DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE REZEK
[Translation]
Buses of provisional measures - Prima furie merit of the Applicant's
urgument - Sovereign ,equality of Srates and ussertion of jurisdiction bj~the
domestic forum solely on the hasis of the principle qf'univer.su1justice -
Danger in delay - Continuation ofa situation ivhichboth prevents thefull exer-
cise of the Congolese Mi'nister'spublic ofjce and impairs the sovereignty of the
applicant State - Provisional meusure ivhich, ivitlzout causing major prejudice
to the other Pcrrty, ivould put un end to thut situation until the Courr makes
ujnul ruling.
1. Most contemporary systems of law take a fairly uniform view of
provisional measures, notably their bases and effects. Notwithstanding
the silence of the Statute and Rules of the International Court of Justice,
which only lay down procedural rules in this respect, the Court does
enjoy guidance in the matter, and not only that provided by its own
jurisprudence.
2. At this stage, it ilsnot a question of the effects, but rather of the
bases. These are: the bonus furnus juris, the prima facie merit of the
Applicant's argument in support of its claim; and the danger in deluy,
the risks raised by waiting, the danger that, if the Applicant prevails in
the end, its claim ultimately will not be fittingly upheld, because the
Court will have failed to grant it in advance the benefit, even if only
partial, of the measure:s it is seeking.
3. The merit of the request submitted by the Democratic Republic of
the Congo is apparent here. This is the first time that a State has come
before the Court to tell it that a member of its Government is the subject
of an arrest warrant irjsued by judicial authorities of another State and
that the Government of that other State has provided support for the
arrest warrant by circ~ilatingit throughout the international community.
4. Quite apart from the issue of the status of the individual at whom
the warrant is directed and of the question of privileges enjoyed on the
international plane by certain State officials, this is also the first time the
Court finds itself confronted with the problem raised by an act of a local
court purportedly based solely on the principle of universal justice -
without regard to the situs of the offence or to the defence of essential
assets or values of the forum State or to the nationality of agent or vic-
tims - and without the accused being present on the territory of the
forum State. In my view, the argument that this amounts to a violation of
the fundamental rule of sovereign equality of States is valid prima facie.
5. As far as urgency is concerned, 1 believe that the situation described
in the request, i.e., the existence of the arrest warrant issued against amember of the Congolese Government and the assistance being provided
by the Belgian Government in executing the warrant, constitutes a con-
tinuing, permanent restriction on the full exercise of the public office of
the individual in question and causes harm, also continuing and perma-
nent, to the sovereignty of the applicant State.
6. What is the magnitude of the prejudice and therefore the degree of
urgency? This is not a matter of ascertaining whether the continuation in
force of the arrest warrant against the Congolese Minister causes irre-
versible prejudice - death aside, little is irreversibl- but rather deter-
mining whether the indication of a provisional measure would also be
liable to cause prejudice no less serious than that sought to be rernedied
on a provisional basis. Personally, 1do not see any major drawback in
suspending the effects of the arrest warrant issued by an investigating
judge in Brussels, or rather the international dimension which the Belgian
Government has conferred on it, until such time as the Court makes a
final ruling on this legal issue, which is of undeniable importance and
topicality.
7. To that end, 1, unlike the majority, would have upheld the request
for a provisional measure.
(Signed) Francisco REZEK.
OPINION DISSIDENTE DE M. FRANCISCO REZEK
Fondements de la mesure con.servutoire - Bien-findé, à prenziérevue, de lu
thèse du demandeur - Egalitésouverainc des Etut.7et ufirmation de la com-
pétence,par lefor interne, sur la hase du seul principe de lajustice universelle -
Péril enlu demeure - Continuité d'une situution à lu,fois restrictive du plein
exercice de la/i>nction publique du ministre congolais et vexatoire à l'égardde
la souverainetéde 1I'Etutdemandeur - Mc~sureconservatoire qui. sans préjudice
majeur pour l'autre partie. jerait cesser une telle situation ju.squ'Ù cr que la
Cour statue de manière déjnitive.
1. La plupart des systèmes de droit contemporains nous enseignent,
d'une manière assez uniforme, ce qu'est une mesure conservatoire, et
notamment quels en sont les fondements et les effets. Malgréle silence du
Statut et du Règlement de la Cour internationale de Justice qui n'é-
noncent à ce sujet que des règles de procédure, la Cour n'est pas sans
disposer d'une certaine orientation en la matière, qui n'est pas seulement
celle de sa propre jurisprudence.
2. Il est question à ce stade non des effets, mais des fondements. Ils
constituent le bonus fumus juris - le bien-fondé, a première vue, de la
thèse que le demandeur invoque a l'appui de sa prétention; et lepéril en
la derneure - les risques liésau retard, le danger qu'il ne soit finalement
pas fait droit à sa prétention comme ilconvient, au cas où il aurait rai-
son, la Cour ne lui ayant pas accordé par anticipation, ne serait-ce que
partiellement, le bénéficedes mesures qu'il demande.
3. Le bien-fondé de la demande déposéepar la République démocra-
tique du Congo est ici apparent. C'est la première fois qu'un Etat
s'adresse à la Cour pour dire qu'un membre de son gouvernement fait
l'objet d'un mandat d'arrêtdélivrépar une juridiction d'un autre Etat, et
que le gouvernement de ce dernier apporte un soutien à ce mandat d'arrêt
en le faisant parvenir à l'ensemble de la communauté internationale.
4. Indépendamment de la qualité de la personne viséeet tout à fait en
marge de la question des privilèges dont certains agents de I'Etat jouis-
sent sur le plan international, c'est bien la première fois aussi que la Cour
se voit saisie du problème que soulèveun acte de juridiction local censé se
fonder sur le seul principe de la justice universelle - sans avoir égard à la
territorialité de l'infraction, ni à la défensede biens et de valeurs essen-
tiels de 1'Etat du for, ni à la nationalité de l'agent ou à celle des victimes
- et sans que la personne accuséese trouve sur le territoire de 1'Etat du
for. Prirnu fucie, je considère comme valable la thèse qu'il y a là atteinte
à la règlefondamentale de l'égalitésouveraine des Etats.
5. Pour ce qui est de l'urgence, je considère que la situation décrite
dans la demande, c'est-à-dire la validitédu mandat d'arrêtdécernécontre DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE REZEK
[Translation]
Buses of provisional measures - Prima furie merit of the Applicant's
urgument - Sovereign ,equality of Srates and ussertion of jurisdiction bj~the
domestic forum solely on the hasis of the principle qf'univer.su1justice -
Danger in delay - Continuation ofa situation ivhichboth prevents thefull exer-
cise of the Congolese Mi'nister'spublic ofjce and impairs the sovereignty of the
applicant State - Provisional meusure ivhich, ivitlzout causing major prejudice
to the other Pcrrty, ivould put un end to thut situation until the Courr makes
ujnul ruling.
1. Most contemporary systems of law take a fairly uniform view of
provisional measures, notably their bases and effects. Notwithstanding
the silence of the Statute and Rules of the International Court of Justice,
which only lay down procedural rules in this respect, the Court does
enjoy guidance in the matter, and not only that provided by its own
jurisprudence.
2. At this stage, it ilsnot a question of the effects, but rather of the
bases. These are: the bonus furnus juris, the prima facie merit of the
Applicant's argument in support of its claim; and the danger in deluy,
the risks raised by waiting, the danger that, if the Applicant prevails in
the end, its claim ultimately will not be fittingly upheld, because the
Court will have failed to grant it in advance the benefit, even if only
partial, of the measure:s it is seeking.
3. The merit of the request submitted by the Democratic Republic of
the Congo is apparent here. This is the first time that a State has come
before the Court to tell it that a member of its Government is the subject
of an arrest warrant irjsued by judicial authorities of another State and
that the Government of that other State has provided support for the
arrest warrant by circ~ilatingit throughout the international community.
4. Quite apart from the issue of the status of the individual at whom
the warrant is directed and of the question of privileges enjoyed on the
international plane by certain State officials, this is also the first time the
Court finds itself confronted with the problem raised by an act of a local
court purportedly based solely on the principle of universal justice -
without regard to the situs of the offence or to the defence of essential
assets or values of the forum State or to the nationality of agent or vic-
tims - and without the accused being present on the territory of the
forum State. In my view, the argument that this amounts to a violation of
the fundamental rule of sovereign equality of States is valid prima facie.
5. As far as urgency is concerned, 1 believe that the situation described
in the request, i.e., the existence of the arrest warrant issued against aun membre du Gouvernement congolais et l'aide que le Gouvernement
belge apporte a son exécution, constitue une restriction continue et per-
manente au plein exercice de la fonction publique de la personne en
cause, ainsi qu'une atteinte vexatoire, elle aussi continue et permanente,a
la souveraineté de 1'Etat demandeur.
6. Quel est le degré d'importance du préjudice, et donc le degré
d'urgence? Ilne s'agit pas de savoir si le maintien en vigueur du mandat
d'arrêt contrele ministre congolais cause un préjudice irréversible - peu
de choses a part la mort sont irréversibles , mais si le prononcé de la
mesure conservatoire serait de nature iicauser, lui aussi, un préjudicenon
moins grave que celui que l'on voudrait faire cesser à titre provisoire.
Pour ma part, je ne vois aucun inconvénient majeur a suspendre les effets
du mandat d'arrêtdécernépar un juge d'instruction de Bruxelles, ou
plutôt le caractère international que le Gouvernement belge lui a donné,
jusqu'à ce que la Cour statue définitivement sur cette question juridique
dont l'importance et l'actualité sont incontestables.
7. A cet effet, et contrairement a la majorité, j'aurais fait droit a la
demande de mesure conservatoire.
(Signt.) Francisco REZEK.member of the Congolese Government and the assistance being provided
by the Belgian Government in executing the warrant, constitutes a con-
tinuing, permanent restriction on the full exercise of the public office of
the individual in question and causes harm, also continuing and perma-
nent, to the sovereignty of the applicant State.
6. What is the magnitude of the prejudice and therefore the degree of
urgency? This is not a matter of ascertaining whether the continuation in
force of the arrest warrant against the Congolese Minister causes irre-
versible prejudice - death aside, little is irreversibl- but rather deter-
mining whether the indication of a provisional measure would also be
liable to cause prejudice no less serious than that sought to be rernedied
on a provisional basis. Personally, 1do not see any major drawback in
suspending the effects of the arrest warrant issued by an investigating
judge in Brussels, or rather the international dimension which the Belgian
Government has conferred on it, until such time as the Court makes a
final ruling on this legal issue, which is of undeniable importance and
topicality.
7. To that end, 1, unlike the majority, would have upheld the request
for a provisional measure.
(Signed) Francisco REZEK.
Dissenting Opinion by Judge Rezek (translation)