Separate Opinion by Judge Koroma

Document Number
121-20001208-ORD-01-03-EN
Parent Document Number
121-20001208-ORD-01-00-EN
Document File
Bilingual Document File

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Doubts about the Order - Wider rarn~$cationsof dispute in the light of legal
principles and changed circumstance.~ - Application not vvithout merit -
Requirements for indication of provisional measures - Risk of injury - Its
amelioration by change offùnctions - Whether rights of the Democratic Repub-

lic of the Congo iiwe affectrd - Legal issucs to be uddressed if matter gets to
the merits.

1 voted in favour of this Order, not without some doubts and hesita-
tions, because of the wider ramifications surrounding the case itself and
the legal principles involved. The case involves fundamental principles of
law, national and wider community interests and, not least, the circum-

stances which arose since the Court became seised of the Application for
provisional measures.
Given the competing legal principles and the prevailing circumstances,
the request by the Applicant for the indication of provisional measures,
in order to preserve its rights, cannot be judged to be without merit, let

alone "moot", without object or frivolous. There are serious issues which
would require adjudication should the matter reach the merits phase.

Flowing from its Statute and its jurisprudence, the Court will grant a
request for an interim measure of protection if a dispute exists and if the

requirementsof urgency and likelihood of irreparable harm to the parties'
rights or interests are established. In other words, the Court will indicate
provisional measures where a dispute exists between the parties and the
requirements of urgency and irretrievable damage are present and real.

According to the Application, both the existence and execution of the
international warrant - the subject-matter of the dispute - would not
only have an adverse effect on Mr. Yerodia Ndombasi in the perform-
ance of his functions as Foreign Minister, but will also cause irretrievable
damage to his rights. In my view, the risk of that happening could not be
said not to have existed. But that risk notwithstanding, Mr. Ndombasi

ceased to be entrusted with the portfolio of Foreign Minister, as a result
of a Cabinet reshuffle in Kinshasa. This development could not have
been without significance for the Court in determining whether or not to
grant the request for provisional measures as far as Mr. Ndombasi was
concerned. The Court, rightly, in my view, took judicial cognizance of

this development, as it was part of the case of the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo that the existence of the arrest warrant preventedMr. Ndombasi from performing his functions as Foreign Minister, which
in turn ran the risk of having a negative impact on the rights of the-
cratic Republic of the Congo in the conduct of its foreign policy. The
Court concluded that, with Mr. Ndombasi no longer serving as Foreign
Minister, the urgency which had attended his functions as Foreign Min-
ister had become somewhat diminished or reduced. While it is not un-
reasonable to reach this conclusion as far as Mr. Ndombasi is concerned,
1 wonder if this response is adequate as far as the sovereign rights of the

Congo as sovereign State are concerned. 1 also entertain some doubts
regarding the extent of the injury which may have been caused to the
interests of the Democratic Republic of the Congoas a result of the issue
of the warrant and the international responsibility of the Kingdom of
Belgium for this.

Finally, the Order also acknowledges the willingness of the Parties to
act in good faith, in addressing the difficulties caused by thesuance of
the arrest warrant with a view to achieving a resolution of the dispute, if
called upon to do so by the Court. In my view, the Court should have
embodied this plea within the confines ofthe Order. The jurisprudence of
this Court, as well as that of its predecessor, the Permanent Court, has
made exhortatory calls on parties not to take steps capable of prejudicing

the rights claimed or of aggravating the dispute submitted to the Court
(Electricity Company of Sofia und Bulguriu, Judgment, 1939, P. C.1.J.,
Series AIB, No. 79, p. 199).A similar cal1would, in my view, have been
useful and in accordance with the judicial function of the Court.
Against this background, and in view of the importance of the legal
issues involved, the Court's finding that theobject of the claim has not
disappeared, together with its decision to consider the case with the
utmost despatch, is both judicious and appropriate under the circum-
stances.

(Signed) Abdul G. KOROMA.

Bilingual Content

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Doubts about the Order - Wider rarn~$cationsof dispute in the light of legal
principles and changed circumstance.~ - Application not vvithout merit -
Requirements for indication of provisional measures - Risk of injury - Its
amelioration by change offùnctions - Whether rights of the Democratic Repub-

lic of the Congo iiwe affectrd - Legal issucs to be uddressed if matter gets to
the merits.

1 voted in favour of this Order, not without some doubts and hesita-
tions, because of the wider ramifications surrounding the case itself and
the legal principles involved. The case involves fundamental principles of
law, national and wider community interests and, not least, the circum-

stances which arose since the Court became seised of the Application for
provisional measures.
Given the competing legal principles and the prevailing circumstances,
the request by the Applicant for the indication of provisional measures,
in order to preserve its rights, cannot be judged to be without merit, let

alone "moot", without object or frivolous. There are serious issues which
would require adjudication should the matter reach the merits phase.

Flowing from its Statute and its jurisprudence, the Court will grant a
request for an interim measure of protection if a dispute exists and if the

requirementsof urgency and likelihood of irreparable harm to the parties'
rights or interests are established. In other words, the Court will indicate
provisional measures where a dispute exists between the parties and the
requirements of urgency and irretrievable damage are present and real.

According to the Application, both the existence and execution of the
international warrant - the subject-matter of the dispute - would not
only have an adverse effect on Mr. Yerodia Ndombasi in the perform-
ance of his functions as Foreign Minister, but will also cause irretrievable
damage to his rights. In my view, the risk of that happening could not be
said not to have existed. But that risk notwithstanding, Mr. Ndombasi

ceased to be entrusted with the portfolio of Foreign Minister, as a result
of a Cabinet reshuffle in Kinshasa. This development could not have
been without significance for the Court in determining whether or not to
grant the request for provisional measures as far as Mr. Ndombasi was
concerned. The Court, rightly, in my view, took judicial cognizance of

this development, as it was part of the case of the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo that the existence of the arrest warrant prevented OPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. KOROMA

[Traduction]

Doutes suscitéspur l'ordonnance - Prolongements du diiférendeu égardau.u

principes juridique.^et au c'l~ungenzentde circon.stances - Bien:fondé de la
requcte - Conditions au.uquelles doit répondrel'indication de rnesures conser-
vatoires- Risque de p,ïéjudice - Préjudice réduitdufuit d'un changement de
fonctions - Question de sui'oir si des droits de la République démocratiquedu
Congo ont &téK.sé.s - Questioiz.~juridiqut>2 trancher si l'ujfuire est jugée uu
,fond.

J'ai voté en faveur de la présente ordonnance, non sans quelques
doutes et hésitations, tenant aux prolongements de l'affaire elle-même et
aux principes juridiqiies en jeu. L'affaire implique des priticipes fonda-
mentaux du droit, des.intérêtsd'ordre national et de plus vaste portée, à
quoi s'ajoutent les circonstances nouvelles, survenues après que la Cour

eut étésaisie de la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires.
Compte tenu des principes juridiques qui s'opposent et des circons-
tances actuelles, la demande en indication de mesure conservatoire sou-
mise par la Partie requérante pour préserver ses droits ne peut êtrejugée

comme étant sans fondement, et moins encore sans portée ou sans objet,
voire comme futile. Des questions graves sont en jeu, qui devraient être
tranchées au cas où l'affaire serait examinée au fond.

Conformément à son Statut et a sa jurisprudence, la Cour fait droit a
une demande en indication de mesure conservatoire s'il existe un diffé-
rend et s'ilest établiqu'il y a urgence et qu'il s'avèreprobable qu'un pré-
judice irréparable en résultera pour les droits ou les intérêts des parties.
En d'autres termes, la Cour indique des mesures conservatoires lorsqu'un

différendoppose les parties et que l'urgence et le risque de préjudiceirré-
versible existent de fac;on bien réelle.
Selon la requête,tant l'existence du mandat d'arrêt international que
son exécution - objei.du différend - auraient non seulement pour effet

d'entraver l'exercice par M. Yerodia Ndombasi de ses fonctions de mi-
nistre des affaires étrangèresmais encore porteraient un préjudiceirrépa-
rable a ses droits. A mon avis, on ne saurait prétendre que ce risque
n'existait pas. Mais, ~ndépendamment du risque en question, le porte-

feuille de ministre des affaires étrangères a cessé d'être confié à
M. Ndombasi à la suite d'un remaniement ministériel a Kinshasa. Cette
donnéene pouvait manquer d'êtreprise en compte par la Cour pour déci-
der s'il y avait lieu oui non de faire droit à la demande en indication de

mesure conservatoire en ce qui concernait M. Ndombasi. La Cour, à
mon avis a juste titre, a constaté ce fait, lequel s'inscrivait dans I'argu-
mentation défendue par la République démocratique du Congo, selonMr. Ndombasi from performing his functions as Foreign Minister, which
in turn ran the risk of having a negative impact on the rights of the-
cratic Republic of the Congo in the conduct of its foreign policy. The
Court concluded that, with Mr. Ndombasi no longer serving as Foreign
Minister, the urgency which had attended his functions as Foreign Min-
ister had become somewhat diminished or reduced. While it is not un-
reasonable to reach this conclusion as far as Mr. Ndombasi is concerned,
1 wonder if this response is adequate as far as the sovereign rights of the

Congo as sovereign State are concerned. 1 also entertain some doubts
regarding the extent of the injury which may have been caused to the
interests of the Democratic Republic of the Congoas a result of the issue
of the warrant and the international responsibility of the Kingdom of
Belgium for this.

Finally, the Order also acknowledges the willingness of the Parties to
act in good faith, in addressing the difficulties caused by thesuance of
the arrest warrant with a view to achieving a resolution of the dispute, if
called upon to do so by the Court. In my view, the Court should have
embodied this plea within the confines ofthe Order. The jurisprudence of
this Court, as well as that of its predecessor, the Permanent Court, has
made exhortatory calls on parties not to take steps capable of prejudicing

the rights claimed or of aggravating the dispute submitted to the Court
(Electricity Company of Sofia und Bulguriu, Judgment, 1939, P. C.1.J.,
Series AIB, No. 79, p. 199).A similar cal1would, in my view, have been
useful and in accordance with the judicial function of the Court.
Against this background, and in view of the importance of the legal
issues involved, the Court's finding that theobject of the claim has not
disappeared, together with its decision to consider the case with the
utmost despatch, is both judicious and appropriate under the circum-
stances.

(Signed) Abdul G. KOROMA. MANDAT D'ARRET (OP. IND. KOROMA) 210

laquelle l'existence du mandat d'arrêtempêchait M. Ndombasi d'exercer
ses fonctions de ministre des affaires étrangères, ce qui, partant, risquait
de compromettre les droits de la République démocratique du Congo
dans la conduite de sa politique étrangère. La Cour a conclu que,
M. Ndombasi n'occupant plus le poste de ministre des affaires étrangères,
l'urgence invoquéeau titre de ses fonctions en tant que tel s'était trouvée
quelque peu atténuée ou amoindrie. Certes, iln'est pas déraisonnable de

parvenir à cette concl~isionen ce qui concerneM. Ndombasi, mais je me
demande si la réponse est appropriée s'agissant des droits souverains
dont le Congo est irivesti en tant qu'Etat souverain. Je nourris par
ailleurs quelques doutes quant à l'ampleur du préjudicequi aurait pu être
causéaux intérêtsde la République démocratique du Congo par I'émis-
sion de ce mandat d'arrêtet aussi quant a la responsabilité internationale

du Royaume de Belgique a ce titre.
Enfin, l'ordonnance reconnaît par ailleurs la volonté des Parties d'exa-
miner de bonne foi les difficultés causéespar la délivrance du mandat
d'arrêt, envue de parvenir à un règlement du différend, si la Cour les y
engageait. A mon avis, la Cour aurait dû faire une demande en ce sens
dans le cadre de la présente ordonnance. On trouve dans sa jurispru-
dence, ainsi que dans celle de sa devancière, la Cour permanente, des

appels exhortant les parties a ne prendre aucune mesure susceptible de
préjuger des droits réclamésou d'aggraver le différend soumis à la Cour
(Compagnie d'électricitéde Sojïa et de Bulgarie, ordonnance, 1939,
C.P. J.1.sérieAIB no 79, p. 199).Je crois qu'un appel en ce sens aurait été
utile et conforme aux attributions judiciaires de la Cour.
Cela étant et compte tenu de l'importance des questions juridiques en
jeu, la conclusion de la Cour selon laquelle l'objet de la requêten'a pas

disparu, tout autant que sa décision d'examiner l'affairedans les plus
brefs délaissont à la foisjudicieuses et appropriées dans les circonstances
présentes.

(Signé) Abdul G. KOROMA.

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Separate Opinion by Judge Koroma

Links