INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
TERRITORIAL AND MARITIME DISPUTE
(NICARAGUA v. COLOMBIA)
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA
ANNEXES
VOLillvOE II
26 JANUARY 2004
------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOOKS
ANNEX 1 Repùblica de Colombia, Historia de las Leyes.
VoL XI, 1928, Legislature. Edition ordered by the
Chamber of Representatives and edited by its
Secretary Fernando Restrepo Briceiio, Bogota,
Imprenta Nacional, 1930~ pp. 523-525, 530, 531,
534........................................................ 3
ANNEX 2 Montiel Argüello, Alejandro. Dialogos con el
Canciller. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores.
Imprenta Nacional. Managua, pp. 14-16................ 7
COLOMBIAN NEWSPAPERS
ANNEX3 El Nuevo Siglo, Sincelejo, 7 September 1995 ...... · 11
ANNEX4 El Tiempo, Bogota, 10 Septernber 1995 ................ 13
ANNEXS El Espectador, Bogota, 15 March 1996 .................. 15
ANNEX6 El Espectador, Bogotâ, 1 0 Octo ber 2 00 l ................ 17
ANNEX7 El Tiempo, Bogotâ, 16 December 2001.. ............... 19
ANNEXS El Tiempo, Bogotâ, 24 April2003 ......................... 21
ANNEX9 El Tiempo, Bogota, 25 April2003 ......................... 23
ANNEXlO El Tiempo, Bogotâ, 13 June 2003 .......................... 25
NICARAGUAN NEWSPAPERS
ANNEX ll La Prensa, Managua, 15 June 1969....................... 29
ANNEX 12 Novedades, Managua, 18 March 1977.............. 31
ANNEX 13 El Nuevo Diario, Managua, 24 December 1999.... 33
ANNEX 14 La Prensa, Managua, 24 April2001...................... 35
ANNEX 15 El Nuevo Diario, Managua, 9 October 2001......... 37
ANNEX 16 La Prensa, Managua, 30 November 2001.............. 39
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE NINTH INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES
ANNEX17 Minutes of the Seventh Plenary Session. Ninth
International Conference of American States.
March 30-May 2, 1948. pp. 231-233 ................. 43
ANNEX18 Documents Corresponding to the Third
Commission. Ninth International Conference of
American States. March 30 - May 2, 1948. pp. 6,
69, 79-80, 134-136, 187, 204 .......................... 45
ANNEX19 Ninth International Conference of American
States. Annals of the Organization of American
States. Washington, D.C. Dept. of Public
Information, Pan American Union, 1949-1958.
Vol. I No. 2. 1949. pp. 44,47-48, 50 ................. 53
AFFIDAVITS
ANNEX20 Affidavit ofMr. Alejandro Montiel Argüello ....... 57
ANNEX21 Affidavit of Mr. Ernesto Leal Sanchez .............. 59
ANNEX22 Affidavit of Mr. Francisco Aguirre Sac asa .......... 63
ANNEX23 Affidavit ofMr. Norman Caldera CardenaJ ......... 65
11
OTHER DOCUMENTS
ANNEX 24 Records ofthe Sessions ofthe Chamber of the
Senate ofNicaragua ................... ·········:········ 69
Annex 24 a Records of the XLV/Il Session of the Chamber of the
Senate. 4March 1930 ................ ; .................... 69
Annex24 b Records of the XLIX Session of the Chamber of the
Senate. 5 March 1930 ... .................. : ................ 70
ANNEX25 Records of the LVIII Session of the Cham ber of
Deputies ofNicaragua. land 3 Aprill930 ............ 73
ANNEX26 Final Record ofProceedings ofthe IV Binational
Meeting Nicaragua-Costa Rica. Granada,
Nicaragua, 12 and 13 May 1997 ............................ 81
ANNEX27 Exchange of Notes between the Governrnent of
Costa Rica and the Government of Co lombia. 29
May 2000 ................................................ 83
ANNEX28 Agreement concluded between Costa Rica and
Nicaragua on 26 Septernber 2002 ..................... 87
Ill
ANN.EXES TO THE
WRITTEN ST A TE MENT OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA
BOOKS
Aonex 1
REPÛBLICA DE COLOM RIA, HISTORIA DE LAS LEVES, VOL. Xl,
1928, LEGISLATURE. EDlTlON ORDERED DY THE CHAM BER OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND EDITED BY ITS SECRETARY FERNANDO
RESTREPO BRICENO, BOGOTA, IMPRENTA NACIONAL, 1930. PP.
523-525,530,531,534 (EXCERPTS)
(Republica de Colombia, Hisloria de las Leyes, Tomo. Xl, Legislatura de 1928, Edici6n
ordenada por la Câmara de Representantes y dirigida por el Secretario de ella Fernando
Restrepo Briceno, Bogotâ, lmprenta Nacional, 1930. pp. 523-525, 530, 531, 534)
LAW 93 OF 1928
(17 NOVEMBER)
That approves a treaty concerning territorial issues between
Colombia and Nicaragua
BACKGROUND
pp. 523-524
PREAMBLE
Honourable Senators,
I have the honour of submitting to your consideration, a Treaty that
Colombia and Nicaragua concluded on 24 March during the current year,
in the ir desire of putting an end to the territorial dispute pending between
them.
( ... )
This arrangement defïnitively consolidates the status of the Republic in
the Archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia, erasing any pretensions
to the contrary, and recognizes our country' s perpetuai sovereignty and
right to full domain of that important section of the Republic. In
exchange, Nicaraguan sovereignty in the Mosquitia (that the Treaty
Herran-Calvo had recognized as part of Central America), and the
Mangles Islands where a de facto situation made it very difficult to
accept the rights that the Republic alleged, is recognised.
And this arrangement was so necessary and opportune, that Nicaragua's
pretension over our Archipelago reached the point of obstruct an
administrative action, as it happened that not long ago, a Colombian
3
employee escaped with funds belonging to the Intendancy and he found
refuge in Nicaragua. That country did not grant the extradition alleging
that the crime was committed in Nicaraguan terri tory, because they
consider the Archipelago as such.
( ... )
Ali of the se reasons bring me to expect that the agreement that I present,
the study of which I especially recomrnend, will deserve approval from
the Congress of Colom hia.
Honourable Senators,
Carlos Uribe
Bogotâ, September 18, 1928
( ... )
p.525
( ... )
Unanimously it was approved by vote during the first debate in the
September 19 session. The Commission on Foreign Affairs gave a report
in these terms:
( ... )
p.530
( ... )
IV
( ... )
This Pact consolidates in perpetuity our sovereign dominion over the
Archipelago forever; through a direct arrangement, inspired by principles
of American fratemity and solidarity, puts an end to a prolonged and
annoying dispute it avoids severe difficulties in the future over ether
matters, and it is also based on reasons and purposes that moved the
members of the lnter-Parliamentary Board to authorize the conclusion of
said arrangement, reasons and purposes that we have the honour of
verbally and extensively exposing.
( ... )
4
1 ~
')
.. ,•
. \ '
p.531
( ... )
The Chamber, to which it was submitted in its original fonn, approved it
during the first debate on the 2ih. The following is the report by the
Foreign Affairs Commission:
Honourable Representatives,
We received by commission a law project for study "that approves a
Treaty conceming territorial issues between Colombia and Nicaragua"
from the Honourable Senate, and to comply with our commission, we
have the honour of submitting to you the following considerations:
By means of this Treaty the Government of the Republic has wished to
bring to a friendly conclusion the old dispute between the High
Contracting Parties re garding the sovereignty of the Mosquito Coast and
the Mangles Islands, as well as the Nicaraguan pretensions over the
Archipelago of San Andrés and Providence.
The titles which in Colombia have upheld her rights of sovereignty, bath
over the Mosquitia Coast as weil as the Mangles Islands, and ali the
others that include the San Andrés and Providencia Archipelago, have
been fully justified with reliable documents dating back to the first years
ofthe Colony ...
( ... )
p.534
LAW 93 OF 1928
( 17 NOVEMBER)
That approves a treaty conceming territorial issues between
Colombia and Nicaragua.
The Congress of Co lombia,
Having considered the treaty, in the ir desire of putting an end to the
territorial dispute pending between them and to strengthen the bonds of
· traditional friendship that unite them, the representatives signed,
accordingly and with due authority of Co lombia and Nicaragua at the city
of Managua the 24 of March of the year nineteen hundred and twenty
eight and which says exactly:
( ... )
5
Annex2
MONTIEL ARGÜELLO, ALEJANDRO. DIALOGOS CON EL
CANCJLLER. MINISTERIO DE RELACIONES EXTERIORES.
IMPRENTA NACIONAL. MANAGUA, PP 14-16 (EXCERPT)
p. 14
THE DECREE DA TED 5 APRIL 1965,
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FISHING ZONE
(EL DECRETO DEL 5 DE ABRIL DE 1965,
ESTABLECIMIENTO DE UNA ZONA PESQUERA)
( ... )
( ... )
... With regards to the Barcenas Meneses-Esguerra Treaty, this Ministry
of Foreign Affairs submitted it for study, both from the historical point of
view, as weil as the judicial and geographical aspects. 1 canilot say in
advances what the results of that study will be, as my opinion is that on
international affairs that affect the nation's sovereignty, no anticipated
conclusions should be formulated because in many cases lead to a !ost
litigation. Ail Nicaraguans who have knowledge of the subjèct, can
collaborate with this study, or provide data and arguments. Besides, as
you wiJI understand, Mr. Journalist, any opinion that 1 may give as
Minister of Foreign Affairs, will compromise Nicaragua's position; yet, a
private individual can express any opinion without causing any damage.
Managua, D.N., 30 January 1977
7
-- - - -- - - - ---,-----
COLOMBIAN NEWSPAPERS
1
Annex 3
EL NUEVO SIGLO, SINCELEJO, SUCRE, 7 SEPTEMBER 1995
(EXCERPT)
ATTENTION MR. PRESIDENT, ATTENTION
By Rafael Nieto Navia
(ATENCJON SENOR PRESIDENTE, ATENCION)
During the 'thirties, the Permanent Court of Justice, which was
something like the mother of the current International Court of Justice,
issued a sentence called "The Case of Eastern Greenland". The matter
regarded that Denmark and Norway bad a dispute over a portion of the
territory belonging to Eastern· Greenland. Mr. Ilhen, the Norwegian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, said one day - watch out, he said, he did not
write it, but only said that Norway, his country, bad no daims over that
zone. Sorne time afterwards, Norway sent troops to Greenland and the
conflict began, which was settled by the Court. It stated that the "verbal
declarations" by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs were the
official position ofthat country, and therefore, consequently, Norway bad
wavered ber eventual rights, if she had them over Eastern Greenland.
The llhen's Declaration is famous in international matters because, ever
since then, everyone knows that what the Foreign Affairs Ministers say,and
with even more reason, what the Presidents say,- compromises their
countries.
Mr. President should know that because he beard it during his classes on
J ntemational Law in the Xavieran Law Faculty.
I beard the President say in the television (of course, the irrefutable proof
exists that it was so), that the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Colombia
and Nicaragua will have to me et to talk 'about the nature of Meridian 82'
west of Greenwich, indicated by the Esguerra-Barcenas Treaty as a
boundary of the Archipelago of San Andrés.
The Treaty in question says that the Archipelago "will not extend to the
west of Meridian 82". Ever since Nicaraguans resolved to invent the
nullity of the Esguerra-Barcenas Treaty, they have been upholding that
the meridian is not a boundary between the two countries. The purpose of
this affirmation is to force Colombia into a negotiation over marine and
submarine areas, the purpose of which is to extend the Nicaraguan areas
11
beyond Meridian 82. And, if this is accepted, taking into consideration
that the Treaty says that the Archipelago will not extend to 'the west', it
is obvious that if it is negotiated, it is to discuss to the east, that is, the
zone that has been traditionally Colombian.
What did the President mean with the 'nature' of the meridian? Weil, he
is referring, as it is obvious, to whether the meridian is or is not a limit.
He is doubting that characteristic. He is giving an opportunity for the
Nicaraguan maritime and sub-maritime areas, to go east of the meridian,
in what they flarningly announced a few days ago, - when presenting the
official map of Colombia - as Colombian territory. Attention, Mr.
President, what you are saying represents the official position of
Colombia. Tomorrow, Nicaragua will put out these declarations before
the International Court.
( ... )
12
Annex 4
~. ';· '
EL TIEMPO, BOGOTA, 10 SEPTEMBER 1995 (EXCERPTS)
INVITED EDITOR
TOWARD A GOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD
By Rodrigo Pardo, Minister of Foreign Affairs
(Columnista invitado.-HACIA UNA BUENA VECTNDAD)
( ... )
What is it about? lt is about initiating an ample dialogue over ali the
subjects that are obviously pending or require mutual work: on the issues
that are not defined or settled by the agreements in force, among them,
the Esguerra-Barcenas Treaty. For two bordering countries, such a
dialogue is simply essential.
( ... )
Throughout this period, Colombia and Nicaragua have not managed to
overcome this periodic epistolary polemic to analyse in a cordial and
constructive conversation, the arguments of the parties about the
character of the Meridian 82. The conversations that the Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of both countries will soon begin, based on a Presidential
mandate, will consequently include this important subject. And it must be
clearly stated that said dialogue does not imply a modification of the
position Colom hia has upheld to this respect.
( ... )
From the point of view of the national interests and the cooperation
between bath countries, to clear-out any doubt on the nature of Meridian
82°, will contribute to clear-out the scenery.
( ... )
The meeting between Presidents Samper and Chamorro, and the
guidelines set by them, will allow to clarify misunderstandings that in a
growing manner were leading the two countries, called to live in peace,
to have a bad flavour in their relations. And it will allow us to progress
toward the construction of good neighbourhood relations, inspired on
friendship and constructive work over diverse issues on our agenda.
13
Annex 5
EL ESPECTADOR, BOGOTA, 15 MARCH .1996 {EXCERPT)
COSTA RICA STOPS THE MARITIME TREATY
(COSTA RICA FRENA EL TRATADO MARITfMO)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Fernando Naranjo,
asserted yesterday that the Congress of his country would not ratifY the
maritime delimitation treaty signed with Colombia in 1977, until that
country has resolved the differences it has in the area with Nicaragua. ·
"We consider that the dispute that exists between Colombia and·
Nicaragua should be clarified first, so that once it is settled, we can ratifY
what we have negotiated with Colombia in maritime matters", the
Foreign Minister stated, adding that what our country agrees with the
government of Managua can affect Costa Rica.
( ... )
15
Annex6
EL ESPECT ADOR, BOGOT Â, 10 ÜCTOBER 2001 (EXCERPT)
(Internet version)
NICARAGUA WILL FILE AN APP.LICATION AGAINST
COLOMBIA WITH THE COURT IN THE HAGUE
(NICARAGUA DEMANDA RA A COLOMB lA ANTE LA CORTE DE LA HA Y A)
The President of Nicaragua, Arnoldo Aleman, announced yesterday that
prior to 10 January, when he must hand over power, an application
against Colombia will be filed with the International Court of Justice in
The Hague, over a boundary treaty signed with Honduras that would
affect Nicaragua.
Before handing over the Government in January 2002 "we are going to
file the case against Colombia in order to guarantee the continuation of
these proceedings" through which Nicaragua denies the validity of the
Ramfrez-L6pez Treaty, signed between Honduras and Colombia, Aleman
sa id.
The President assured that in the general budget for the year 2002 he will
request from Parliament, the approval of one million dollars to carry out
the daim against Colombia.
( ... )
17
Annex 7
EL TIEM PO, BOGOT A, 16 DECEMBER 2001 (EXCERPTS)
Litigation 1 Julio Londoil.o says it is absurd to insinuate lhat the Government
infiltrated Nicaragua
THE DEFENCE DEVISED BY COLOM.BIA
(Pleito/ Julio Londoîl.o dice que es absurdo insinuar que el Gobiemo infiltr6 a Nicaragua
LA DEFENSA QUE TRAZO COLOMBIA)
( ... )
ln Nicaragua nobody seerns willing to believe that it was a simple
coïncidence. In that country they are stiJl surprised that Colombia has
withdrawn the declaration through which she accepted the jurisdiction of
the International Court of The Hague, just one day before Nicaragua fi led
ber application to clairn sovereignty over San Andrés and Providencia.
( ... )
The Colombian explanation is only one: it was a coïncidence. The
Ambassador in Cuba, Julio Londofio, charged with coordinating the
group that will defend Colombia before the Court, silid that the
withdrawal of the declaration that came about on 5 December was made
without knowing exactly the date in which Nicaragua would file the case.
What was known was that it would be fïled at sorne moment, since they
had been announcing it for the past two years."
( ... )
19
Annex 8
EL TIEMPO, BOGOTA, 24 APRlL 2003 (EXCERPTS)
(Internet version)
"THE NA VY WILL STOP NICARAGUA FROM OIL
.EXPLORATION IN COLOMBIAN WATERS," SAID PRESIDENT
ALVARO URIBE
("ARMADA IMPEDIRA QUE NICARAGUA EXPLORE EN AGUAS
COLOMBfANAS", DJJO EL PRESIDENTE ALVARO URIBE)
Despite the warning, the President made clear that he does not wish to get
to that point.
"If the exploration (of oil) begins we would proceed to stop it with the
Navy, of course we would", said Uribe during an interview from Bogota
with an international network of radio stations led by Colombian Caraco!.
(. .. )
The Navy watches already
Colombian Minister of Defence Martha Lucia Ramirez indicated last
Saturday that the Colombia Naval Force patrols the zone in the Caribbean
Sea where Managua intends to explore and exploit oil.
"We have the Navy exerting full soverdgnty over the seas of Colombia
and over a place of such importance as the Caribbean archipelago of San
Andrés and Providence (claimed by Managua)," the Minister told
joumalists.
( ... )
With AFP and AP
21
,---------------------------------------- -----~-
Annex 9
EL TIEMPO, BOGOT A, 25 APRIL 2003 (EXCERPTS)
(Internet version)
Nicaragua/Uribe does not discard the use of force to defend the sovereignty
THE OI.L EXPLORATION WOULD BE IN NICARAGUAN
WATERS)
(Nicaragua 1 Uri be no descarta la fuerza para detènder soberanfa.· EXPLORACION SERIA
EN AGU AS DE NICARAGUA)
( ... )
The Navy is Ready
Vice-Admirai David Rene Moreno, Inspector General of the Navy
assured that there is a security mechanism in the area of San Andrés and
Providencia that permits the country to bar the illegal use of our
jurisdictional maritime waters.
( ... )
The officer added that the Specifie Command of San Andrés and
Providencia, naval units, navy infantry troops and a eomponent of the Air
Foree guarantee the security of San Andrés.
El Tiempo stated that the Navy patrols San Andrés with a reconnaissance
plane, several patrol boats, two frigates and about 600 troops from the
Marine Corps.
The Navy plans the construction of a coast guard station and a radar for
San Andrés in order to increment the operations.
( ... )
23
Annex 10
EL TIEMPO, BOGOTÂ, 13 JUNE 2003 (EXCERPT)
(Internet version)
Border/facing Nicaraguan and drug traffic threats.
SAN ANDRÉS WILL HAVE A COASTGUARD STATION)
(Frontera/Frente a Amenazas de Nicaragua y Narcotrafico.· SAN ANDRÉS TENDRA
ESTACION GUARDACOSTAS)
The national Govemment will be revtvmg the project to build a
coastguard station in San Andrés, halted several months ago due to
disagreements, which have arisen amongst certain sectors of the island.
The construction will begin next year, according to the announcement by
the Minister of Defence, Marta Lucia Ramirez, on ber recent visit to the
archipelago during which she accompanied president Alvaro Uribe and
the military leaders.
"This objective is a priority of the Ministry of Defence for the coming
year. It is a plan in which we expect to work together with the Authorities
of San Andrés and the local leaders because the coast guard station has an
strategie importance for exerting maritime sovereignty", said Rarnirez
( ... )
25
NICARAGUAN NEWSPAPERS
Annex 11
LA PRENSA, MANAGUA, 15 JUNE 1969 (EXCERPT)
2 COLOM.BIAN DESTROYERS SENT TO THE CAYS
(2 DESTROYERS COLOMBIANOS, A LOS CAYOS)
Bogota, 14 June. Colombia announced today that she will defend ber
sovereignty over the Roncador, Quitasuefi.o and Serrana Cays, the
property ofwhich Nicaragua daims.
The ministry of Foreign Affairs' Director of International Politics
Antonio Bayona declared: "Colombia intends to establish her sovereignty
in said Cays. That is the firm belief'
Meanwhile, the National Navy bas ordered that two destroyers "El
Almirante Toiïo" and "El Almirante Brion", should permanently patrol
the maritime area in dispute in order to enforce respect for the
sovereignty over the cays", declared the commandant of the Naval
Station on the island of San Andrés, captain Carlos Duque.
( ... )
29
Annex 12
NOVEDADES, MANAGUA, 18 MARCH 1977 (EXCERPTS)
LOPEZ MICHELSEN PLANS A VISIT TO NICARAGUA, BUT
HE DENOUNCED INFLUENCES OVER "RONCADOR" AND
"QUIT ASUENO" CA YS
(L6PEZ MICHELSEN PROYECTA VENIR A NICARAGUA, PERO DENUNCIA
INFLUENCIAS SOBRE CA VOS "RONCADOR" Y "QUITASUENOS")
San José, Costa Rica, 18, (ACAN-EFE). - The Colom bian President,
Alfonso L6pez Michelsen mentioned today the possibility of briefly
travelling to Nicaragua, once a maritime boundaries trèaty is established.
But at the same time, the Colombian Head of State denounced the
existence of "influences" so that the United States does not endorse the
treaty subscribed with his country over the sovereignty in the "Roncador" ·
and "Quitasuefio" Cays, and over which Nicaragua also alleges supposed
sovereignty.
Upon inaugurating in San Jose today the National Arts and Crafts Fair,
the visiting Head of State announced that Colornbia would hold a series
of conversations with neighbouring countries as well as with others that
although they are not neighbours, are within the 200-mile limit, in order
to reach satisfactory and friendly agreements.
"We aspire to reach agreements by direct negotiation on delimitations not
only with Nicaragua but also with Venezuela which is more difficult,
because of the shape of the Gulf of Venezuela and the "Monjes" Islands",
affirmed the Head of State.
( ... )
The Colombian President regretted that the treaty with the United States,
that his country sign and in which the latter nation recognized the
sovereign rights of Co lombia over sorne Ca ys, was not ratified. ·
"The United States bas not ratified it - sovereignty over Roncador and
Quitasuefio Cays, that are generally covered by the water -, because there
are influences so they do not do it."
Nonetheless, the Colombian President abstained himself from informing
where those influences come from.
31
-- --·-------------------------------------------'
Annex 13
EL NUEVO DIARIO, MANAGUA, 24 DECEMBER 1999 (EXCERPT)
(Internet version)
A leman: "we wi 11 ins ist upon the judgement of the Central American Court of Justice".
COLOMBIA WILL ALSO BE SUEDIN THE HAGUE)
(Aleman: "lnsistiremos en fallo de Corte Centroamericana".
COLOMBIA T AMBIÉN SERA DEMANDADA EN LA HA Y A)
President Alemim said yesterday that a case will be brought against
Colombia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, even
though before doing so Nicaragua must wait for the Central American
Court of Justice (CCJ) to pronounce a judgement rejecting the RamîrezL6pez
Treaty.
( ... )
33
Annex 14
LA PRENSA, MANAGUA, 24 APRIL 2001 {EXCE~PT)
NICARAGUA WILL SUE COLOMBIA
(NICARAGUA DEMANDARA A COLOMBIA)
( ... )
President Arnoldo Aleman said yesterday morning that Colombia will
also be sued before the International Court of Justice in The Hague,
because of the treaty she signed with Honduras in which it clipped on
part ofNicaragua's marine waters in the Caribbean sea.
"We are also going to sue Colombia, like we did with Honduras", he said
upon his return to Nicaragua, after he participated in the III Summit of
the Americas, which took place in Canada.
On the other hand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Francisco Aguirre,
said that within the framework of the Summit, he met with his Colombian
counterpart, and they talked about different options.
( ... )
35
Annex 15
EL NUEVO DIARIO, MANAGUA, 9 ÜCTOBER 2001 (EXCERPTS)
lt will include San Andrés and Providencia, The Minister of Foreign Affairs clarified
APPLICATION AGA1NST COLOMBIA WITH THE HAGUE)
(lncluirâ a San Andrés y Providencia, precisa el Canciller.
DEMANDA A COLOMBIA EN LA HAYA)
President Aleman and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Aguirre
announced yesterday that before this year ends Nicaragua will file an
application against Colombia with the International Court in The Hague
to define once and for all the status of "our territorial waters in the
Caribbean".
Aleman and Minister Aguirre declared that the Goverltment bas destined
1 million dollars of the budget of the Republic for next year to cover
negotiations and the judicial process.
( ... )
"We are going to submit the daim against Colombia and also leave a
guarantee in the budget of the nation for the continuity of that case
because you should know that this is carried out in international courts
and it represents enormous expenses, but as 1 have indicated, the
sovereignty of our country has to prevail over anything else" Aleman
said.
( ... )
37
Anne.x 16
LA PRENSA, MANAGUA, 30 NOVEMBER 2001 (EXCERPT)
CLAIM AGAINST COLOMBIA GOES
(DEMANDA CONTRA COLOMB lA V A)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs Francisco Aguirre announced that before
Christmas, Nicaragua will file a clairn against Colombia before the
International Court of The Hague to resolve, "once and for ali", the
disputes that both countries have in the Caribbean Sea. For this,
Nicaragua has destined one million dollars in the proposed budget for
2002.
"We are going to submit it before President Arnoldo Aleman travels to ·
Rome", commented Aguirre, during the same activity in which he
announced the decision of the Central American Court of Justice (CCJ)
against Honduras for ratification with Colombia of the Ramirez-Lopez
Treaty. ·Aieman has an appointment with His Holiness John Paul II, in
Vatican headquarters on Saturday, 15 Decem ber.
( ... )
39
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE NINTH
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
OF AMERICAN STATES
Annex 17
MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION. NINTH
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES. MARCH
30-MAY 21948.ACTAS YDOCUMENTOS. VOL. I. BACKGROUNDGENERAL
SECRETARIAT -PRE LI MINARY M EETING-PLENARY
SESSIONS. MINISTERIO DE RELACIONESEXTERIORES. BOGOTÂ.
1953. PP. 231-233 (EXCERPTS)
(Minutas de la Séptima Sesi6n Plenaria, Novena Conferencia lntemacional Americana. -
Marzo 30-Mayo 2 de 1948. Actas y Documentvs. Vol. 1. Antecedentes-Secretaria
Generai-Reuni6n Preliminar-Sesiones Plenarias. Ministerio de Re\aciones Exteriores de
Colombia. Bogotft, 1953. pp. 231-233)
p.231
MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH PLENARY SESSION.
(Classification CB-452/SP-36)
( ... )
p.232
( ... )
Mr. President: ... In the third place in the arder of the day, we have the
text of the American Treaty on Pacifie SeUlement, also called, in
accordance with the Jast article of it, "Pact of Bogota". The text has been
distributed and the Secretary will read the reservations that have been
introduced to said Pact. Then we will proceed with the vote.
Mr. Secretary General (Reading):
RESERVATION OF THE DELEGATION OF ECUADOR TO THE
"PACT OF BOGOTÂ" OR AMERICAN TREATY ON PAClFIC
SETTLEM.ENT
The Delegation of Ecuador, upon signing this Pact, makes an express
reservation with regard to Article V [VI]1 and also every provision that
contradicts, or is not in harmony with, the principles proclaimed by or the
stipulations contained in the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of
the Organization of American States or the Constitution of the Republic
1 Footnote omitted
43
ofEcuador.- Bogota, 29 April1948. Antonio Parra Velasco, President of
the Delegation of Ecuador.
( ... )
p.233
( ... )
RESERVATION OF THE DELEGATION OF PERU TO THE
"PACT OF BOGOTÂ" OR AMERICAN TREATY ON PACIFIC
SETTLEMENT
( ... )
2. Reservation with regard to Article XXXIII and the pertinent part of
Article XXXIV is as rouch as it considers that the exception of res
judicata, resolved by settlement between the parties or govemed by
agreements and treaties in force, determine, in virtue of their objective
and peremptory nature, the exclusion of these cases from the application
of every procedure.
( ... )
44
, . : ~
Annex 18
DOCUMENTS CORRESPONDING TO THE THIRD COMMISSION.
NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES.
MARCH 30-MA Y 2, 1948. ACTAS Y DOCUMENTOS. VOL. IV. THIRD
COMMISSION-FOURTH COMMISSION. MINISTERIO DE
RELACIONES EXTERIORES. BOGOTA.1953. PP. 6, 69, 79-80,134-
136, 187,204 (EXCERPTS)
(Documentas correspondientes a la Tercera Comisi6n. Novena Conferencia
lnternacional Americana. Marzo 3 0-Mayo 2 de 1948. A ct as y Documentas. Vol. IV.
Comisi6n Tercera-Comisi6n Cuarta. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia.
Bogota, 19 53. pp 6, 69, 79-80, 134-136, 187, 204)
DOCUMENTS CORRESPOND.ING TO THE THIRD
COMMISSION
p.6
(Document published with classification CB-6)
INTERAMERlCAN JURIDICAL COMMITTEE
PROJECT OF THE .INTER-AMERICAN PEACE SYSTEM
PART 1. - General Obligation to Settle Disputes by Pacifie Means
ARTICLE 1. The High Contracting Parties, solemnly reaffirming their
commitments made in earlier inter-American conventions and
declarations as weil as in the Charter of the United Nations, agree to
refrain from the use of force for resolving their controversies and at ali
times to recur to pacifie procedures. (Sources: Charter of the United
Nations. Article 2; Anti-war Treaty, 1933, Article 1; Convention on
Coordinate Existing Treaties, 1936; The Rio Treaty, 1947, articles 1s1
,
2nd).
ARTICLE II. The High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation to
settle their controversies by regional pacifie procedures, before referring
them to the Security Council of the United Nations.
Consequently, in the event that a controversy arises between two or more
signatory States which, in the opinion of one of the parties, cannot be
settle by direct negotiations through. usual diplomatie channels, the
parties bind thernselves to use the procedures established in the present
' 45
treaty, in the mann er and under the conditions provided in the following
articles. (Charter of the United Nations, Article 52)
( ... )
p.69
( ... )
Document published with the classification CB-191/C.III-101
PERU
PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE INTER-AMERICAN
PEACE SYSTEM
[The Delegation of Peru proposes that the following amendments be
made:
1. Add, following Article II, the following additional articles:]
( ... )
ARTICLE ... These procedures may not be applied either to matters
already settled by arrangement between the parties or by arbitral or
judicial decisions, or which are govemed by international agreements in
force on the date ofthe conclusion of the present Treaty.
( .. ;)
pp. 79-80
( ... )
1 This document was a Iso pub 1 ished with the classification CB-199/CIII -12
46
Document published with th~ classific.ation CB-381/C.III-Sub A-7
REPORT OF THE SUBèOMMISSIÔN éHARGED WJTH THE
STUDY OF A .FUNDAMENTAL FORMULA ABOUT THE INTERAMERICAN
PEACE SYSTEM 1
Mr. President [ofthe Commission oflnitiatives]:
1 have the honour of reporting to you that, the Sub-commission created in
the Commission of Jn.itiatives for the study of a fundamental formula
about the lnter-American Peace System, meeting - with delegates of the
following countries in attendance: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile,
Ecuador, United States of America, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Peru and
Uruguay - designated the delegate of Brazil as President/Narrator and the
following alternative fonnula, proposed by the gentleman Delegate of
Mexico, was taken as the point of departure: ·
"If: first, in the inter-American Peace System and in the respective
chapter of the charter of the Organization of American States, there
should be a procedure of an obligatory character, that concludes with a
final resolution, so that no controversy can be left without resolution
within a prudential time period;
"Or if: second, in the inter-American Peace System and in the respective
chapter of the charter of the Organization of American States, there
should appear only diverse facultative procedures."
After hearing the opinion of aH and each one of the delegates present, the
following solution was reached: ·
Ali the countries vote affirmatively for the formula stated in the first
point, with the following reservations of the Delegations of Argentina
and the United States of America:
a) Argentina responds affirmatively for the formula stated in the first
point with the single qualification that it will be applied only to future
conjlicts and notfor pre-existing causes.
1 This report was read and discussed in the Fourteenth Session of the
Commission of Initiatives. See the corresponding minutes in Volume II, pages
305 and following.
47
b) The United States of America responds a:ffirmatively to the formula
stated in the first point, with the qualification that il accepts the
obligatory pacifie procedures for juridical matters, and only in optional
form for the no juridical.
From the President, sincerely,
(Signed) ARTHUR FERREIRA DOS SANTOS
President -N arrator
( ... )
pp. 134-136
( ... )
The text of the next article [VI] reads:
The aforesaîd procedures, furthermore, may not. be applied to rnatters
already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award
or by decision of an international court, or which are govemed by
agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present
Treaty.
I submît the article to a vote.
Mr. VITERI LAFRONTE (ECUADOR): I would allow myself to ask Dr.
Belaunde if it would be possible to find a formula that softens the tone of
the article in question. The general principle îs fine; but even with respect
to matters already settled new contrciversies could arise in the course of
fulfilment of the same international Agreements that had been resolved. 1
would request the same Dr. Belaunde, taking this concept in hand, to
elaborate a specifie formula that would not have so general and absolute
a character. 1 have no parti cul ar dete~mination in proposing a form, or a
draft. Ail 1 desire (and I believe it would be possible to obtain it) is that
the article not have so absolute and so general a character.
Later, let us suppose that any of the cases foreseen is in question: that of
an agreement in force, or an arbitral award, or a judicial judgment. In the
unfolding, I am saying, and not in the case of interpretation; because the
case of interpretation we already know would be the responsibility of the
same tribunal, or the same arbiter.. In short, in the process of the life of
the unfolding and fulfilment of these events, matters or aspects could
48
.J'· :
.· ~ ~ '~ :.
:jV\1·
arise which could be settled perfectly through recourse to one of these
' '· .1 means.
Mr. PRESIDENT: The Delegate ofPeru bas the floor.
Mr. BELAUNDE (PERU): I am going to satisfy the concem or the doubt
that the Delegate from Ecuador appears to have.
It seems to me that the article has to consecrate the principle that the
procedures are not applied to the matters settled by agreement between
the parties, by arbitral award or by the judicial judgment. It is evident that
if there aie difficulties in the process, surely the sarne arbiter in
accordance with the General Treaty on Arbitration can settle it. The
doubt is perfectly absolved if we keep in mind that the article adds, "or
which are govemed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the
conclusion of the present Treaty"; because these "treaties in force"
usually indicate the rnanner to settle matters.
On the other hand, it would be very dangerous to attenuate the formula.
In the first place, it would be quite difficult to attenuate it; in the second,
this would open the door to provoke a dispute, which is exactly what we
wish to avoid. I believe that an American peace system should not only
settle disputes, but also prevent them, because provoking disputes is
precise\y one of the. ways to act against peace.
If there is an arbitral award, certainly, in the event that there is sorne
difficulty, the arbiter can settle it, or there will be sorne rneans placed in
the agreed arbitration to settle their difiiculties in the execution of the
judgment. There is a treaty; surely that treaty has its procedures. That is
why the last part is important: "subject to agreements or treaties in force
on the date ofthe conclusion ofthe present Treaty."
On the other hand, if it is attenuated and says, "but any future event that
cou id occur during the execution ... " then, instead of working for peace,
we are inviting litigation, and inviting litigation is inviting the agitation
of the foundations of peace. For these reasons, with ali my highest
consideration which is merited by the gentleman Delegate of Ecuador, [
sincerely believe that the last part closes the road; because generally an
arbitration treaty fore sees the difficulties in the execution of the sentence,
and a treaty that settles a problem generally provides a procedure by
virtue ofwhich those difficulties can be settled.
( ... )
49
In this way everything is ready, because that which is subject to treaties
in force, generally has its procedure, and that procedure, as we have
agreed, should take precedence over any other.
( ... )
Mr. PRESIDENTE: The Delegate of Cuba bas the floor.
Mr. DIHIGO (CUBA): Mr. President: to ask a question to doctor
Belaûnde. The first part of Article says: 'The aforesaid procedures,
furthermore, shaH not be applied to matters already settled ... " If they are
already settled, what is the problem? That is what 1 want to know.
Mr. BELAÛNDE (PERU): The danger lies in its being reopened, m
wanting to reopen them. It is the exception of res judicata.
Mr. PRESIDENT: I am going to submit the text of the article to a vote, in
the following form:
The aforesaid procedures, furthermore, may not be applied to matters
already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award
or by decision of an international court, or which are govemed by
agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present
Treaty.
The gentlemen, who agree with the text of the article, will please vote.
Approved.
(. .. )
p. 187
Mr. FERREIRA DOS SANTOS (BRAZIL): Mr. President: I regret
deeply that this matter has been reopened. I was who drew up the project
presented to the Initiatives Commission that was of such clarity as to
make it impossible to improve upon. ·
The first part was formulated in these terms: if the treaty should provide a
system under which no controversy that might develop between
50
.,
... \
' 1 ~ ,. 1r î-· ,,
American states could be left without a definite solution within a
reasonable time period, or if those solùtÜ)ris should have a voluntary
nature amongst the parties concerned. The Initiatives Commission bas
answered definitely unanimously in the affirmative, stating that it should
include in the peace system or a means by which no controversy will be
left without a solution.
1 deplore profoundly not voting on the matter , but my concept was of an
absolute clarity, that can not be forgotten.
( ... )
p.204
( ... )
Mr. PRESIDENT: The gentleman Delegate of Nicaragua bas requested
the floor.
Mr. SEVILLA SACASA (NICARAGUA): Mr. President: when the
debates of the First Commission began, the delegation of my country
allowed me to put forward the idea that the Charter of Organization of
American States, as a just bornage to Colombia - the least bornage we
could make to this country which bas received us in such a warm and
affectionate manner - be known with the name of "Charter of Bogota".
But, since the Commission of Initiatives did not approve this proposai -
assuredly because the name "Charter of the Organization of Americim
States" was considered better - the delegation of my country proposes
that this instrument related to the pacifie settlement of controversies take
that name. To this end, it proposes a fi.nal article that reads: ·
This instrument shall called "Pact ofBogotâ".
1 make this formai motion, Mr. President, and I su bruit' it to your table.
( ... )
51
Annex 19
NINTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN STATES.
ANNALS OF THE ORGANJZATJON OF AMERIC'AN STATES.
WASHINGTON, D.C. DEPT. OF PUBLIC INFORMATION, PAN
AMERICAN UNION, 1949-1958. VOL. 1, No. 2. 1949, PP. 44,47-48,
50 (EXCERPTS) ,
( ... )
p.44
Chapter IV
The American Treaty on Pacifie SeUlement
( ... )
p.47
( ... )
ln the history of the law between nations the compulsory solution of
controversies has been closely linked to the cori ce pt of sovereignty, for a
simple reason, which is, the decision not to resolve a dispute by pacifie
means always leaves open the possibilîty of a resort to force. Weak
nations have al ways championed arbitration and juridical settlement. The
strong orres have hesitated to take a step that would amount to divesting
themselves before the judges and the courts of ali the prerogatives of
their physical power, descending to the leve\ of another nation in the
presentation of the facts of the case and the juridical exposition of the
circumstances that gave rise to the dispute.
( ... )
p.48
( ... )
The harmony that exists between the American Treaty on Pacifie
Settlernent. and the Charter is brought out by Article 23 of the latter. ...
The Pact of Bogota accomplished this through compulsory judicial
procedure. Any other treaty could have done as rnuch by establishing the
53
principle of compulsory arbitration. But no system that does not provide
for a contingent obligatory step can hope to be in harmony with the will -
of the American States as expressed in their Charter.
( ... )
p. 50
( ... )
... a suggestion was proposed, and defended with special vigour by the
Colombian, Mexican, and Uruguayan delegations, to the effect that
priority should be given to judicial procedure- of an obligatory nature as
a definitive method - for the solution of disputes.
( ... )
54
,-------------------------- --------- .. ----
AFFIDAVITS
Annex 20
AFFIDAVIT OF MR. ALEJANDRO MONTIEL ARGÜELLO
(F armer Min ister ofF oreign A ffairs of the Republic of Nicaragua from 1956 to 196 1,
from 1972 to 1978)
TESTIMONY
PUBLIC INSTRUMENT NUMBER FIVE (5).-SWORN STA TEMENT.
~ In the City of Managua, at ten o' dock in the rnoming, on Six November
of the year Two Thousand Three. Before me, HARAZELI DE
LOURDES RODRTGUEZ ANDINO, Lawyer and Public Notary of the
Republic of Nicaragua and of this domicile, duly authori.zed by the
Excellent Court of Justice to notarise during the five~year period that
expires on twelve August of the year Two Thousand Seven, Doctor
ALEJANDRO MONTIEL ARGÜELLO appears before me, widow,
laV\yer, of legal age, with dornicile and residence in this City,
identification nurnber 201-130317 ~OOOOB, (two, cero, one, dash, one,
three, cero, three, one, severi, dash, cero, cero, cero, cero and the letter
B). 1 give faith that he has the necessary legal capacity to assume
commitrnents, contracts and grant the present public instrument wherein
he acts in his own name and representation. In this condition, the witness
speaks and says: SOLELY: That in the year Nineteen Hundred and
Seventy Seven (1977) he was Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Nicaragua and he recalls that at that time, he spoke with and received
on severa! occasions, visits from Colonel Julio Londofi.o Paredes, highranking
official from the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who
was sent by their own initiative, to negotiate with the Government of
Nicaragua over the territorial and boundary litigation in the Caribbean
Sea; that in those conversations with Colonel Londofto Paredes, he
presented the possibility that Colombia would grant to Nicaragua fishing
rights in sorne areas east of Meridian Eighty~two (82), and that Nicaragua
should accept that Meridian as the limiting maritime space of the two
countries, and that the Barcenas-Esguerra Treaty was val id, ali of which
was unacceptable to Nicaragua, reason for which no agreement was
reached; that after severa! visits from Colonel Londoiio Paredes, the
witness addressed the Government of Colombia asking that they put an
end to these as they caused internai problems. The witness expressed
himself in this manner, and I instructed him on the legal object, value and
transcendence of this act, on the general clauses that they contain and of
the special ones that guaranty its validity. The entire Public Instrument
was read by me, the Public Notary, to the witness, who finds it in
conformity, approves, ratifies and signs it with me, and 1 give faith of
57
everything that was related.- (S) AlejandroMontielArgüello (S)
HarazeliRodriguezAndino. -
PASS BEFORE ME: ln Folio Number Four of my Protocol Number
Seven that 1 keep during the current year. Upon request by Doctor
Alejandro Montiel Argüello, 1 extend this first testimony in legal paper,
which 1 rubricate; sign and seal at ten thirty in the morning, on six
November of the year Two Thousand Three.
ILLEGIBLE SIGNATURE AND SEAL
HARAZELI DE LOURDES RODRIGUEZ ANDINO
LA WYER AND PUBLIC NOT ARY
58
Annex 21
AFF IDA VIT OF MR. ERNESTO LEAL SANCHEZ (EXCERPTS)
(F onner Min ister ofF oreign A ffairs of the Repu b lie of Nicaragua from 1992 to 1996)
TESTlMONY
PUBLIC INSTRUMENT NUMBER EIGHT (8).-SWORN
ST A TEMENT. - In the City of Managua, at ni ne o' clock in the morning
on Four December of the Year Two Thousand Three. Before me,
HARAZELI DE LOURDES RODRiGUEZ ANDINO, Lawyer and
Public Notary of the Republic of Nicaragua and of this domicile, duly
authorized by the Excellent Supreme Court of Justice to notarise during
the five-year period that expires on twelve August of the Year Two
Thousand Seven, appears Mr. ERNESTO LEAL SANCHEZ, of legal
age, married, civil engineers, with domicile and residence in this city,
identification number 001-280745-0018 Y, (zero, zero, one, dash, two,
eight, zero, seven, four, five, dash, zero, zero, one, eight and the letter Y).
1 give faith that he bas the necessary legal capacity to oblige himself,
assume contracts and grant the present public instrument acting in his
own name and representation. In this condition, the witness speaks and
says: FIRST: That during the period encompassed between the year one
thousand nine hundred and ninety-two (1992) and the year one thousand
nine hundred and ninety-six (1996), he was Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Nicaragua. That during that period, and to be exact,
during the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five (1995) in
attention to a request made by Colombia, a work-lunch took place in New
York wherein participated the following officiais of that time: Rodrigo
Pardo Garcia-Peiia, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia; Julio
Londoiio Paredes, Arnbassador of Colombia to the United Nations;
Mauricio Herdocia Sacasa, Coordinator of the Advisory Body to the
Minis ter ofF oreign Affairs and my self, Minister ofF oreign Affairs of the
Republic of Nicaragua at ·the time. That the main objective of that
meeting was to begin discussions about the negotiations related to the
territorial and maritime differences between Colombia and Nicaragua in
the Caribbean Sea, in order to improve the political environment and
remove ali the obstacles that affect the friendly and cooperative
relationship that could exist between both countries. In this opportunity,
Colombia was willing to review with Nicaragua the issues related to
Meridian 82°, indicating that this subject was easier to treat than the San
Andrés topic, affirming that prominent Colombian personalities
recognized that the Colombian thesis of Meridian Eighty-Two (82°) was
questionable under the view of International Law and the International
59
Court' s j udgements. That po si ti on facili tated the treatment of the subj ect.
The Nicaraguan representation expressed that the San Andrés issue was
as important as the subject of Meridian 82°, they also expressed that these
subjects where closely interconnected, but that the conversations could
begin with the first matter, but in a global context, and without implying
any renunciation, having them in a very quiet environment far from the
press. That both parties discussed the mechanisms for effectively
carrying out these conversations over a matter that confronted both
countries for many years. They considered the celebration of the IX
(Ninth) Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Rio Group that
would take place in Quito, Ecuador on Four ( 4) September of that same
year, as an opportunity. That would be a precious occasion to join
Presidents Chamorro and Samper in a meeting, in order to begin
negotiations to be handled in a very discreet manner. SECOND: That
afterwards, during the IX (Ninth) Summit of Heads of State and
Government, the President of Nicaragua, Violeta Barries de Chamorro
and the President of Colombia, Ernesto Samper Pizano, had a joint
meeting with the Ministers and Legàl Advisors to begin discussions and
agreed to instruct their Ministers of Foreign Affairs to begin
conversations before the end of the month of September. They should
release a Joint Communiqué in simple but effective tenns. At the
beginning of discussions on· the Joint Communiqué, Nicaragua upheld
that territorial and maritime issues should explicitly appear in the referred
Communiqué. Nonetheless, Minister Pardo upheld that it was not
appropriate to attract too much attention from the press on such a
sensitive matter, and instead would be more convenient to talk about
"issues of common interest" in a spirit of finding solutions to "any
differences". That was his manner of expression, but the news media
reflected it afterwards, that both Ministries would discuss over territorial
and maritime topics that divided both countries. On his part, Dr. Mauricio
Herdocia Sacasa drafted the Joint .Coinmuniqué and Colombia accepted
it. Finally, the discreet Communiqué was published during the Summit.
Unfortunately, the meeting betweeri Presidents itself was not kept in
reserve, as was discussed in New York and the press covered the event
directly. Declarations o:ffered by the Heads of State, placed the cautious
Communiqué in the background. THIRD: That as a result of the strong
publicity given to the conversations, sorne national authorities and
Colombian Communication Media reacted against them, obliging
Colombian authorities involved iri them to define their positions over
these topics. As a consequence of the above, Colombian authorities
started giving broad explanations and observations on the territorial and
maritime components of the. negotiations that came to public light. In
those declarations, Colombian authorities recognized that there were
60
:· r-..• ~'> .~/~ ~f 1 \;p_<;1! ~'~;::·r ~~:_':f; .
'·/ .. f.:~_ .~ .'~
~~ ~~~< . ~J;-~·:·
~~·~~:
issues pending between Nicaragua and Colombia, but that these could be
settled. They specificall)i''''rèdognized Hî.at tney had to discuss the
character or nature of Meridian Eighty-Two (82°) and pending issues
over the Barcenas Meneses-Esguerra Treaty. Apparently, pressure
exerted by the news media obliged Co lombia to abandon the issue,·
postponing sine die the beginning of the negotiations foreseen to continue
at the end ofthe month ofSeptember ofnineteen hundred and ninety-iive
(1995) in New York. Declarations made within the context of these
conversations were given by the highest Colombian authorities, which at
that time bad the power to represent Colombia as weil as the capacity to
compromise the State. Within this context, President Samper Pizano and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs Rodrigo Pardo, were the main foreign
figures in these episodes. Involvement by the Presidents of both countries
during the discussions was unique and proves the seriousness of the
negotiations forwarded by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. The
information that the news media picked up on the special case, were not .
only press releases, but also an article written in his own band by the
Minister of Foreign Affairs himself, of the time, Rodrigo Pardo. In this
sense, an important evidence on the content of the dialogue, can bè found
in the article written by Pardo himself, published in the Daily Newspaper
"El Tiempo", dated Sunday, ten September of the year nineteen hundred
and ninety-five (1995), in the section called "Invited Editor", under the
title "Toward a Good Neighbourhood". In that article, he explains the
content of the dialogue. Within this context, he wrote that it was about an
ample dialogue over ali the pending matter or require mutual work
including the issues that were not defined or settled by the agreements in
force, among them, the Barcenas Meneses-Esguerra Treaty .... Thus the
witness expressed himself and I instructed on the abject, value and legal
transcendence of sa id act, on the clause that ens ures its validity, on the
special one that it contains, on the one that involves waiver and
stipulations, bath implicit and explicit. -The entire Public Instrument was
read by me, the Public Notary, to the witness, who finds it in conformity,'
approves, ratifies and signs it with me, and I give faith of everything that
was related. - (S) ErnestoLealSanchez, (S) HarazeliRodriguezAndino.-
PASS BEFORE ME: On the front of Folio Number Six, on the reverse
of Folio Number Seven, of my Protocol Number Seven that 1 keep
during the current year. Upon request by Engineer Ernesto Leal
Sanchez, 1 extend this first testimony in two legal sheets of paper, which
1 rubricate, sign and seal at ten thirty in the moming, on Four December
of the year Two Thousand Three.
ILLEGIBLE SIGNATURE AND SEAL
HARAZELI DE LOURDES RODRIGUEZ ANDINO
LAWYER AND PUBLIC NOTARY
61
--~~------------ ··------
Annex 22
AFFIDAVIT OF MR. FRANCISCO AGU IR RE SA CASA
(F onner M inister ofF oreign A tfairs of the Republ ic of Nicaragua from 2000 to 200 1)
TESTIMONY
PUBLIC INSTRUMENT NUMBER SIX (6). - SWORN STATEMENT.
- In the City of Managua, at ten o'clock in the moming, on eight
November of the year Two Thousand Three. Before me, HARAZELI DE
LOURDES RODRIGUEZ ANDINO, Lawyer and Public Notary of the
Republic ofNicaragua, duly authorized by the Excellent Court of Justice
to notarise during the five-year period that expires on Twelve August of
the year Two Thousand Seven, Mr. FRANCISCO XAVIER AGUTRRE
SACASA appears before me, married, Doctor in Law and Graduate in
Foreign Service, of legal age, with domicile and residence in this City,
identification number 001-040944-0029 C (zero, zero, one, dash, zero,
four, zero, nine, four, four, dash, zero, zero, two, nine and the letter C). 1
give faith that he has the necessary legal capacity to assume
commitrnents, contracts and grant the present public instrument wherein
he acts in his own name and representation. In this condition, the witness
speaks and says: SOLELY: That by initiative of Colombia, he held a
meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica, during the morrth of June of the year
Two Thousand One, within the framework of XXXI Period of Ordinary
Sessions of the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States (OAS), dedicated to the subject of Inter-American Democratie
Charter, with the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Colombia,
Guillermo Fermindez de Soto, and Mrs. Clemencia Forreo Ucros, Vice
Minister of Foreign Affairs of that country at the time. The witness
expresses that Dr. Cecile Saborio Coze was present at that meeting and at
that time, she was the General Director of Foreign Policy in the
Nicaraguan Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Basically, Colombia expressed
that they did not want a case before the International Court of Justice, and
that they knew that Nicaragua was preparing herself for it. They
requested that Nicaragua stop such an action. In that sense, they wanted
to settle the issue in dispute with Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea in a
friendly manner, reason for which they proposed to begin bilateral
negotiations; they insisted that it was not necessary to recur to the
International Court of Justice if both countries cou\d settle their
differences in a direct manner. The witness expressed to the high-ranking
Colombian officiais that the ratification of the RamirezvL6pez Treaty,
which occurred on Thirty (30) Novernber of the year Nineteen Hundred
63
and Ninety-nine (1999), had caused a very negative political climate that
precipitated events. That as a last resort, he accepted a very brief time
span could be awaited, but not in a prolonged manner. The witness
comments that Colombia, instead of carrying into effect the
conversations, introduced before the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, the withdrawal of her acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction
ofthe International Court of Justice, on Five (5) December ofthat same
year. The witness expressed himself in this manner, weil instructed by
me, the Public Notary, on the legal object, value and transcendence of
this act, on the clause that guarantee's its validity, and special one that it
contains, on the one that involves waivers and stipulations, both implicit
and explicit. - The entire Public Instrument was read by me, the Public
Notary, to the witness, who finds it in conformity, approves, ratifies and
signs it with me, and 1 give faith of everything that was related. - (S)
FranciscoXavier AguirreSacasa (S) ~arazeliRodriguezAndino.-
PASS BEFORE ME: On the reverse of Folio Number Four, in front of
Folio Number Five of my Protocol Number Seven that 1 keep during the
current year. Upon request by D()ctor Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa,
1 extend this first testimony in legal paper, which 1 rubricate, sign and
seal at ten thirty in the moming; on Eight November of the year Two
Thousand Three. ·
ILLEGIBLE SIGNATURE AND SEAL
HARAZELI DE LOURDES RODRIGUEZ ANDINO
LA WYER AND PUBLIC NOT ARY
64
.Annex 23,
" r~ ' ' .'t 1
AFFIDAVIT OF MR. NORMAN CALDERA CARDENAL (EXCERPTS)
(Minister Of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Nicaragua from January 2001 to date)
TESTIMONY
PUBLIC INSTRUMENT NUMBER NINE (9).-SWORN
STATEMENT.- In the City of Managua, at ten o'clock in the morning ·
of Twelve December of the year Two Thousand 1bree. Before me,
HARAZELI DE LOURDES RODRIGUEZ ANDINO, Lawyer and
Public Notary of the Republic of Nicaragua, duly authorized by the
Excellent Supreme Court of Justice to notarise during the five-year
period th at expires on Twelve August of the Y ear Two Thousand Seven,
appears before me, Mr. NORMAN JOSE CALDERA CARDENAL, of
legal age, married, graduate in Business Administration, with domicile in
this City of Managua, and identification number double zero, one, dash,
two, one, one, zero, four, six, dash, triple zero, one, E (001-211046-
000 1 E), acting in his char acter as M inister of Foreign Aff airs of
Nicaragua, in conformity with Certification Extended by the Secretary of
the Presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua ... I give faith of personally
knowing the witness Caldera Cardenal, who in my judgment has the
necessary legal capacity to celebrate obligations and contracts, arid
especially to celebrate the present act, in which he acts in his own name
and representation and says: FIRST: that on the Twenty-four (24) of
October of the year Two Thousand One (200 1 ), Nicaragua presented a
document to the Secretary-General of the Organization of the United
Nations, which expressed that it would not "accept the jurisdiction or
competence of the International Court of Justice in relation to any matter
or claim based on interpretations of treaties or arbitral awards that were
signed and ratified or made, respectively, prior to Thirty-one (31)
December of the year Nineteen Hundred and One (1901)." In said
document, there is absolutely no mention to the date in which it would
come into force. SECOND: That during the first eight (8) months of the
year Two Thousand Two (2002), 1 held conversations with the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Roberto Tovar Faja; with the
participation of Javier Sancho Bonilla and Mauricio Herdocia Sacasa,
from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica and Nicaragua
respectively, on the topic of the juridical situation of the Nicaraguan
Declaration relative to acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice. During those opportunities, the Costa
Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed that there was unrest in
65
certain sectors interested in his country, reason for what he qualified as
"the imminent" effect of the Nicaraguan reserve to the acceptance of the
Tribunal' s jurisdiction, since in the criteria of sorne of its specialists, after
one year of formulating the reserves, these would come into force, and
that would close off for Costa Rica, the possibility of submitting to the
International Court of Justice, issue~ excluded from its jurisdiction due to
the Nicaraguan reserve dated on the year Two Thousand One (200 1 ),
according to their approach. Once the year concluded, if Costa Rica did
not take Nicaragua to Court, this would bring about a confrontation with
those interested sectors, expressed Tovar Faja to me. Both Ministers of
Foreign Affairs full y coincided in that the Nicaraguan reserve had not
taken effects in an immediate manner, since for that, a "reasonable term"
was required although we did not exactly neither precise nor agreed as to
what the "reasonable term" would consist of. In those circumstances,
both Ministers of Foreign Affairs sotight a way out without damaging or
undennining sorne of the positions upheld by both parties, and allow
Foreign Minister Tovar to face those interested sectors, that as he
explained, pretended to "keep al ive" the possibility of taking Nicaragua
to Court, on the basis of tbeir own positions. Because of this, we decided
to "freeze" the situation exactly as it existed, for which the Govemment
of Nicaragua made a commitment to maintain a term of three (3) years
beginning on twenty-six (26) September of the year two thousand two
(2002), by accepting the competence or jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice the existing juridical situation with respect to the
Nicaraguan declaration. The above remained in the declaration that we
undersigned in Alajuela, Republic of Costa Rica, on that same date. Th us,
the witness appearing before me expressed himself, wbom I instructed as
to the legal abject, value and transcendence of this act, on the general
clauses that it contains and on the special orres tbat ensure its validity.
Read by me, the Notary, he finds it in conforrnity, approves, ratifies and
signs it with me. 1 give faith of {1.11 herein related.(S) Norman Jose
Caldera Cardenal (S) Harazeli de Lourdes Rodriguez Andine.
PASSED BEFORE ME: On the reverse of folio number seven in front
of folio number nine of my Protocol Number Seven that 1 keep during
the present year. Upon request of Mister Nonnan Jose Caldera
Cardenal, I issue this first testimôny on two sheets of legal paper that 1
rubricate, sign and seal at eleven o'clock and thirty minutes on the
mo ming of December twelfth ofthe year two thou sand three.
ILLEGIBLE SIGNATURE AND SEAL
HARAZELI DE LOURDES RODRIGUEZ ANDINO
LA WYER AND PUBLIC NOT ARY
66
.·:tit:~ll:·~ i;3' ;2~·~.~ .. : ~: . .-::- ~· :\t'i'.~·~~ l·'''
,· ' ~ ! •
;~ ••• ': ë
•}:Vi~ll'
.
·:1:::; .. '/,q'
OTHER DOCUMENTS
Annex 24
RECORDS OF THE SESSIONS OF THE CHAMBER OF THE SENA TE
OF NICARAGUA (EXCERPTS)
Annex 24 a
RECORDS OF THE XLVIII SESSION OF THE Cl-lAMBER OF THE SENA TE.
4 MARCH 1930
(La Gaceta, Diario Ojicial ofNicaragua N. 94. 1 May 1930)
( ... )
Session XLVIII of the Chamber of the Senate in its ordinary meeting of
the eighteenth constitutional period, celebrated at ten in the morning of
Tuesday fourth ofMarch ofnineteen hundred thirty.
( ... )
7° - It was read the Commission's report subscribed by the Senators
Paniagua Prado, Pérez y Amador that studied the initiative of the
Executive Power putting under the consideration of this High Organism
the Treaty of Limits between Nicaragua and Co lombia~ The Commission
was in favour of the ratification of the Treaty entered into by the two
Republics the 24 of March of 1928, and approved by Executive Power on
the 27 of the same month and year; Treaty that puts an end to the pending
matter between the two Republics over the Archipelago of San Andrés
and Providencia and the Nicaraguan Mosquitia; in the understanding that
the San Andrés archipelago mentioned in the tirst clause of the Treaty
does not extend to the West of meridian 82 of Greenwich in the chart
published in October 1885 by the Washington Hydrographie Office under
the authority of the Secretary of the Navy of the United States of North
America.
( ... )
9°- The session is adjourned.
V. M. Romém, S. P. - Vicente F. Altamirano, S. S. - J. Cajina Mora, S. S.
69
Annex 24 b
RECORDS OF THE XLIX SESSION OF THE Ci·IAMBER OF THE SENA TE.
5 MARCH 1930
(La Gace/a, Diario Oficial ofNicaragua N. 98. 7 May 1930)
Session XLIX of the Cham ber of the Senate in its ordinary meeting of the
eighteenth constitutional period, celebrated at nine and forty-eight
minutes in the mo ming of Wednesday fifth of March of nineteen hundred
thirty.
( ... )
3°- ... The Minister replied: that he understood that he bad been called to
hear the opinion of the Executive Power on the subject relating to the
Colom bian matter; that in a meeting at the Ministry of Relations with the
Honourable Commission of Relations of the Senate, it was agreed by the
Commission and the Advisors of the Government to accept as limit in
this dispute with Colombia the West 82 meridian of Greenwich and of
the Hydrographie Office of the Ministry of the Navy of the United States
of 188 5; that th en Senat or Paniagua Prado expressed his worries that by
adding this amendment or clarification, it would be put (again) to the
approval of the Colombian Congress and would be a cause for delay for
its approval, and therefore, for putting an end to this annoying subject.
But that having taken this matter up with the Honourable Minister of
Colombia and he with his Govemment, which requested that the Treaty
should not be altered because it would again have to be put to the
consideration of the Congress; having insinuated to his Excellency
Minister Esguerra, to deal again with his Govemment on this matter, and
after having obtained an answer, he told me: that his Govemment
authorized hi rn to say that Treaty would not be put to the approval of the
Colombian Congress, in view of the clarification that demarcated the
dividing line, that therefore, and although there was not anything in
writing, he could assure the Honourable Chamber, in name of the
Govemment, that the Treaty would be approved with no need to put it
a gain to the approval of Congress.
The Minister added, that the explanation do es not reform the Treaty,
because it only intends to indicate a limit between the archipelagos that
bad been reason for the dispute and that the Colombian Govemment bad
already accepted that explanation by means of his Minister
Plenipotentiary, only declaring, that this explanation be made in the
70
, ·Lï·'' ; if"r'o~:,:.~ .•. -·._ ~ .•. ï ~-~-·.;~ .:·~.!-... ,,<,.,·!~ •
~+._. • • • : • • ·: ~ - '
'.
ratification act of the Treaty: that this explanation was a necessity for the
future of both nations beèâuse it came to indicate the geographie limit
between the archipelagos in dispute without which it would not be settled
the matter completely; and that therefore he requested to the Honourable
Chamber the approval of the Treaty with the proposed explanation.
( ... )
5° - The session is adjourned
V M Roman, S. P. - Vicente F. Altarnirano, S. S. - J. Cajina Mora, S. S.
71
Annex 25
RECORDS OF THEL VIII SESSION OF THE CHAMBER OF .DEPUTIES
OF NICARAGUA. 1 AND 3 APRIL 1930 (EXCERPTS)
(La Gaceta, Diario Oficial ofNicaragua N. 182. 20 August 1930).
(Continues - 6)
( ... )
129- The report issued by three of the Members of Foreign Affaire
Commission, accepting the Treaty concluded between Colombia and
Nicaragua, with the addition proposed in the Chamber of the Senate, was
read and subjected to discussion. ·
Deputy Horgen said: Due to family accidents in Granada, 1 was unable to
submit my report separately, given that I dissent from the opinion of my
honourable colleagues. In the study of this Treaty, we went so far in our
investigations asto discuss the issue with the former Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Mr. José Andres Urtecho, in his own home, in the presence of
Drs. Argüello Cerda and Garcia Largaespada. He read us a recent
Exposition prepared by him, for a pertinent observation, and we were ali
more convinced, by mutual agreement, that the right of Nicaragua on the
Islands of San Andrés and Providencia is not only clear, but peremptory,
· and they honoured me by manifesting that 1 was right. However, ulterior
requests for this matter to be settled soon, led my colleagues in the
Commission to rush into submitting that report without waiting for the
one 1 promised in case we did not come to an agreement- that 1 could not
do, as J said, because of family accidents- adding as 1 must, that if the
majority report is accepted it may mean that we stop being Nicaraguan.
( ... )
Deputy Dr. Borgen expressed his agreement with Deputy President.
Deputy Argüello Cerda supported his report, adding that the Commission
perfectly recognizes that the law assists Nicaragua's position for the
ownership of the Archipelago of San Andrés and Providencia; but that
renouncing that right, they recommended the approval of the referred-to
Treaty, in view of the three points th at are explained in the report.
73
Deputy G6ngora said that in view of the fact that that Treaty had arrived
at the bands of the Commission for sorne time now and that it had not
submitted its report earlier because it was doing a conscientious study, he
requested the Chamber to begin its discussion now, each one expressing
his reasons to embrace the majority report or attack it, adding that he
wants to declare that he will vote against the report that is now under
discussion.
( ... )
Deputy Garcia Largaespada said: 1 must manifest to the Honourable
Chamber that this is an issue that 1 have always been preoccupied with,
and not just now that 1 am part of the Honourable National
Representation, as well as ali others conceming the integrity of the
Nicaragua territory. Therefore, 1 must protest against the expressions of
those who cali on us to be Nicaraguan. We are Nicaraguan and we feel
deep and profound love for our homeland, but the love for this country,
the love for this homeland, does not mean that it blinds us in an absolute
way as not to cornprehend that above certain momentary interest, there
are the permanent interest of what is to come, that we need to leave
completely clean, completely clear so that future generations corne to
plant the seed for Nicaragua's progress.
The Commission of Foreign Affairs of which 1 am part, bas
conscientiously studied this issue. But, we face the following. The
territorial question with Colombia can only be settled in three ways:
First: By direct arrangement between both countries, as does the Treaty
we know.
Second: By Arbitration;
Third: By war. This last, Messrs. Deputies, is impossible to do, even if
we are absolutely right, given that war must not be an honourable
solution of international issues between Christian peoples, least [of ali]
between nations that are joined by many points and should tend to a
better cordiality, and that Nicaragua and Colombia because of
international pacts and factual impossibility, could not get to this
extreme. Regarding Arbitration there is much more to say than what is
expressed in our report. The territorial discussion comprises two things:
Our Atlantic Coast, which Co lombia pretends and the Archipelago of San
Andrés and Providencia. Our domain over the Mosquito Coast is
indisputable and rest on an immemorial possession and convincing
colonial documents that turn our right insurmountable. Could Nicaragua
expose that inappreciable portion of our country to the contingencies of
74
--------------..,~~.~,oc--,-~----c-~-.c..•- c.o-.. - c,,c-,:. -.- ---------------
arbitration? Our Ministry of}:"oreign Affairs~. in proposing arbitration, has
always limited it to the discussion over San Andrés and Providencia
which Colombia does not accept. And it is well known that arbitration
can only be done by mutual agreement between that Parties as .to their
pretensions. In regard to the Atlantic Coast, as we left it consigned,
Colombia only alleges that she was part of the Province ofVeraguas, that
it delimitates in an arbitrary manner since the Province was no other than
the Duchy of Veraguas that the Kings of Spain gave to Don Luis Colon
which comprehended twenty-five square leagues and reacbed up to the
river. So Co\ombia has bad pretensions over our Mosquitia tbat Jack ail
legality. With respect to San Andrés and Providencia, Colombia presents
an Order from the Ministry of War from Spain so tbat they would
militarily depend on the Santa Fe Viceroyalty; and the de facto
possession of the islands. We believe that Nicaragua bas the right over
the islands, bath because they are part of the adjacent coast, and also
because the Order was derogated. So, not being able to submit the issue
to Arbitration, there îs no other solution than the direct agreement tbat the
Treaty under discussion proposes, that we must approve to avoid the
slightest pretension from anybody to our Atlantic Coast, and so that we
can firmly fix the future channel-related question, without having
subterfuges and restraints irnposed upon us in the dec6rous settlement of
this question. ·
And it is then, Messrs. Deputies that we need a shielding of our character
so that without shying from the demands that civilisation imposes on us
due to our geographical configùration, we may know how to firmly leave
as set the rights of Nicaragua, and our Sovereignty respected and
consolidated.
Representative Rivas h., expressed his opposition to the report, as did
Representative Belli Ch., by adding that he has found a way of solving
this problem: and that he does not see why this issue has to be settled
right away, at this hour and rather, that on this day, the Treaty be
postponed for an indefinite time and not to deal with it until one or two
generations have gone by, because maybe then, Nicaraguans will be able
to face those circumstances.
Representative Estrada Romero proposed to suspend the discussion over
this issue until calling the Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs so that
he could explain the circumstances that obliged him to celebrate that
Treaty.
75
Addressing Representative Estrada Romero, Representative G6ngora told
him that the answer that the Minister would give him regarding the
circumstances that obliged him to celebrate the treaty in reference, fiJ.at
those are the same reasons that appear in the enclosed documentation.
Deputy Largaespada said: Let us not go around fighting for what we
cannat reintegrate to the National Territory and let us conforrn ourselves
with the territory of La Mosquitia. No country in the world retums
acquired territories and 1 must empathize that in arbitrations, small
countries always lose, and therefore, we would be defeated.
Representative Bolafios expressed himself in agreement with the
approval of the Treaty.
Representative Borgen said that he will present his report during the
session this aftemoon or in the moming, and that if despite the reasons he
will put forth by then, the Treaty is approved, then it does not matter
because no one said that man was born to have only success; but that it is
very different to LOSE it than TO GIVE IT A WA Y, as they wish to do
with the report under discussion.
( ... )
[Two days later]
146- The session having been resurned ...
( ... )
148- The majority and minority reports by which the Treaty concluded
between the Republics ofNicaragua and Colombia on 24 March 1928 is
respective! y RA TIFIED and IMPUGNED.
Deputy Garda Largaespada requested that the report issued by the
majority, that reads as follows, be inserted in the act:
"Honourable Chamber: Oniy a few times has a matter of such interest
and importance, in our opinion, been presented in the Chambers, as the
Treaty concluded between our Republic and that of Colombia, that puts
an end to the already long discussion regarding the domain over the
islands of San Andrés and Providencia and the Mosquito Coast, that both
countries have been claiming for a long time. We also believe that very
rarely, the prescribed Commissions in charge of presenting a report on
76
. ' . .>:. f "; ~' ~/ (·
issues debated .in the Cham?ers, have been,. ch~rged with the study of a
question of deeper interest and more profound responsibility. We have
taken great care to deal with this subject as wisely as possible. We
dedicated many long days of meditation and serenity to studying it. We
committed ourselves to everything written on the matter by both sides. ln
truth, we confess that the Titles that Nicaragua holds as foundation for
her pretensions have much more force than those · summoned by
Colombia. Not only does Nicaragua have de facto and legal possession
over the Mosquitia Coast, but also numerous juridical elements that are
very convincing as to her indisputable domain over that territorial
extension; the entirety, inseparable from the rest of the country, with
boundaries and demarcations that form a unity, and the award of the
President of France, Mr. Loubet, revised and confirmed by the President
of the Court of Justice of the United States ofNorth America, Mr. White.
Although it is true that this was given in a territorial controversy between
Costa Rica and Colombia, nonetheless it was in favour of Nicaragua, and
it was decisive because it solved the maximum pretension by Colombia,
which alleged that her territory extended up to Cape Gracias a Dios,
limiting in such a way that it left Costa Rica with the territorial extension
that she claimed and Nicaragua with her rights safeguarded. Once this
award settled the boundaries issue between Colombia and Costa Rica, it
leaves the latter interposed between that Republic and Nicaragua, whose
coasts encompass the maximum pretensions by Colombia over the about
mentioned Mosquitia Coast of Nicaragua, where by uncontroversial
logic, it infers that any pretension by Colombia over the about mentioned
Coast of Nicaragua, was definitely solved because the unity and
continuity of the Republic of Colombia disappeared with the about
mentioned Nicaraguan Coast. Ali said without prejudice that Colombia
bases ber rights over the Mosquitia Coast on a mistaken and sophisticated
limitation of the Province of Veraguas, which it confuses with that of
Cartago that extended up to the Aguan River, when in ali strictness, the
Province ofVeraguas is no other than the same Veraguas Duchy, with 25
square leagues granted in 1537 by the Monarch of Spain to Admirai Don
Luis Colôn and comprehended between the Belen River and the
Admiral's Bay. With regard to the San Andrés and Providencia Islands,
Colombia alleges and invokes as title in ber favour, the Order from the
Ministry of War of Spain in 1803, wherein, by reason of a transitory
nature and military deferree, the mentioned islands were added to the
Santa Fe Viceroyalty, forgetting that this Ministerial Order could not be
considered as a dismemberment law which could only be issued by Royal
Acts and the Council of Indies, and that, besicles, said order was
derogated in 1806. By previous laws,. said islands belonged to the
General Captainy of Guatemala and above ail, by Law VII of the
77
Compilation of lndies, in "conformity with the civil and ecclesiastical
jurisdictions". Currently these islands have remained under Colombia's
de facto possession, but the controversy between this country and
Nicaragua, to which it is intended to put an end with this Treaty is not
limited to them, but rather a portion of our country's richest territory is
involved, such as the so·called Atlantic Coast. The discussion between
one and the ether country became very long, in favour of what one and
the other believe to be their right, but in view of the impossibility of
finding a means accepted by both parties to settle the dispute, they agreed
to put an end toit by Colombia's recognizing Nicaragua's dominion over
the Mosquito Coast and the islands close to it called Corn Islands, that is,
what has been under possession; and, in turn, by Nicaragua's recognizing
Colombia's dominion over the Archipelago of San Andrés and
Providencia that she has possessed. Nonetheless, we who believe, as we
exposed, in light of the forceful arguments adduced by Nicaragua, that
she has rightful reason in the controversy, we advise you, despite the fact
that it represents a waiver to our legitimate rights, to grant your approval
to the referred·to Treaty, with the amendment that the Honourable
Chan1ber of the Senate incorporated in it, Nicaragua thus agreeing to
recognize Colombia's dominion over the disputed Archipelago. We
adduce the following reasons to that effect:
l. For maintaining the fraternity and good harmony that should exist
between the Nations in the American Continent.
2. Because of the difficulty in settling this matter in any other manner,
since Nicaragua could never submit to an eventual decision by
arbitration, what constitutes an integral part of her territory with
unappreciable value as is the Atlantic Coast, since Colombia's
pretensions are not limited to a decision that would fall only upon the
Islands, as would be fair, but rather that she also pretends to include our
Mosquitia Coast to the consideration of arbitration, and
3. Because of the upcoming the construction of the inter-oceanic channel
through Nicaraguan territory, according to ali the current manifestations,
Colombia's pretensions of dominion over part of it may give rise to
setbacks that could contribute to delay its execution.
Honourable Chamber of Representatives, even insisting upon a party
with ali reason and lawful right, due to motives of a very distinct order of
convenience for more elevated interests, reasons and law, there are cases
that are postponed in order to reach a prompt and efficient solution. This
is happening to Nicaragua in the present case. We must consign that our
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, when dealing with this issue on different
occasions, elevated itself to the leve! of a well-uriderstood patriotism,
78
1 ~ •• "
defending with brilliance and .a ,wealth of arguments, what constitutes our
legitimate right; but the circumstances that we have noted make us agree
on the need to put an end to the dispute in the manner that the Treaty
specifies. Your Commission of Foreign Affairs thus concludes
recomrnending to ye, the approval of the aforementioned Treaty
concluded between Nicaragua and Colornbia, with the addition proposed
in the Chamber of the Senate. - Hall of Commissions- Managua, 25
March 1930- H. Argüello Cerda. -Ulises Irias. -A Garcia L.
Deputy Borgen, who is the member that forms part of the minority that
signed the report impugning the Treaty celebrated between the Republics
of Nicaragua and Co lombia that is now under discussion, requested that
his report also be inserted in the act, that literally says:
"Honourable Chamber of Representatives: As one of the commissioners
for Foreign Affairs, 1 should sign the report over the Nicaraguan Treaty
with Colombia with respect to the San Andrés and Providencia
Archipelago, as was formulated by the other members of the commission.
Those of us involved in the report were entirely in conformity in that
Nicaragua has had perfect justice in trying the territoriallawsuit over the
San Andrés and Archipela:go based on the right that she inherited from
the Federal Republic of Central America, when it was divided into five
independent States. But, 1 cannot subscribe the final part of the ruling
because it is not congruent with its own background and recognizes as
cause Nicaragua's weakness in that it does not know what to do to oblige
the Republic of Colombia to constitute the arbitration convened in the
Molina-Guai Treaty dated 15 March 1925. Colombia's pretension over
the Atlantic Coast, which they launched in contraposition to the
Nicaraguan claim, is one of many arts to embroil the issue after the facts,
it is a mere illusion, basis for a sophism and nothing more. I am of the
opinion that you should not approve the Treaty remitted to you, and to
that effect, 1 propose the following legal text: ·
THE CHAMB.ERS OF THE SENA TE AND DEPUTIES OF THE
REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA
DECREE:
1. The Treaty celebrated by the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs of
Nicaragua with His Excellency Mr. Manuel Esguerra, Minister
Plenipotentiary of Co lombia to Central America, on 27 March 1928 [sic],
concerning the territorial dispute over the Archipelago of San Andrés and
Providencia is not approved.
79
2. Nicaragua has dominium over this Archipelago, and will have to
demand to the Republic of Colombia, the fulfilment of theTreaty signed
at Bogota on 15 March 1825, to constitute an Arbitrer and Conciliator of
theirs disputes and differences, according toit is stipulated there.
I request that this report also be inserted in the act of this session.
Managua 1 April 1930. (S) José Maria Borgen."
Deputies Garcia Largaespada and Argüello Cerda who integrated the
majority, defended their report, having been backed by Deputies
Largaespada, Sacasa (Crisanto), Hidalgo and Baltodano C.
Deputy Borgen defended his report, as a member who integrated the
minority commission having be en backed by Deputies Celero [sic] B.,
Arcia and Rivas h.
The two reports having been sufficiently discussed and subjected to vote,
that of the majority was approved with 25 votes in favour and 13 against,
the Treaty celebrated between the Republics of Nicaragua and Colombia
on 27 [sic] March 1928 was thus approved.
The single article of the law under discussions was approved.
Deputy Escobar presented a motion to dispense with the requirements of
the 2nd debate and other prescribed orres which, taken into consideration,
discussed and voted on, was approved.
80
Annex 26
FINAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE IV BINATIONAL
MEETING NICARAGUA-COSTA RICA. GRANADA, NICARAGUA, 12
AND 13 MAY 1997 (EXCERPTS)
( ... )
IV. MARITIME DELIMITATION
Foreign Minister Naranjo reiterated his Govemrnent's firm comrnitrnent
not to act about its boundary claim in the Northern Caribbean until the
Govemments of Nicaragua and Colombia reach an agreement that will
allow them to overcome the differences originated between those two
friendly nations.
Illegible Signature
Emilio Alvarez Montalvan
Minister of Foreign Affairs
of the Republic of Nicaragua
( ... )
Illegible Signature
Fernando Naranjo Villalobos
Minister ofF oreign Affairs
of the Republic of Costa Rica
81
Annex27
EXCHANG E OF NOTES BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF COSTA
RICA AND THE GOVERNM ENT OF COLOMBIA. 29 MA Y 2000
(La Gaceta, Diario Ojicial of Costa Rica, N. 34. 16 February 2001)
( ... )
EXCHANGE OF NOTES
"The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cult
San José, 29 May 2000.
No 396-UAT -PE
Y our Excellency;
1 have the honour of addressing y our Excellency to make reference to the
process of ratification of the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and
Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of
Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, signed in Bogota on 6 April
1984.
It is the opinion of the Government of Costa Rica that in accord ance with
the precepts found in clause 1) of article 24 of the Vi enna Convention on
the Law ofTreaties, the coming into force of the aforementioned Treaty,
will be the moment of exchange of the respective ratification instruments,
a measure which will be carried out in the manner and on the date which
our Governments consider convenient. In this regard, it considers that the
change of the date established in article III of said Treaty of 6 April 1984,
in no way alters its object and goal.
By the same token, the Government of Costa Rica expresses that the
process of conclusion of the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine and
Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of
Co lombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, signed on 17 March 1977, to
which reference is made in the Treaty of 6 April 1984, will continue in its
current condition, until the internai constitutional requirements for the
approval of Treaties have been fulfilled, and the exchange of the
ratification instruments has been opportunely carried out.
His Excellency
Mr. Guillenno Femandez de Soto
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic ofColombîa
83
The Government of Costa Rica wishes to know if the Enlightened
Government of Co lombia is in agreement with the content of the current
Note.
I urge you to accept, Y our Excellence, the expressions of my high and
distinguished consideration,
Roberto Rojas."
"Republic ofColombia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
San José, May.29, 2000
DM-M 14081
Y our Excellency,
1 have the honour of addressing your Excellency on the occasion of
referring to your note No 396-UAT-PE of29 May 2000.
1 am pleased to express to your Excellency that the Government of
Colombia shares the criteria that - in accordance with the precepts found
in Clause 1) of Article 24 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties - the coming into force of the Treaty on Delimitation of Marine
and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of
Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica, signed in Bogota on 6 April
1984, will be the moment of exchange of the respective ratification
instruments, a measure which will be carried out in the manner and on
the date which our Govemments consider convenient. My Government
likewise considers that the change of the date established in Article III of
this Treaty in no way alters the object and goal of said instrument.
My Government also shares the position of the Enlightened Government
of Costa Rica that the fulfilment and application of the Treaty on
Delimitation of Marine and Submarine Areas and Maritime Cooperation
between the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica,
signed on 17 March 1977, will continue in its current condition, un til the
internai constitutional requirements for the approval of Treaties have
been fulfilled, and the exchange of the ratification instruments has been
opportunely carried out.
His Excellency,
Roberto Rojas L6pez
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cult
Republic of Costa Rica
84
~----------------------------~~~--------~~--------------------------------
Nevertheless, the Govenunent of Co lombia trusts that the proceedings for
the approval by the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Costa Rica
of said Treaty of 1977 continue their course - [that] the exchange of the
ratification instruments be opportunely carried out - in a similar manner
to the proceeding that the Enlightened Govemrilent of Costa· Rica has
disposed with respect to the Treaty of 1984.
1 urge y ou to accept, Y our Excellence, the expressions of my utmost and
distinguished consideration,
Guillermo Fernandez de Soto
Minister of Foreign Affairs"
85
Annex 28
AGREEMENT CONCLUDED BETWEEN COSTA RICA AND
NICARAGUA ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2002 (EXCERPTS)
The Ministries of Foreign Affairs
of the Republics ofNicaragua and Costa Rica:
( ... )
Have agreed to declare the following:
( ... )
3. The Government of Nicaragua commits itself to maintain the
legal situation as it exists at present for a period of three years
starting this day as concerns its declaration of the acceptance of
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. For its part,
and during the same period, the Governrnent of Costa Rica
commits itself to not commence any international action or daim
against Nicaragua before the said Court, nor at any other
international entity regarding any matter or claim regarding the
Treaties or Agreements presently in force between the two
countries.
c .. )
In witness whereof we sign, for purposes of immediate validity and
efficacy, two original texts, both in the Spanish language and equally
valid, at the city of Alajuela, Costa Rica, on the twenty-sixth day of
September of the year 2002.
NORMAN CALDERA CARDENAL ROBERTO TOY AR F AJA
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic ofNicaragua
Signature: Abel Pacheco
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cult
ofthe Republic of Costa Rica
E. Bolafios G.
87
Volume II Annexes