DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA
1 have voted in favour of the Order and it is my clear understanding
that itdoes not prejudge the issuesbefore the Court but rather - and in
conformity with Article 41 of the Statute - is intended to preserve the
respective rights of either Party, pending the decision of the Court. Ar-
ticle 41 empowers the Court to indicate, if it considers the circumstances
so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve
the respective rights of either party.
According to the material before the Court, including the oral argu-
ments of the Parties, both sides have acknowledged that an incident
involving the armed forces of the two States took place in the Bakassi
Peninsula on 3 February 1996 and that it caused suffering and occa-
sioned fatalities- of both military and civilian personnel - while caus-
ing others to be wounded or unaccounted for, as well as causing major
material damage.
The Court, having found that it has prima faciejurisdiction, is not in a
position to evaluate the conflictingversions of the incident that was said
to have taken place on 3 February. However, based on the material
before the Court, the possibility of a further military engagement result-
ing in irreparable damage to the rights of either Party, including further
loss of human life, does, in my considered opinion, provide the Court
with sufficient reason to grant the provisional order on its own accord.
It is hoped that thisOrder willdiscourage either Party from taking any
measures which might cause irreparable damage to the millions of each
of the Parties' nationals residing in the other's territory, help to reduce
tensions between the two States and restore the fraternal relations which
have always existed between the two countries, pending the decision of
the Court.
Finally,1wish to stress once again that 1have voted for the Order on
the clear understanding that it does not prejudge the issues before the
Court.
(Signed) Abdul G. KOROMA.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA
1 have voted in favour of the Order and it is my clear understanding
that itdoes not prejudge the issuesbefore the Court but rather - and in
conformity with Article 41 of the Statute - is intended to preserve the
respective rights of either Party, pending the decision of the Court. Ar-
ticle 41 empowers the Court to indicate, if it considers the circumstances
so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve
the respective rights of either party.
According to the material before the Court, including the oral argu-
ments of the Parties, both sides have acknowledged that an incident
involving the armed forces of the two States took place in the Bakassi
Peninsula on 3 February 1996 and that it caused suffering and occa-
sioned fatalities- of both military and civilian personnel - while caus-
ing others to be wounded or unaccounted for, as well as causing major
material damage.
The Court, having found that it has prima faciejurisdiction, is not in a
position to evaluate the conflictingversions of the incident that was said
to have taken place on 3 February. However, based on the material
before the Court, the possibility of a further military engagement result-
ing in irreparable damage to the rights of either Party, including further
loss of human life, does, in my considered opinion, provide the Court
with sufficient reason to grant the provisional order on its own accord.
It is hoped that thisOrder willdiscourage either Party from taking any
measures which might cause irreparable damage to the millions of each
of the Parties' nationals residing in the other's territory, help to reduce
tensions between the two States and restore the fraternal relations which
have always existed between the two countries, pending the decision of
the Court.
Finally,1wish to stress once again that 1have voted for the Order on
the clear understanding that it does not prejudge the issues before the
Court.
(Signed) Abdul G. KOROMA. DÉCLARATION DE M. KOROMA
[Traduction]
J'ai votéen faveur de l'ordonnance mais il est, pour moi, bien entendu
que celle-ci ne préjugepas les questions dont la Cour est saisie mais
qu'ellea pour objet, en conformité avecles dispositions de l'article41 du
Statut, de sauvegarder les droits de chacune des Parties en attendant
l'arrêtdéfinitifde la Cour. L'article1 donne a la Cour lepouvoir d'indi-
quer, si elleestime que les circonstances l'exigent, quellesmesures conser-
vatoires du droit de chacun doivent êtreprises a titre provisoire.
D'aprèsles éléments dont la Cour dispose, y compris les plaidoiries des
Parties, celles-ciont toutes deux reconnu qu'un incident faisant intervenir
les forces armées des deux Etats s'est produit dans la presqu'île de
Bakassi le 3 février1996et que cet incident a causé des souffrances,des
pertes en vies humaines - tant militaires que civile-, des blesséset des
disparus, ainsi que des dommages matérielsimportants.
La Cour, tout en s'étantestimée prima facie compétente, n'estpas en
mesure de se prononcer sur les versions contradictoires de l'incident qui
aurait eu lieu le 3 février.Toutefois,sur la base des élémentsdont la Cour
dispose, j'estime, tout bien pesé,que le risque d'un nouvel engagement
militaire entraînant des dommages irréparablesaux droits de chacune des
Parties, y compris de nouvelles pertes en vies humaines, constitue à lui
seul une raison suffisante pour que la Cour accepte de rendre l'ordon-
nance demandée.
Il faut espérer qu'enattendant la décision de laCour cette ordonnance
dissuadera chacune des Parties de prendre la moindre mesure qui pour-
rait entraîner des dommages irréparables pour les millions de ressortis-
sants de chacune des Parties qui résidentsur le territoire de l'autre Partie,
qu'ellecontribuera àréduire la tensionentre les deux Etats et réta-lirales
relations fraternelles qui ont toujours existéentre les deux pays.
Enfin, je tiens a souligner une fois de plus que j'ai votéen faveur de
l'ordonnance étantbien entendu qu'ellene préjuge pasles questions dont
la Cour est saisie.
(SignéA )bdul G. KOROMA.
Declaration by Judge Koroma