yon Frantzius
describes this plain as extending "up to the outlet of the Frio River in the San Juan". 16
The Frio River, as can be recalled, tlows to the Lake of Nicaragua, ncar the source of
the San Juan River.
13. Describing another po1tion of Costa Rica Jying between the Sarapiquf River and
the Atlantic ocean on the one side, and between the volcanic mountain range and the
San Juan River on the other, Yon Frantzius refers to the Zaiman 1agoon, south of the
Colorado river. He explains that "[t]his name was given to it by the Misquito Indians
who visit the lagoon during certain times of the year to catch tmtles." 17 This is
consistent with Costa Rica's answer, which stated that:
"At this time the San Juan River was not a boundary between the indigenous
communities that inhabited its banks. The San Juan River constituted their main
means.of communication, between themselves and with otherindigenous groups
such as the Miskito Indians on the Atlantic coast." 18
14. Von Frantzius ends his recount by recalling that "the Spaniards, when they took
over the country [Costa Rica], based their alleged rights over the fact they had found the
new discovered lands in possession of the indians who did not know how to extract any
protït from it and, accoi·ding to them, extracting profits constituted a formai obligation
for the possessor." 19 Nicaragua's attitude of disregarding the indigenous peoples of
Costa Rica is reminiscent of this approach.
15. But Yon Frantzius al!';ostated that:
"The country [Costa Rica] is traversed in small distances through navigable
rivers which, using small boats, allow an easy and quick communication with
the San Juan and, what is most important, immigrants can get there in an easy
and inexpensive way, as weil as to any other point located in the Atlantic
coast.'' [Emphasis added.]
16. This quote clearly describes the San Juan River in 1.862 as a communication
route for Costa Rica.
17. Not only private passengers and goods were transpmted through the San Juan
River, but also the mail and official articles destined for Costa Rica's Go.vernment that
arrived via the Port of San Juan del Natte. For these purposes, Costa Rica's
and the Mmeum of Costa Rica, Vol Ill, 1890 (San José: 1892), avai!able at
htp:/1wi.vw.arcliive.ont/stream/anale sùelinsia!!tiog.
14 ibid,p.25 (Attachment A).
l!' Ibid,p.37 (Attnchment A).
" Ibid,p.38 (AttacA h). ~nt
17
18 Ibid,p.51 (Attachment Al.
19 Costa Rica's Answer to Questions from Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna, para. 1O.
Alexander Von Frantzius, La ribera dereclw del Rfo&!17Jiwn: 1ma parle casi desconocida de
Costa Rica (1862), translation by Pablo Biolley (Aiajuela: Museo Hist6ricq Cultuml Juan Santamarfa,
1999) p. 67 (Attacluilcnt A).
:w Ibid.p.62 (Attnchment Al.
3Govemment hud an official representative at the P01t of Sun Juan. The following
account describes Costa Rica's relation with the Port of San Juan del Norte:
"The frequent relation with the port can be observed through different events:
When the cholera devastatecl the port in 1849, Costa Rica requested the
Governor, Pedro Shepherd, to orcier a fumigation of the mail cntering the
country. Morcover, it kept there agents to dispatch the mail and the merchandise
that was consignecl to the Government and the merchants.
Costa Rica's first agent was the German Andres Louis Beschor, who had the
task of dispatching the mail and the small parcels with die-stamps for the
Minting House, music sheets and musical instruments! and other articles that
were sent from London by Costa Rica's Consul... Following Beschor's death,
his son, George PhiJiips, who founded the Beschor-Wieden Company with his
own means of transportation, took over as agent. After that it was mwther
German, Mr. Geddes. Besicles, in the pmt nine Costa Ricans or persons living in
Costa Rica hacl commercial houses, among them the German resident in San
José Mr. Enrique Ellebroch... Besicles, the govemment kept a mail
administrator in the port, who in 1854 was Mr. F. Salte... "1
18. The impo1tant issue, therdore, is not whether the right bank of the San Juan was
inhabited but the use that Costa Rica made of the River. It bas been shown that the San
Juan was at the time the main comniu11icationtoute between Costa Rica;s central valley
(scat of the cities of San José,Cartago, Alajuela and Heredia) and the Atlantic Ocean,
both for the lrarispo!'tation of passengersas we)l as goods, inclüding the mail, officiàl
communications, and articles belonging to the Costa Rican Govcmment.
(b) Response to Nicaragua'ssecond argument
19. Nicuragua's second argument claims that "[a]uthoritative historical sources
establish that it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that there was any significant
settlement on the Costa Rican bank of the river." 22 Who or what these "authoritative
historical sources;' might be is a mystery, since Nicaragua does not even mention them,
much Jess annexa single piece of documentary evidence to support this Claim.
20. Next, Nicaragua claims that "[d]uring the 1960s, the Costa Rican Government
sent prisoners, who had not yet completed their sentences, to reside freely on the right
bank of the San Juan, subject to the condition that they populate the area.'m Again, no
single reference is made to any source to suppott this unfounded statement.
21. Nicaragua then devotes severallines to argue first that during the periods of the
armed conflicts of 1977-1979 and 1981-1990 "[t]he.loca\ population was augmented by
24
immigrants from Nicaragua" ,but then to claim that during those same years "the river
was unsafe for normal civilian traffic, and navigation on the river, whether for
21
Clotilde Obregôn, El Rfo San Juan en la Luc/ut de laPotencicLV1821-1860), (San José:
Editoriàl Universidad Estutal!! Distanciü, 2001), p. 142 (Attuchmcnt B), available at
ht!p:i/btioks. google.co.cr/brioks?ïd-iVC1oC&dq-clotilde+ohre<ron+san+l uan+lucha+potencias&p
rintsec-frontcover&source=hl&ür.~=oYTLAGC2\.VH&si!!=64LUnAt8yMTKmF7yo!FrYTU41js&hl=es&e
i-sGvJSdzslYLCyOXJ{)IXRAw&sa-X&oi=book result&resmnn-1 &ct=result#PPA6.M 1.
22 Nicaragua·s Answer to QuestiQns from Judges Koroma, Keith and BennQuila, p. 3.
23 Ibid,pp.3-4.
24 Ibid,p.4.
4 25
commercial or other pm·poses, was extremely uncommon." Despite this
an!umentative contradiction - if the San Juan River was unsafc for Costa Ricans it
26
w~u be equally um;afc for Nicaraguan settlers on the right bank- both statements
contain elements of truth. Jt is truc that during the time of the intemal conflicts in
Nicaragua there was large scale immigration to Costa Rica, but the majority of those
immi&•Tantsestablished themselvcs in the intcrior of Costa Rica, not on the banks of the
San Juan. On the othcr hand, severa! affidavits prcsentcd by Costa Rican police officers
contïrm that patticularly dllling the980s Costa Rican police navigation was greatly
rcduced because of security concerns? 7 This is the reason why there is little
documented navigation by Costa Rican police during this time. Ali these affidavits,
nevertheless, confirm that prior to 1998 Costa Rica's police navigatcd freely on the San
.luan without requesting permission from Nicaragua.
22. Other Costa Rican public servants working in health, education and social
assistance areas testificdthat prior to 2006 they regularly navigated the San Juan
without ever having to ask for pem1ission.
23. ln the case of civilian navigation, Costa Rica presented evidence in the form of
affidavits of boatmen who described their navigation on the San Juan even d29ing the
times of the Nicaraguan armed contlict, and before that as carly as 1958. Other
evidence proves thal Costa Rican tourist vessels were regularly nnvigating the San Juan
0
as carly as 1972 without any restrictionsatsoever.~
24. The rest of Nicaragua's claims, supported by Witness statements describing
Costa Rican navigation on the San .Juan around 1960 and thereafter, generally coincide
with the intonnation presented by Costa Rica in its response. For example, a
Nicaraguan affidavit establishecl that.:
'ït.lhe river was also navigatecl by local Costa Ricans who Jived in the
communities in the Costa Rican tctTitory near the river. These were very small
hamlets with a total Costa Rican population of no more than a thousand people.
Most were dedicated to cattle raising. which was the biggest industry and main
source of employment on the Costa Rican side. They used the tiver to travel to.
work, o31o a store to purchase supplies, for examplThey travelledfreely on the
riverY [Emphasis a<;lded;]
25. Finally, Nicaragua claimed that
"[a]t the oral hearings, Costa Rica relying on certain affidavits, argued that local
rèsidei1ts were subjected to Nicaragua's departurè cle~u: insplcions and
immigration processing requirements. However, Nicaragua showed that Costa
Rica's argpii1enw~t grounclless, because, inter a/hz, the witnesses who supplied
the affidavitson which Costa Rica relied, and who claimed to have been
25
Ibid.
ln this regard, the Alliùavit by Brigadier Cesar Ovidio Largaespaùa, presentL~ in NR
Annex 72, stateù that the entire population of Sim Juan del Norte had nbanùoned the town during the civil
war of the 1980s: NR Annex 72, p. 448.
27 For example, CRM Annexes 89, 94 and 105.
K For example, CRM Annex 99; CRR Annexes 55. 5657~d
29
3 For example. CRM Annex 96.
° For exmnple, CRM Annexes 95 and 96.
31 Nicarugua·s Answer to Questions l'romJudges Koromn, Keith and Bennouna, p. 4.
5 subjccted to Nicaragua's regulations, were not, in fact, local ripmian
32
residents."
To suppmt this daim, Nicaragua refers to "CR, 2006/6, p. 44 para. 27 and p. 48,
, 33
para. 38 .
26. Nicaragua's argument that ali of these witnesses were not ''local riparian
residents" is incorrect. The fact is Costa Rica did not use the expression "local riparian
residents" in the paragraphs quoted, but refcn·ed instead to "local residents" and to
"boatmen". ln paragraph 27 at page 44 of CR 2006/6, Costa Rica stated that "out of six
local residents, four testified that they wcre charged [for the departure clearance]" and
reference Wl\S made to CRM Annexes 92, 96, 103 and 1OS;and to CRR Annexes 50
and 51. ln paragraph 38 at page 48 of CR 2006/6, it was stated that "Costa Rica has
shown. howevcr, that boatmen were in fact required to securc visas to catTy on their
activities.. " and reference was macleto CRM Annexes 85, 87, 91, 92, 93, 95 und 189;
and to CRR Annexes 51 and 52. Ali of these statements are accurate.
27. Perhaps for Nicaragua, boatmen who reside in Puerto Viejo de Sarapiqui or
Barra del Colorado are not "local residents", but the fact is that they had for many years
traversecl regularly the Sun Juan River, travelling from one point in Costa Rica to
another.
28. Fmthemwre, Nicaragua is silent in regard to the testimonies of two tÎparians
who testified they bad been demanded departureclearancecertificates.
(a) .JoséMoreno Rojas, a faim owner resident of Boca de San Cui'!os, declaree\ on
6 July 2006 (CRM Annex 108) that "despite being a neighbor of the River ali his !ife,
now he is demanded a departure clearance in orcier to go o\'to come fro34his hot1se,
which he hus to carry with him always and during the entire voyage." He added that
''they [the ripadans] are imposed timetables and are forced to carry the Nicaraguan
fla~ 3g Finally, he attested asto Nicaragua's recently e.stablished prohibition on fishing
36
on the River and the negative consequences this rcstdction has causec\.
(b) Léonel Morales Chac6n, a farm owner re.siclentof Boca de San Carlos since
1979,.gave an affidavit on 30 April 2007 (CRR Annex 50) in which he described an
incident that ocqmed on 24 April 2007, whereby he went to request permission from
the Nicaraguan militai·yto na'vigateon the San Juan to visit his farm in San Antonio de
Cutris to transpmt some calves. The military personnel informed him that he could not
be granted the permit and that he should return to them in two days for an answer, and
when he did, he wall informed they would not grant him th.epermission. He .added that
he knows other cases whei'e1iparians have also had problems transporting their cattle
using the San Juan River. Finally, he indicated that at present neighbours in the arca are
forcee\ to carry a courtesy departure clearance, and that people who do not live in the
arca are demancleclvisas and passports to allow their navigation. 37 Incidentally, in an
earlier affidavit given on 6 July 2006 (CRM Annex l06), Mr Morales also refeJTedto
Nicaragua's prohibition of fishing by local residents, as weil as some instances where
Ibidp. 5.
1/iirootnote 16.
CRM Annex 108, p. 569.
35 /bcL
Ibid.
CRR Anne;<50, pp. 279-280.
6the Nicaraguan authorities had confiscated tishing gear even when the riparians 'were
not fishing. He mentioned cases whcre Costa Ricans who werc found with fish in their
vessels ha38their belongings as weil as their vessels confiscated by Nicaraguan
authorities.
29. In any event, the argument posed by Nicaragua that local riparians are !,'Tanted
courtesy departure clearance ce1tificates and are excmpted from Nicaragua's
39
immigration rcquiremcnt.'i misses the point. First, it is not only a matter of departure
clearance certificates or immigration chargesb~l itis a matter of a whole array of
restrictions affecting all Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan, by riparians, non
riparians and public vessels. Second, [\"couitesy" call always be taken away. If Costa
Rica's navigation depended on Nicamgua's goodwill, nothing would be lefi of A1ticle
YI of the 1858 Treaty of Limits, which establishes Costa Rica's perpetuai right of free
navigation for pm·posesof commerce.
Costa Rica's comments on Nicaragua's rcsponse to the question a<;kedby
.Judgc Keith
30. Nicaragua took udvantuge of the question put by .Judge Keith to expand its
position with regard to the scope of the Costa Rican right of navigation recognised in
A1ticle VI of the 1858 Treaty, ulready fully developed in it<;written and oral pleadings.
31. Indeed, only the last two puragraphs of Nicaragua's answan~really directed to
the question at issue, after two and a half pages of developments purpo1ting to
demonstrate that Costa Rica's right of navigation would only include the h·ansport of
merchandise.
32. Costa Rica submits that, at this lute stage, p~îr tise imit themselves to
answering the.questions raised by the judges und Costa Rieu has ucted on this bnsis. For
the record, however, this comment will state Costa Rica's position with regard to the
general arguments put forward by Nicaragua in its answer to Judge Keith's quest(a).
Jt will then comment on the actual answer provided by the Respondent to this
question (b).
CRM Annex 106, p. 561.
Nicaragua·s Answer to Questions rrom Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna; p. 5.
7(a) Nicaragua's cxtcmporaneous dcvelopmcnts rclated to Costa Rica's right of
navigation have no basis
33. Nicaragua begins by stating that the.Treaty of Limits "does not give Costa Rica
the right to transport pass10gers as the sole object of the navigation on the San Juan
River" (emphasis added).' But this has never been Costa Rica's position, which has
permanently considerecl and exercised its right of navigation as including both the
transport of goods and that of passengers. ln princip le, it is not necessary that these two
pm·poses of navigation (transport of goods and persons) be accomplished together, i.e. a
vesse! transpmting both merchandise and passengers, in orcier to be recognised as
having the right of free navigation.
34. Nicaragua also contencls that "the right to authorize or engage in commercial41
transport of passengers on the San Juan was reserved exclusively to Nicaragua". lt
udclsthat if the intention of the parties to the Treaty haclbeen to allow such transport by
Costa Rica, "it would have been expressly stated in the Treaty that Costa Rica's rights
included the right to navigate with or transport passengers." 42 Nothing in the Treaty
pennits such an interpretation. Subsequent practice does not lead to such a conclusion
either. Nicaragua insists that the most lucrative activity involving the San Juan at the
time of the conclusion of the Treaty was the inter-oceanic transit of passengers. Even
so, this is no reason for a restrictive interpretation of the Treaty as concerns the arca
where navigation is common. Of course, Costa Rica acquire.d no right of inter-oceanic
transpott of passengers any more than of .goods. But the question is whether the Treaty
by implication excludecl the existing practice of transportation of passengers to, ji"OTn
and within Costa Rica, and the answer is that obviously itdid not. Nothing in the
Treaty excludes these more modest kinds of t:ransp01t of persons. Costa Rica has
already answered the assertions of Nicaragua regatding the inter-oceanic transport
service both in its writteh and ota! pleadings. 43 It has also refen·ed to the treaties
concluded by Nicaragua with the United States, France and Great Britain in 1857, 1859
and 1860, recognising the extent of Costa Rica's navigation as to iJ1c1udepersons and
44
goods, and privnte and public vesse1s.
35. Nicaragua's unswer ulso indicates that:
"...navigation with coffee or other goods on board necessarily involves the
transport of people, às Weil, pmticularly the qptaii1 and crew of the vesse!;
goods cannot navigate by themselves. But navigation with such 'passengers' on
a vesse! whose principal mission is the tran,sp01t of article of trade is a far cry
from the commercial transport of paying passengers as the sole or ptimary
4
purpose of the naviga: t~ ion."
Nicaragua adopts an ambiguous position here. Apparently, the.last sentence seems to
concede that transport of passengers could be included in the Costa Rican right of
navigation, provided that such a tninspmt is not the only purpose of the vesse! carrying
on this navigation, whose main or primary plll·pose woulcl be the transport of
merchandise. Costa Rica has already demonstrated that its right of navigation
~Il
41 Nicaragua's Answer to Qtiestions from Judges Koroma, Keith ünd Bennouna, p. 6.
Ibid.
Ibid,p.7.
CRR paras. 3.76-3.78: CR 2009/2,~5-5 paras. 28-29.
CRM paras. 4.61-4.62; CRR, paras. 2.52; CR 2009/2, pp. 61-62, paras. 49-51.
Nicaragua·s Answer to Questions from JudgesKoromKeith and Bennouna, p. 7.
8acknowledgecl by the Treaty of Limits includes both transpoti of persons and goods and
46
there is no nced to relitigatc it here.
36. Nicaragua's answer also refers to subsequent practice to argue that it was only
Nicaragua that authorised passenger traffic on the San Juan. Aguin, it provides
cxamples of intcr-oceanic trcaties or contracts as though this was the only possible kind
of navigation with passengcrs in the pmi of the river "where navigation is common"
(Atiicle YI of the 1858Treaty). Costa Rica's answer has already provided examples of
different kindsof navigation involving passengers falling within the scope of Article Yl.
(b) Nicaragua's actual answer to the question put by .Judge Keith contradicts
Article VI of the 1858 and the Cleveland Award
37. Nicaragua's actual answer to the question raised by Judge Keith is that only
transpmiation that is paie! for the service prmdded would fall within the scopc of
Atiicle Vl. Nicaragua ends by accepting that transportation of passengers is a form of
"commercial navigation". 47 However, it does it in the narrowest possible way.
38. Surptisingly, Nicaragua contends that:
''Costa Rica does not invoke this allegee! right for the benefit of the local
ripatians, who have alway been free to navigate on the river for their own
pm·poses,but to use it as a.wedge to create a broad right to navigate on the river
48
for any purpose''.
On the one hanc!, Costa Rica does daim that the navigation by riparians is a. right
covered by Article VI, in contrast with Nicaragua's assetiion that it is a mere courte.,-y.
On the other hand; it is not truc that Costa Rica assetis a right to navigate through the
San Juan for any pm·pose. Costa Rica is bound by the Cleveland Award and has never
invoked a tight to navigate with vessels of war.
39. Nicm;agua's arguments regarcling c.ommunication as one of the purposes of
commerce conttadict the Cleveland Award. If the Respondent's position regarding the
scope of Costa Rica's right to navigation were correct, then the decision of President
Cleveland would have been inconsistent with Atticle VI. The 1888 Award refers to the
navigation by Costa Rican revenue vessels as being both for the protection of the
"pm·poses of commerce" and for the enjoyn1ent of such a dght. 4. How could revenue
vessels have enjoyed the right of navigation acknowledged in Article VI if this right had
been limited to the transpott of merchandise? By definition, transportation of
merchandise is not the task of a revenue service vesse!.
4
h CRM para\{..58-4.72; CRR purn3s.~76-C 3R.20089/2pp.62-63,para.52; CR 2009/6,p.34,
paras. 52-53; see also umong mhers, utTidavil of Carlos Lao Jttrquin, 27 Junuary 2006, CRM Annex,84 ;
affidavit ol· Geovany Navurro Garro, 27 Januury 2006, CRM Annex 85 : all'idavil of Pahlo Gerardo
Herm1ndez Varela, '1.7Januury 2006, CRM Annex. 86 ; afiïdavil or Santos Martin Arrietu Flores,
27 January 2006, CRM Annex ·87; afl1duvil pf Carlos Luis Alvaradq Sanchez, 27 January 2006, CRM
Annex·88; aflïdrivit ol'Daniel Solo.Montera, 27 Junuary 2006, CRM Annex,89 ; affidavit of Luis Angel
JitonAngulo, 28 January 2006, CRM Annex 90; affidavit of Marvin Hay Gonzalez, 28 Januury 2006,
CRM Annex 91 : utTitlavitof Annando Perla Pérez,28 January 2006, CRM Annex 92; afl1davit of Ruben
Lao Hemandez, 17Fehruury 2006, CRM Annex 103.
~7 Nicaragua·s Answer to Questions tï-omJudges Koroma, Keith and Bennquna, p. 8.
"M Ibid.p.9.
-t9 CRMAnn·ex16,p.98.
940. ln sum, Nicarngua's "answer" to the question put by Judge Keith is not
supportcd either in law or in fact.
Costa Rica's comments on Nicaragua's response to the question asked by
.JudgeBcnnouna
41. ln its response to this question as others, Nicaragua bas raised a number of
issues not directly relevant to Judge Bennouna's question. The questions put to the
parties were clear, specifie and limited, and Costa Rica understands that the Court was
not calling for a fmthcr round of pleaclings. Costa Rica's position is that arguments and
purported evidence not directly relevant to the questions asked ought to be disregarcled
by the Court.
42. ln respect of the direct question asked by Judge Bennouna, Nicaragua first states
that it has no legal obligation to consult or inform Costa Rica about mensures it has
adopted and implemented on the River. 5° Nicaragua ignores the plain text of A1ticle VI
of the Treaty of Limits, 51 which provides that neither country may impose charges on
the other, except when there is agreement by both Governments. Article VI states that
"no charges of any kind, or duties, shall be collected unless when levied by mutual
consent of both Govemments". In this.respect, the imposition of any charges on Costa
Rican navigation on the San Juan requires not only consultation and notification, but an
express agreement between the two States. Costa Rica's position conceming
Nicarugua's regulations bas been alrcaclydealt at length; it is well known to the Comt,
and therefore will not be re-stated here.
43. Although its primaty position is that there is no legal obligation to consult with
or infom1 Costa Rica - either in advance or retrospectively - co~cern mieasures it
implements on the River, Nicaragua daims that it bas "regularly consulted, informed
and engaged in dialogue with Costa Ricaabout the measures Nicaragua bas adopted and
implemented to regulate .navigation on the river", "in the interests of good
52
neighbourliness and as a courtesy to Costa Ricri". Nicaragua cites at length various
documents and produces new evidence to.suppmt its claim of good neighbourliness. 53
lt must be noted at the outset that none of the documents referred to by Nicaragua
expressly or implicitly refer to consultùtion or notification of Nicaraguan regulatory
mensures on the River, nor do they make reference to uny Nicaraguan law, executive or
presidential decrees, by-law or other document passee\ in accordance with Nicaraguan
law whieh t'eferto the implementation or application of any such measures.
44. The first document citee\is the 1991Joint Dcclaration by the Presidents of Costa
4
Rica and Nicaragua. 5 This does not provide for any agreementby the Parties on any of
Nicara&'l.m'smeasures and charges unilaterally imposed on Costa Rica''s mrvigation.
While it bas been in Costa Rkù's interest to keep the dialogue open and find ways to
coopenite with Nicaragua, it is necessary to remind the Comt that for seven yean; Costa
Rica requested that Nicaragua pennit such consultative, inforn1ative and engage_d
dialogue to resolve their c\iffetences, yet Nicaraguu; time and again, rejected thi$ pat'.
Nicaragua' s AnswelüQtiestions t'romJudges Koromn, Keith and Bennouna, page 1O.
CRM Annex 7.
53 Nicaragun's AnswerlüQuestions from Judges Koromn, Keith ancJBennouna, p. 11.
5-1 Ibid. .
Nicaragun's Answerl(Questions from Judges Koromn, Keith and Bennouna, Annex 5.
55 CRM parus. 3.30-3.49.
1045. Nicaragua also cites the Agreement signed on 5 June 1994 by the Ministers of
56
Tourism. Nicaragua claims that
"In relevant patt, it approves the immigration reguirements applied by
Nicurugua57o tourists traveling on Costa Rican tour boats, as weil as other
vesse)s."
lt also daims that:
"Regarding tomists cards, which Nicaragua reguires ali foreign nationals
enteting Nicaragua via de Sun Juan (or otherwise) to purchase, the Ministers
of Tomism agreed to: 'Develop the necessary mechanisms, within the next
thirty days, in arder to be able to provide pre-rcgistered [tourismj companies
with tomism cards, which the latter must pm·chase,fiIl in correctly and hand
over to the relevant autborities ... "'
46. The text of the 1994 Agreement is clear: it establishes that tourist operators will
acquire tourist cards from each country, that is, Costa Rican tourist operators will
purchase those from Costa Rican aüthmities and Nicaraguan tourist ope.ratm'swill do
the same from the Nicaraguan authot'ities; each regulating the vessels of their own
tourist ope.rators. Nicaragua daims that by this Agreement, Costa Rica "accepted and
endorsed Nicaragua's regulations goveming tourists to the San Juan River, including
the requirements that ali tom'Jsts purchasç a tourist c~r dnd undèrgo it'nmigration
59
processing." First, it must be noted that an agreement that Costa Rican tourist
operators purthase tourist cards fro111Cost<tRical1a.uthmities cannat amount to express
or implicit acceptante or endorsement of Nicaragua's regulations relating to tourism.
To the contrary, it recognises the right of each State to regulàte its own boats on the
River. 60 Second, regarding the migration reguirements, Nicaragua does not specify that
any such reguirements were established in the 1994 Agreement between the Ministers
of Tourism: it cannat do so because none were agreecl and norie were enforced at that
time. The migration requirements in dispute were imposed only after 2001. The
imposition o61a visa ot1ly became an issue in 2005, in retaliation for the filing of the
present case.
47. ln support of its claim that Costa Rica "accepted and endorsecl Nicaragua's
regulations goveming tourists to the San Juan River", Nicaragua also refcrs to the Fim11
Minutes of the Binational Costa Rica-Nicaragua meeting of 21 November 1995. 62 The
Minutes state that "Nicaragua presentecl a repmt on comp1iance" with the 1994
Agreement. 63 As Costa Rica has explained, the 1994 Agreement provided only for
Nicaraguan regulation of Nicaraguan tourist boàts and Costa Rican regulation of Costa
Rican tourist boats on the San Juan. A report on Nicaragua's compliance with this
Agreement cannat be taken as express or implicit acceptance or endorsement of
Nicaraguan regulation of Costa Rican toulist boats or tourists.
5o
57 CRM Annex 26.
5~ Nicuragua's Answer tQuesti~ fmom Judges Koroma, Keith and Benm,mnu,p. 11.
Ibid.
59 Nicarugua·s Answer toQuestions l'romJudges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna, p. 12.
f1U See CRRparas. 4.66-4.69.
61 See CRM paras. 5.~8-5.67.
Nicarugua's Answer to Questions from Judgès Koroma, Keith and Bennounu, p. 12.
Nicamgua's Answer to Questions l'romJudges Koroma, keith and Bennouna; Annex 6, page 12
Il48. That the 1994 Agreement provided for each State to regulate tourist navigation
by its own vcssels is reflected in another paragraph of the 1995 Final Minutes which
Nicaragua does not cite. lt states: ·
"The Nicaraguan side made particular emphasis on tourist cooperation and
tour i ~teting: conversion and developmcnt, as weil as the exchange of the
registry of tour opcrators in the border zone. On this last point, it rcquested
the Costa Rican side to send the cmTesponding list. lt also invited to improve
the cxisting infrastructure on the border posts, in orcier to facilitate the transit
of tourists.''M
If the 1994 Agreement had provided for exclusive regulation by Nicaragua of tourism
on the River, one would be surprised to find that Nicaragua was encouraging Costa Rica
in its efforts to facilitate and regulate tourism on the River.
49. Nicaragua argues further that the same Minutes of21 November 1995, evidence
"Costa Rica's acceptance of ... Nicaraguan control posts", which Nicaragua s~ggests
amounts to acceptance of Nicaraguan regulation of Costa Rican navigation. :. The
Minutes make no reference to regulation of Costa Rican navigation. [n the context of
the 1994 Agreement; which provided for each State to regulate navigation by its own
vessels, the.seMinutes do not evidence any acceptance. of the broad rights of regulation
which Nicaragua claims. The relevant section, entitled "Customs Faci1ities". mükes no
reference to navigation at ·ali. ln the quoted paragraph Costa Rieu took notice of
improvements in customs facilities by Nicaragua; in the next paragraph Nicaragua took
notice of Costa Rica's new cm;toms legislation. Each State was merely informing the
other on customs iss.ues: this c)id not umount to consultation or information about
Nicaraguan regulations on the River, nor did it amount to Costa Rican acceptance or
endorsement of any purported regulations.
50. Nicumgua f·urther argues that in the Final Minutes of the 1997 meeting of the
Binational Commission "Costa Rica urged Nicaragua to use at least three control posts
~lon te San Jua? River .... to stop and regis al~veessels navi&,atino~ the river,
mspect them and 1ssue depmture clearance ceit1ficates for them." '6 Th1s 1s not true.
67
Costa Rica has already dealt with this issue in its oral pleadings.lt suffkes to note
that Costa Rica requested Nicaragua to exercise better control of its vessels to combat
dmg traffieking. That is what was ugreed and stüteclin those minutes.
51. That no charges were ever agreeclor consented tb by Costa Rica is supported by
the protest 1etter of Minister Niehaus of March 1994, 68and by a subsequent protest
69
letter by Minister Rojas of May '2001; strongly rejecting, among70ther measurès, the
tourist charges.Nicarugua's response to Minister Rojas in 2001 clid not state that
those charges had been consented to by Costa Rica in the 1994 Agreement or
subsequently -a silenc.e which is telling of the absence of consultation with or consent
on the part of Costa Rica.
Ibid.
Nicaragua' s Ansl(Qliestions from Judges Koroma, Keith alid Bennouna, p. 12.
Ibidp.13.
CR 2009/3, p. 29. para. 22.
CRM paras. 3.16-17.
CRM Anliex 71.
711 CRM Annex 72.
1252. The fact that no regulations were established until 2001 is suppmtcd by
Nicaragua's own production of the Army Action Plan of 5 July 2001. 71 Costa Rica was
not informed or consulted in advance on the application of these measures: the first time
Costa Rica was made aware of the existence of this Army Action Plan was when
Nicaragua filed its Rejoinder.2 Nicaragua makes no reference to the Army Action Plan
in its answers to the Court.
53. Nicaragua misrepresents Costa Rica's protest letterf May 2001, stating that "in
2001 Costa Rica forma liy requested through dWiomatic channels that Nicaragua lower
the fee for depmture clearance inspections ..."3 As can be seen from the text of the
4
letter/ Costa Rica did not request Nicaragua to lower the charge for departure
clearance cettiticates. Costa Rica stated that the charge was altogether illegal and ought
to be withdrawn. The letter made no reference to "depmture clearance inspections", as
75
opposed to cettificates, since no inspections were ever pe1fom1ed.
54. Nicaragua presents a further late affidaVie dealing with issues that could have
and s~oul hdve presented in its Counter Memorial, or at least in its Rejoinder when the
relevant army ofticer in fact gave an aftïdavlt. lt must be noted further that the new
affidavit deals with severa] matters which arc iti·elevant to the questions asked, and
which cannot at this Jate stage have any probative value. Notwithstanding Costa Rica's
position on the production of said affid&vit,the following comments are in order.
55. The.second and further affidavit of General Membrefio attempts to show that the
Nicataguan Army had discussecl with Costa Rican ()fficials the imposition of regulations
on Costa Rican navigation before 1995. Costa Rica denies that any meetings took plac.e
for such a pmpose or with such an agenda. It also denies that it ever agreed- at any
leve! of administration, still Jess at the senior level that wo.uld be expected as concems
the t"enunciation of treaty rights - to regulations interfering with Costa Rica's
navigation, or that these regulations were ever applied at the time. General Membrefio
put·ports to recall meetings with Costa Rican police officers and other officiais, but he
füils to recall their names or ranks, or the.dates of the.meetings, or even the particular
discussions held. Still less does he exhibit documents suppotting the claim that
meetings were he1dat which the so-called regulations were presentecl.by Nicamgua.
56. Thus, General Membrefio's s77tement that he held meetings involving several
institutions from both governments is unsuppor ittmaniests es-rit d'escalier on
a grand scalc. The record shows that any binational meeting was held eithcr at
Presidential or at least Ministerial level. The f~c ttat no documents of any sort,
whether in the form of an invitation, an agenda or follow-up documentation between the
officiais concerned is decisive against this belated claim of consent or consultation.
57. The same can be saicl about the claim that Costa Rica requestecl General
Membreno to reduce the charge for depmture clearance certificates. 78 Again, the record
11
NR Anncx 4.8.
72 Co?ta Rica's Answer to Questions from Judges Koroma, Keith and Bcnnouna, para. 24.
7.1 Nicanl.gua's Answer to Questions frorn Judges Korüma, Keith and Bennouna, p. 13.
74 CRM Annex 71.
15 Sec l'orexample, CRR Annexes 51 52.
7h Nicaragua· s Answer to Questi<>.nsfrom J.udgesKoroma, Keith and Bennçuna, Annex 7.
17 Nicar.:tgua'sAnswer to Questions !TomJudgës Koroma, Keith and Bennouna, Annex 7, point 3.
7~
Ibid, point4.
13shows that when Costa Rica raised issues of this kind, it did so in writing through the
proper channels, and certainly not with a local commander. It is inconceivable that
these issues wcre to be scttled between low-ranking Nicaraguan military officiais and
Costa Rican police officers, whcn they were subject of lively dispute between foreign
ministers! The fact that General Membrefîo docs not even recall the amounts charged
for alleged depmturc clearance certificates at the time, or how much of a reduction was
purporteclly rcquested by the Costa Rican officiais, or the fact that not a single receipt
has bcen produced by Nicaragua showing the existence of the charge in this period,
reinforces the point. As Costa Rica has shown in relation to another late-filed General's
aff1"av1t, t .h1stoo JS entrre y unre m e.
58. To conclude, the evidence Nicaragua has referred to docs not show that it has
"consulted, informed and engagecl in dialogue with Costa Rica" concerning its measures
on the River. Nicaragua denies that it is under any obligation to "consult with Costa
Rica... or to inform Costa Rica in advance" of any measures for the regulation of
navigation on the San .Juan: 80 this is its truc position, and - having regard to its
continued posture in this case- makes it implausible tasuggest that it did what it claims
to have had no obligation to do. In fact it clid not: Costa Rica has never been informecl
<!boutthe application or lawfu] basis of these measures. 81
26 March 2009
79 CR 2009/2, p. 25-26, paras. 9, 10and Il.
Rtl
RI Nicamgua·s Answei"tü Qtiestioils from Judges Koroma, Keith and Benhouna, page 10, para 2.
Costa Rica's Answer thQuestitms from Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna, para. 19.
14 List of Attachments
Attachment A
Alexander Yon Frantzius, La ribera derecha del Rfa San Juan: tilla parte casi
desconoc:ida de Costa Rica (1862) translation from the German by Pablo Biolley
(Aiajueln: Museo Hist6rico Cultural Juan Santarnarfa, 1999), pp. 24, 25, 37, 38, 51, 62
and 67 (extracts)
Also in H. Pittier,Annals of the Physicai-Geograplzical lnstitllte and the Museum of
Costa Rica. Vol l/l. 1890 (San José: 1892), nvailahle at
http://www.archive.or!!/stream/analesdelinstitOOricarroo!!,pp. 110, Ill, 113., 115, 118
and 119
Attachment B
Clotilde Obreg6n, El Rfo Sail Juan en la Lucha de las Potencias (1821-1860), (San
José:Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia, 2001), available at
http://books.!mO!!le.eo.cr/books?id=iACO<iiasV.loC&dq=clotilcle+obre!!on
+smHjuan+l
ucha+potencias&priùtsec=frontcover&soul'ce;::bl&ots=oYjLAGC2WH&si!!=6
4LUoAt8
yMIKmF7yôiFfVTU41js&hl=es&ei=sGvJSclzsiYLCvQX36IXRAw&sa=X&oi=book
result&resnum=l &ct=result#PPA6,M l, p. 142 (extract)
15 Attachment A
Alexander Von Frantzius, "La ribera derecha d.elRio San Juan: una parte casi
desconocida de Costa Rica (1862)" trans\ation from the German by Pablo Biolley
(Alajuela: Museo Hist6rico Cultural Juan Santamarfa, 1999),
pp. 24, 25, 37, 38, 51, 62 and 67 (extracts)
Also inH. Pittier, Annals ofthe Physical-Geographicallnstand the Museum (d'
Costa Rica, Vol III, 1890 (San José: 1892); available at
http://www.archive.oi'g/Stte~ml/anùlesdelinstitOOticagoog,
pp. 110, 111,113, 115,118 and 119 TRANSLATION
Alexander Von Frantzius, "La ribera derecha c.lelRfo San Juan: tUUlparte casi
desconocida de Costa Rica (1862)" translation from the German by Pablo Biolley
(Alajuela: Museo Hist6rico Cultural Juan Santamarfa, 1999),
pp. 24, 25,37, 38, 51,62 and 67 (extracts)
Page 24:
".Before reaching that point, in the right bank of the Sucio River he suw a large bamum
plantation made by savagc lndians"
Page 25:
''The way through the .Barva Volcano presents the advantage that it does not need the
construction of bridges; the Sucio River is navigable in its lower course, and offers a
convenient connection with the San Juan and if it is added that the Tortugero River, as
expected, is ulso navigable, we would have here, provided by nature itself, the easiest and
shortest communication with the Atlttntic:Ocean."
Page 37:
"After having crossed this plain, Pfo reached an elevation where,lie the first huts of the
Guatu$os, who ext.endftom there to the Flio River"
Page38:
"The plain we refer to extends up to the outlet of the Flio River in the San Juan and is
covered with high vir&rinjungle"
Page 51:
"This name was given toit by the Misquito Indians who visi.tthe lagoon during certain
times of the year to catch 'turtles."
Page 62:
"The country is trÇlvetsed in sm<1lldistances through mwigable rivers which, using small
boats, allow an easy and quick communication with the San Juan and, what is most
important, immigrants can get there in an easy and inexpensive way, as well as to any
other pointlocated in the Atlantic coast."
P~tg 6e:
"Certainly the Costa Ricans will see it as such; although forgetting that the Spariiards,
when they took over the country, based their alleged rights over the fact they had found
thenew dis.èoveredlands .in possession of the indians who did tibknow how to ex.traèt
any profit froril it and, according to them, extracting profits constituted a: formai
obligation for the possessor.''(unapaite caSi desco·ocidadeCostaRica)
p r
'
Dr.. ..lexande. '. ' . . Frantzi.. .
(18\~)
TRADUCCI6NDEt AL~~fA NOROTADO
Pabl.!Biol'e\l •••
1 VIA]E DE LUZ BLANCO A LO LARGO DEL RÎO SUCIO EN 1847
y colonizaci6n de las llanuras de Santa Clara
DURANTE LARGO TIEMPO ESTE CAMINO qued6 completamente abandonado,
hasta que enl aiio d1847,Luz Blanco, que habia sido enviado a San Juan del
Norte en comisiôn del Gobierno, prefiri6 pasar pelcamino de la Palma,
descubierto por Joaqu1n Mora, en lugarde tomelcamino del Sarapiquf que
se encontraba a la saz6n en muy mal estado. Aprendi6 de este modo a conocer
las hermosas llanuras de Santa Clara. Lleg6 primera al do Salto, caudaloso y
muy encajonado y de alH,siguiendo la ribera izquiedel rîoSucio por un
camino muy quebrado, al rîoPatria que atr.avesô. Alcanzô después rio
General sin1ado cercay después de haberlo casado, se volvi6 màs al yste
sigui6otra vez, por terreno planodoeSucio hasta su reunion con el rl.oSan
José.Un poco ma s.rribade eslug~ se,de~pre. deltucio muchas brazos
y cuando éstoshan vuelto a reunirse se dirige la corriente hacia el Océane
Atlantico con el nomitre de Rlo Tort11gqero,recibiendotodavia otros
·afl. que natae ~e lavertiente septentrionadel volcân de Turrialba.
Dando su atenci6n siempre a la orilla izquierda del Sucio, Luz Blanco sigu.î6
este rfo hasta su desembocadura elSarapiquL Antes de llegar a este punto
vio, enlaribera derecha del Sucio, un gran platanar porhindîos salvajes.
Llegado al Sarapiqu1, se embarc6 y se fue hasta San Juan del None; pero para
el regreso escogelcamino delSarapiqufde.sçubierto plosalajuelenses.
La,sllanuras dSanta Clara habfahecho tan buena impre.si6n sobrLuz
Blanco, que se reso1vi6 a establecer en ellas una hacienda de ganado. Por eso se
fue, en 1849,al otro lado de la Palma con algunos hombres, todos bien
aprovisionados deo necesario. Sestabled6sohteelRlo Sp.cio,poco antes de
su reuni6n con el San José y comertz6 los trabajos necesarios para la
colonizaci6nalgo mâs abajo. Despuésde haber trabajado algùn tiempo en este
lugar, susones descubrieron, un poc1Tiaal este, ùna familia de indios con
24 Alexander von Frantziu:sla cual pudieron establecer pronto un trafico am1stoso, pues uno de ellos,
vecino de Térraba, comprend1a el idioma de aquellos indios. Estos nudos
arnistosos fueron desgni.ciadamente destruidal cabo de poco tiempo por
culpa de un soldado de los del resguardo establecielSarapiqu1, con que ia
gente de Luz Blanco tenia también relaciones. Este soldado se rob6 una
muchacha india que muri6 mas tarde en San José, después de haber sido
llevadaallpor el culpable que fue castigado.
Luz Blanco habla abandonado la administration de su hacienda a sus
peones, pero tuvo que renunciar a todo trâfico con elias poelcamino del
Rio Salto era tan malo que apenas se podîapasarpor él.Los hizo volver y
desde entonces elganado y la piantaci6quedaron abandonados a si mismos.
Con todo, Luz Blanco habta obtenido unt!tulode posesiônpot un terreno de
importancia en el confluentedel Rio San José y delRio Sucio y tratô de
estàblecerna comunicaci6n nta fâ:ci, aliéndosdel catnino descubietto por
Pfo Murillo. En union de éstesupo ganarse a algunas otras persopara una
co1onizad6n c0mÎ1n en Sant C~lar Par~ como estahan con la idea de llevar a
cabo esteplan, precisamenteen 185,6hizofracasar·le:rrtpreelestallidde .la
guerta cqntra Walk:ey la epidemia dec6leraque la sigui6. Desde entonces no
se ha hecho absolutamente nada para mejorar el camino par elvolcân de
Barva.
Consideradas bajoel punto de vista dela feracidadlas llanuras de Santa
Clara, comprenden basques ricos en arboles dgom~ cedros, caobas yotras
especiesde macleraspredosas. El camino por el volcande Barva prese ln~a
ventaja de que no necesita la constn1cci6n de puentes; el rio Sucio es navegable
en su curso inferior, ofrece una conexi6n cômoda con edo San Juan·y si se
agrega que el no Tortliguero,coma se pretende, es también navegable,
tendrhmos aqu{, propo.rciona.do por h misma naturaleza, la comunicaëi6n
ma :lciy ma sorta_con eOcéano Atl.inriço.
LARTBERDERECHDELRiO SANJUA25 EXPEDICI6N PIO ALVARADO
del Rio San CarlosAl Rio Fria, 1856
EN ESTE MISMO ANO DE 1856 en que la expediciôn de que hemos hablado
bajaba elRio San Carlos por causa de la guen·acontra Walker, P1o Alvarado
recibi6 la misiôn de reconocer por tiena, desde el Muelle, el fuerte de San
Carlos, todav!a ocupado por los filibusteros, P1oAlvarado saliô en diciembre
con 19 compafieros de la boca del do Arenal y sigui6 constahtemente la
direcci6n de la broju·w.22° N. 21
Encontr6 los pnn1eros tres cuartos de legua. completamente llanos y
cubiertos con ·altas selvas, despuésel terreno ofreci6 el aspecta de colinas
onduladas. Camo a tres leguas y media de su punto de partida lleg6a una
llanura grande y hermosa, que se extiende principalmente hacielSur, hasta
el pie de un precioso volèan sobre el cual von Bülow hab1a llamado la
atenci6n en su informe. La llanuraestacubierta con arbustosy hierbas que
ofrecen un buen alimente para el ganado; los arboles no se ehcuentran en
ella sino aisladysdiseminados y por toda.spartes esd. regada por nu:merosas
arroyos. Despuésde haber atravesado esta llanura, Pio lleg6 a un alto donde
se encuentran los primeros ranchos de los indios Guatusos,.que se extienden
desde alli hasta el r(o Frîo. Las casas acababan deab~dona d~estaban
tod'lvla provistas d~lgun pocos utensilios. Encontraronse alH hachas de
piedra, guacales y mechas de fihras de pla.tano, impregnadas con goma
eHstica, que sirven como candelas, ademas de a1gunasmazorcas dema!z y de
cacao, el cual se cultiva frecuentemente alli. En la proximidad de los ranchos
hab1atambiénplantaciones de phl.tanos.No exisdan piedras de moler para la
preparaci6n de las tortillas. Cuando hubo pasado esta ahura, que se extiende
:n Ladeclinaci6ndelaaimantadaerae.ntodeunos8°alestede.lacomarcarecP.B.da.
l.Rl!3ERA.DERDEt..SAN }UAN37por el espacio de casi una legua, Pîo encontr6 del otro lado otra llanur3 de
leguas y media de extension. Allâ también habfa habitaciones de indios
disen1inadas por todas partes. Los numerosos senderos de los indios
presentaban un fen6meno notable, pues cruzaban todos el camino de P1o y
se dirigîan, como radios, hacia un pùnto que debîa estar situado mas al
suroeste cerca del Rio Frîo. También se encontraron alH hoyos muy
habilmente dispuestos para coger animales salvajes. Estaban tan cuidadosa
U1entecubiertos, que los peones cayeron dentro algunas veces. Ademas habîa
en algunos puntos del camino especies de bancas donde los indios descargan
probablemènte los bultos que traen al hombro. Cerca del agua
encontraron.se aparatos destinados la pesca,,hechos de bejucos.
La llanura de que hablan1os, seextie hadt~ la desembocadura del rio
Fr1o en elSan Juan y esta toda cubierta coaltas selvas vîrgenes. CuandPio
hubo llegado bastante cerca de la desetribocadura para poder reconocer
distintamente el fuerte que esd. situado en la r-ibera opudeldo San J1.lan,
sevolvi6 attâs con su gente.
El primer dia se detuvo, como de costumbre, en un rancho abandonado
de los in:dios parel almuerzo; pero camo habîa mandado adelante a 12 de
sus hombres, fue atacado repentinamente por una partida de indios. Como a
la distancia de5 pasos, oy6se un mugido sal:vajeparecido algrito sorde de
congo e inmediatamente cay6 una verdadeni lluvia de flechas. El ataque se
hizo en forma de falange por unos 80 hombres, que pared.an todos j6venes y
que ten:îana su cabeza aun jefeque sedistinguîapor un adorno de plumas.
Los demas no llevabal:ladornos en la cabeza y ten1anlargos cabellos negros.
El color de lapielera amarillento,pero n1âs clatode lo que acostumbramos
encontrar en la generalidad de l'i.Q-dioA.lgunos se habian pintado la rtütad
de la cara con achiote, 1o n:iismo que ciertas partes del cuerpo que estaba
enteramente desnudo, con excepci6n de las caderas.Las flechas tenian como
38 Alexànder von Frant:tius marineras por su ancha desembocaduray los hace penetrar en élen lugarde
seguir el San Carlos aguas arriba) posee también riberas muy bayaen la
estaci6n lluviosa se extiende de tal modo que la comarca parece un lago.
El gran pedazo de terreno que se extiender un lado entrelSarapiqufy
elOcéano Atlantico y por elotro lado entrla cordillera volcaniy elSan
Juan,nos es poco conocido.En la vertiente septentrional del volcBarva
encuéntranse espacios llanos, muy valiososy muy a prop6sito para el
cultiva, locu~t selcosocen con elnombre de llanuras de Santa Clara. Pero
la region situada alnorte del Rio Sucio y del Tortuguerb es todav[a
completamente inexplorada. S6lo se sabe que también se compone de
terrenos bajos y llanos y que alH se encuentran lagos Importantes,
principàlmente en la proximidad del Rfo Colorado. Se tiène algûn
conocimlento de la lagunque estaalsur del Coloradoy en cone~ ionn l;
llevae1nombredeLagunadéZaimân LY no Caimful].Estenombre leha sido
dado por los indics ·mosquitos que visitan la laguna en ciertas épocasdel aiio
para coger tortugasMas al oeste: de esta laguna debe ex.istir otra sobre cuyo
desagüe yextensionno he podido sabe.rnada h4sta qhora.
A lomas conôcese la propia orilla del mar,. aumuye superficialmente.
Toda la costa desde el Cabo Gracias a Di os hasta Boca del Toro esd.
caract,erizadar sus esteros, qu~son producidos ta:rito pot las corrientes
marftimàs tonie J? ~s vierttodé.norestey los riosque vienedel interior
del pa:fy desembocan enel mar.
Concretandonos a la parte que nos interesa, encontramos, desde la
· de5erobocadura delRio Colorado ha~ tNiatina, uno de estos esteros que
forma una especie de canal navegable para las pequeiias embarcaciones y
l.RIJ;lER.i\DDEFJoSAN ]UAN51analogas en otros puntos adecuados, y por cierto la apertura del paso del
Tehuantepec no sera la ultirna tentativa de este género.Pero, entre todos los
demas puntos, el rio San Juan tiene los mayores derechos, porque por élse
ha establecido ya, en otros tiempos, una Hnea de transite y, mientras
subsisti6, tuvo brillante éxito. Ahora puede ser un canal para buques, un
ferrocarril u otro medio de trafico, el llamado a establecer la comunicaci6n
entre los dos océanos -y esperamos que no se dejara esperar mucho
tlempo- siempre queda la lînea de transita que ha de abrirse por el San
Juan, la primera condici6n y la mas esencial para la prosperidad y ensanche
del territorio de Costa Rica situado en este do. En primer lugar Greytown es
un puerto frecuentado; después son ciertamente pocas las regïones que
ofrecen tantas ventajas para los productores como las riberas del San Juan.
Encontramos alH un elima ,sanodonde el colono puede elegir la temperatura
que mejor le convîene, ya en la rn.ismallanura, ya en las diférentesalturas de
34
la vertiente de las montafi.as. El pa!s estâ recorrido a pequefias distancias
por rios navegables que, por medio de pequenos botes, permiten una
comunicaci6n facil y râpida con elSan Juan, y,loque mas importancia tiene,
lo$ emigrantes ·pueden llegar alHde un modo tan facil y barato como a todos
los.demas puntos situados en la costa.del océanoAtl;lntic0. El suelo se presta
para el cultiva de todos los productos de los tr6picos, principalmente del
tahaco, de la ca.fia,del indigo y del cacao. El algod6n se produce también de
calidad excelente y algunos pedazos aislados parecen creados especialmente
para la cria del ganado. Igualmente pueden cultivarse con buen éxito los
productos tropicales que vienen en segunda linea, camo el arrow-root, el
34Estamosmuy de acuerdoconeDr.Prantzùtssobrlagranimportanciaquepresentanlosterrenosla
1.·egiônptentrion}eronoen cuantoalasalttbriddelosmisrnos.o hayqueengaiiaalcolono:el
clitnano esnipuedesersanô en lasregiottsafassiemptepantanosa,.losestablecimiensn 14
vertientedelasrnontafipresent4lagran destfêntaje'eilcontraesmucha distancidelaparte
navegabldelasnos queha deserparmuchatiempoel mejorcaminoparala exportadôn.Apzmtemos
tambiénaqu{qtfCostçtRica no serialafavorecidap.orestecomedeexportaciônsino Greytown,
rn.ientno tenganuestrarepûbli11npuertoen el Atlantima sl norte de Limon, o nohcrya
ton$trûielferrocarrilalnorte,llittnsiadarun valorinmensoalasllanuradelaorilladerecha
delSanjuan.P.B.
62 Alexandervon Fr.antzJ.ussituaciones de causarle dafios, hasta que pasara enteramente a sus manas.
Desgraci.adamente no se pu~; dreveer si Costa Rica sabra oponerse al
peligro sefialado.El parvenir nos dira tan1bién si hay que considerar este
desenlace coma una desgracia para el pais. Ciertamente, e1 costarricense io
mirara camo tai) aunque alvidanda que los espaiioles, cuando se
ensefiorearon del tnismo pais, fundaron S\..lpretendidos derechos sobre el
hecho de gue hab1an encontrado las nuevas tierras descubiertas en posesion
de los indiosque no sabian sacar de ellaninguna util.idady, seglin ellos, esta
315
de sacar urilidad constin.ila una obligaci6n formai para el poseedor.
Js Elpo'r"l)nrhare,-zlirdorstt.Lezsre:c;isdesmasiad:negrselcmtarContodacree qme> s
IJttodaiJt,.odebedeso{eeltodosuilozdeq.Lar. toexactame:tuenlaforrn4comoJopnre.l
D;, Frantzielpeligroexispara todoslopaiseshùtpatxoamet'i.no,tantoporla inerciy
despreocupacdenla raza latîrta,comaporÇt'fliir.r.ci.iy ele..'?,odomla Sitjonaque,
segt((r:thar;ltriunforenestr.lporlaexistw;;o,mismoquelosirz.digèasnclesapa.redoo
't>lle,apar ,ecoit:tt~edo.espaiios.B. AttachmentB
Clotilde Obreg6ri, El RfoSanJuan en la Luch(lde hts Poten.cias(1821-1860), (San
José:Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia,2001), available at
http://books.google.eo.cr/books?id=iACOaiasY loC&clq=clotilcle+obregon+san+juan+l
ucha+potencias&printsec=ftontcovet&source=bl&ots=oYjLAGC2WH&sig=64LUoAt8
yMIKmF7yo1FTYTU4ljs&hl=es&ei=sGvJSdzslYLCyQX36lXRAw&sa=X&oi=book
reflult&reflnuh1=l&ct=result#PPA6;Ml,
p. 142 (extrac:t) TRANSLATION
Clotilde ÜQregoEl Rfo &1Jua.nen la Lucha c(elas Potencias(1821(San0),
José:Editorial Universidad Estatal a Distancia, 2001), p. 142 (extract)
"The frequent relation with the port can be observed through different events: When the
cholera devastated thet in 1849, Costa Rica requested the Governor, Pedro
Shç:pherd,o orcier a fumigation of the mail entel'ing tMoreover, it kept
there agentso clispatch the mail and the merchandise that was consignecl to the
Government and the merchants.
Costa Riqt's first agent was the German Lo~Iesisschor, who hacl the task of
di!ipatching the mafl and the. small parcdie~!!th foa hp s inting House,
m.usicshe.etsand musical instruments, and other articles that wel'es.cntfrom London by
Cm;taRica Cossul (ANCR, RE~.1 a9d 2l,Fand P)Following Beschor;s death, his
son, GeorgePhillips, who founcled the Be.schot-Wieden Company with his own means
of transportation, took over as,agt:nt. After that it was ·another·German, Mr. Geeldes.
Besicles, in the pott nineRicans ot pei'sons.living in Costa comme~·cial
houses, amonK them the German resident in San José Mr. Enrique E11ebroch(BNMO;
Gaceta #214). Besicles, the,govemment kept a inail administrator in the port, who in
0{54 was Mr·.F.Salte (Molitüi, T:I,#126).''CLOTILDE OBREGÔN QUESADA
;
EL RIO SAN JUAN
ENLALU.CHA
DE LAS POTENCIA.
(1821-1 60)
. €DrTUniVERSlBSTATAOt.ST~=tnGIA142 ClotildeObreg6nQue$ada
tantemente a pesar de lo malo del camfna Sarapiqui.pues
era el sitio de llegada de los buques proceddetEuropa y
de losEstados Unidos {Molina.T.l,#l94.
La frecuente relacicon el puerto. se nota en diferentes
sucesos:· Cuando ecôleraasolô el puerto en 1849, Costa Rica
lesollc.al gobe-madorPe.droShepherd que ordenase fumigar
el correque venîa parelpais.Ademâs, mantuvo ert éagerttes
par.a que remitiesen e1 corre.o:·mercadetias que venian
consignadas .agobiemo y a loscome:rciantes.
El primerfl;gentde C·o~ Rtaa lofl.lel alemânAnd,res
Louis Beschor-.. a quien le tocô remcorre~p'Ondenciaylos
pequenos bultoscon ttoque l~rala Casa de la Moneda,
m'üsica escrlte inStrul.l n i.usAicP.lotsp.,objetos·qtJe
enviaba desde Londres COnsul de.Co.sta.mc(ANCRRE,.!c.l9
y21,Fy APla muerte d~Bes.çltorel agente lof.usu hiJo
GeorgePhillips'tquienfutidô la.CompamaBeschor..,Wiedencon
s:upropios medlosde transporteLuego lo.fueotroalemân,t el
f;)enOedde A$,e~âs.eu elpuertotttvferoncasacomerci$d~s
nueve costamcen $~pero11asque vi.Vianen.Costa Rica,
entre elloselalemân. r.adicadoen San José don Bnrtque
Ellebroch(I3NMO~Ga #2:1t}Melllâs. elgobie~ moantuvo
en el.puerto un adtntnistrador .correos,para l854lo era
elsenorF. Salte {Molina.:t:I,#l26).
Asimismo. la actividadcostarrtcense en elpuerto fue
bastante. loi,mportadopor élfuesigp.îficativaunque par~
ellose tuvteraque utU~a brareazas·ha.stel:Sarapiquy cie
ahîen adelanteroulasquen.Gcru;gabanmâs de 250 librascada
una.
Con este método yviatan rudtrnentana seimportaron en
1851 de Inglatettenelvapo:r aclydeponchos de lana.·cfntas
deeeda. manta lavada.za';f}atos·de,bcnre:jery rnno,botas
para hombre y botmes pàta il:J.t.a±:etâ.arga deMâlaga_
pafiuelondtos de punto, felpa de sedy ordinarta, chiUllos,
basenicas"cepiUosde Cliente,epillosparabarba y pararopa~
esencfa y Jahôn de aln.l'endray de rosa y peine..
tas{ANCRJiac.ll714)
Costa Rica's comments on Nicaragua's written response to the questions put to the Parties by Judges Koroma, Keith and Bennouna at the end of the public sitting held on 12 March 2009