Declaration of intervention of Poland

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION
ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT
OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE v. RUSSIAN FEDERATION)
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
UNDER ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT
SUBMITTED BY THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND
23 July 2024
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the
Government of the Republic of Poland:
I. On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Poland, I have the honour to submit to the
Court a new Declaration oflntervention pursuant to the right to intervene set out in Article
63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court ("the Statute"), in the case concerning
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). The purpose of submitting a new
Declaration of Intervention stems from the Republic of Poland's intention to broaden its
scope of intervention compared with the Declaration of Intervention submitted on 15
September 2022, taking into account the Court's Judgment of 2 February 2024 clarifiying
preliminary objections and deciding to proceed with the merits of the case.
2. Article 82, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Court provides that a declaration of a State's
desire to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the Statute
shall specify the case and the convention to which it relates and shall contain:
(a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a patty to the
convention;
(b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction of which it
considers to be in question;
( c) a statement of the construction of those provisions for which it contends;
(d) a list of documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. These matters are addressed in sequence below, after some preliminary observations.
I. Preliminary Observations
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation
concerning a Dispute Relating to Allegations of Genocide. 1
1 Dispute Relating to Allegations of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Application instituting proceedings
filed in the Registry of the Court on 26 February 2022.
1
5. In its Application instituting the proceedings, Ukraine asks the Court to:
"a. Adjudge and declare that, contrary to what the Russian Federation claims, no
acts of genocide, as defined by Article Ill of the Genocide Convention, have been
committed in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine.
b. Adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation cannot lawfully take any action
under the Genocide Convention in or against Ukraine aimed at preventing or
punishing an alleged genocide, on the basis of its false claims of genocide in the
Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine.
c. Adjudge and declare that the Russian Federation's recognition of the
independence of the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" and "Luhansk People's
Republic" on 22 February 2022 is based on a false claim of genocide and therefore
has no basis in the Genocide Convention.
d. Adjudge and declare that the "special military operation" declared and carried
out by the Russian Federation on and after 24 February 2022 is based on a false
claim of genocide and therefore has no basis in the Genocide Convention.
e. Require that the Russian Federation provide assurances and guarantees of nonrepetition
that it will not take any unlawful measures in and against Ukraine,
including the use of force, on the basis of its false claim of genocide.
f. Order full reparation for all damage caused by the Russian Federation as
a consequence of any actions taken on the basis of Russia's false claim of
genocide. "2
6. Jn a document communicated to the Court on 7 March 2022, the Russian Federation
contended that the Com1 lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case and "request[ed] the Court
to refrain from indicating provisional measures and to remove the case from the list".
7. Following a request for provisional measures from Ukraine, the Court ordered on 16 March
2022 that:
(1) The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operation that it
commenced on 24 February 2022 on the territory of Ukraine;
2 Ibidem, para 30.
2
(2) The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed units which
may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may
be subject to its control or direction, take no steps in furtherance of the military
operations referred to in point ( 1) above; and
(3) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the
dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
8. On 30 March 2022, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court, the
Registrar duly notified the Government of the Republic of Poland as a party to the
Convention that the construction of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide may be in question in the case. 3
9. Between 21 July 2022 and 15 December 2022, 33 States (including the Republic of Poland)
filed declarations of intervention under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.
By an Order dated 5 June 2023, the Court decided that the declarations of intervention
under Article 63 of the Statute submitted by 32 States were admissible at the preliminary
objections stage of the proceedings, insofar as they concerned the construction of Article
IX and other provisions of the Genocide Convention relevant to determining the Court's
jurisdiction.
10. In the Judgment rendered on 2 February 2024, the Court concluded that it has jurisdiction,
based on Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to entertain submission (b) in paragraph
178 of the Memorial of Ukraine, whereby Ukraine requests the Court to "[a]djudge and
declare that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsible for committing
genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of
Ukraine", and that this submission is admissible.4 The Court in its Judgment of 2 February
2024 on preliminary objections did not make any decisions concerning the provisional
measures ordered on 16 March 2022.
3 See Annex A to this Declaration.
4 !CJ, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening), Preliminary Objections, Judgement of2 February 2024.
3
11. As a State Party to the Genocide Convention, the Republic of Poland, having a common
interest in the construction of the Convention resulting from the case brought by Ukraine,
exercises its right to intervene in these proceedings pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Statute.
This Court has recognized that Article 63 confers a "right" of intervention, where the State
seeking to intervene confines its intervention to "the point of interpretation which is in
issue in the proceedings, and does not extend to general intervention in the case". Thus, a
third State not party to the proceedings, but party to a convention whose construction is in
question in those proceedings, limits the object of the intervention to "present to the Comt
its observations on the construction of that convention".5
12. Consistent with the restricted scope for interventions under Article 63 of the Statute, the
Republic of Poland will present its interpretation of the relevant A1ticles of the Genocide
Convention as well as of the Statute oflnternational Court of Justice in line with the general
rules of interpretation of treaties, as reflected in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Declarant will also refer to "judicial decisions and
the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of various nations" as a subsidiary
means of interpretation, pursuant to Article 3 8( l )( d) of the Statute.
13. The Republic of Poland's right to intervene in the present case arises from its status as
a party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(the "Genocide Convention" or "Convention"), as well as a party to the Chatter of the
United Nations, to which the Statute of the International Cou1t of Justice is annexed.
II. The Basis on which the Republic of Poland is a Party to the Convention and is
bound by the Statute of the International Court of Justice
14. The Republic of Poland acceded to the Convention on 14 November 1950, before it entered
into force on 12 January 1951. Upon its accession, Poland made reservations concerning
5 PCJJ, S.S. "Wimbledon" (Question of Intervention by Poland), Judgment of28 June 1923, P.C.1.J., Series A, No.
I, p. 11 , at p. 12; !CJ, Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Pern), Judgment of 13 June 1951 , I.CJ. Reports 1951 , p. 71 ,
at p. 76; !CJ, Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application by Malta for Permission to
Intervene, Judgment of I 4 April 1981 , I.CJ. Reports 1981 , p. 3, at pp. 15-16, para. 26; !CJ, Whaling in the Arctic
(Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 20 I 3, I.CJ. Repo1ts 20 I 3,
p. 3, at p. 5, para 7.
4
Articles IX and XII of the Convention6. However, on 16 October 1997, the Government of
the Republic of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its
reservation made upon accession with regard to Article IX of the Convention.7 The
Republic of Poland remains party to the Convention with full acceptance of the
International Court of Justice's jurisdiction concerning disputes between Contracting
Patties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention,
including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other
acts enumerated in Article III.
15. The Republic of Poland is an Original Member of the United Nations. Thus, it has been
bound by the Charter of the United Nations since 24 October 1945. In accordance with
Article 93, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members of the United
Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice."
III. The Provisions of the Genocide Convention in Question
in the Present Dispute
111.1. Introduction
16. The Genocide Convention, "is invoked both as a basis of the Court's jurisdiction and as a
substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the merits"8. Thus, the proper construction
of the Convention is directly relevant to resolving the dispute placed before the Court by
Ukraine's Application.
17. The Republic of Poland feels a particular obligation to avail itself of its right to submit
observations on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Convention. The word
"genocide" was first coined in 1944 by the Polish lawyer Rafal Lemkin in his book Axis
Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for
Redress (New York: Columbia University Press). Lemkin's work gave impulse to the
drafting of the Genocide Convention, which Lemkin personally initiated. Simultaneously,
Polish delegates were directly involved in negotiating its provisions and frequently referred
6 See Annex B to this Declaration.
7 See Annex C to this Declaration.
8 Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention by Philippe Gautier, Registrar, 30 March 2022.
5
to genocide committed on Polish territory against various nations, including Polish one, by
enemy states, often using them to justify the wording of specific articles. Poland was also
the first state in the world which prosecuted Nazi criminals for involvement in genocide.9
18. The Republic of Poland's interpretation of the Convention is based on the provisions of
Articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 31,
paragraph 1 provides as the basic rule of interpretation: "A treaty shall be interpreted in
good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty
in their context and in the light of its object and purpose". Such interpretation must also
take account of the subsequent practice of the parties to the treaty and may be confirmed
by reference to supplementary means of interpretation. These rules, as indicated by the
Court on numerous occasions, reflect customary law and can also be applied to treaties
concluded before the date of adoption of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1° .
19. The Republic of Poland is further mindful that interpretation must take into account any
relevant rules of international law applicable in relations between the pai1ies, including any
developments in those rules since the treaty's adoption. Moreover, the principle of good
faith requires a party to apply a treaty provision "in a reasonable way and in such a manner
that its purpose can be realized". 11
9 As an example, we would like to mention judgments of the Supreme National Tribunal (Najwyzszy Trybunal
Narodowy) of9 July 1945 in the case against Arthur Greiser (The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law
Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. XIII, His Majesty's Stationery Office, London 1949, pp.70-117); and of
5 September 1946 in the case against Amon Leopold Goth (The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law
Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. Vil, His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1948, pp.1-10). Both
judgments referred directly to the notion of genocide and were issued before the announcement of the final verdict
of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg on I October 1946. Moreover, the notion of genocide was
also referred to by the Supreme National Tribunal in other verdicts, including on Rudolf Hoss (Judgment of 2
April 1947) or on the Auschwitz camp staff (Arthur Liebehenschel et al.) (Judgment of 22 December 1947).
10 E.g. ICJ, Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment of3 February 1994, l.C.J. Reports 1994,
p. 6, at pp. 21 -22, para. 41; ICJ, Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar
v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 15 February 1995, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 6, at p. I 8,
para. 33; ICJ, Kasikili/Sedudu lsland (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 December 1999, I.CJ. Reports 1999,
p. I 045, at p. 1060, para 20.
11 TCJ, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of25 September 1997, l.C.J. Repo.rts 1997,
p. 7, at p. 79, para. 142.
6
20. Finally, it is to be noted that the Court considered the prohibition of genocide to have the
character of a peremptory norm (jus cogens). 12 This Court has also acknowledged that the
rights and obligations enshrined in the Convention have an erga omnes character. 13 The
Republic of Poland is thus fully aware of the common interest in fulfilling the humanitarian
purposes of the Convention. Therefore, it understands that proper, good faith interpretation
of the Convention's provisions is of the highest importance.
21. It can be stated with certainty that the Convention was created for a purely humanitarian
purpose and cannot be construed in a manner that would allow any State to invoke it to
justify military conquest or imperialistic designs.
111.2. Identification of the particular provisions of the Genocide Convention
22. Pursuant to the requirement stipulated in Article 82, paragraph 2(b) of the Rules of Court,
Republic of Poland identifies the following provisions of the Convention which it considers
to be pai1icularly in question: Article I; Article II; Article VIII.
23. Furthe1more, Republic of Poland reserves the right to comment on the following provisions
of the Genocide Convention: Article III; Article IV; Article V; A11icle VI; Article VII and
Article IX.
III. 3. Construction of provisions for which the Republic of Poland contends
Obligation not to commit genocide
24. A11icle I of the Genocide Convention reads as follows:
"The Contracting Pai1ies confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace
or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they unde11ake to prevent
and to punish".
12 TCJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment of3 February 2006,
I.C.J. Reports 2006, p.6, at pp. 31-32, para. 64.
13 ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Prelim inary Objections, Judgment of 11 July 1996, I.CJ. Reports 1996,
p. 595, at pp. 615-616, para. 31 .
7
Article I contains obligations of fundamental importance to the application of the
Convention. As stated by the Court: "Under Article I the States parties are bound to prevent
such an act, which it describes as 'a crime under international law', being committed. The
Article does not expressis verbis require States to refrain from themselves committing
genocide. However, in the view of the Court, taking into account the established purpose
of the Convention, the effect of Article I is to prohibit States from themselves committing
genocide" .14
25. The obligation not to commit genocide encompasses all acts indicated in Article III of the
Genocide Convention, i. e. genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public
incitement to commit genocide; attempt to commit genocide; complicity in genocide.
26. In order to assign to a State responsibility for the commission of genocide, it must be proven
not only that genocide was committed but also that it is attributable to the State. Thus, it
must be proven that acts of genocide were committed by State organs or by other entities
exercising elements of governmental authority or that the conduct of a person committing
genocide was directed or controlled by a State in accordance with the law of State
responsi bi Ii ty. 15
Obligation to prevent genocide
27. A State Party is expected to use its best efforts (a due diligence standard) when it has
a "capacity to influence effectively the action of persons likely to commit, or already
committing" 16 acts of genocide, which in turn depends on the State Party's geographic,
political and other relations with the persons or groups at issue. Still, this obligation
14 ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 113,
para. 166.
15 Articles 4-11 on Attribution of Conduct to a State of Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally
Wrongful Acts (2001) adopted by the International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law
Commission 200 I, vol. II, part two.
16 ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 22 1,
para. 430.
8
requires significant evidence that genocide is likely to be or is already being committed. It
does not allow for conduct based solely on claims of genocide without any serious evidence
of its commission.
28. An essential part of the obligation to prevent genocide is the adoption of national laws
setting effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide (Article V). Fulfilling this
obligation creates conditions conducive to genuine efforts to prosecute or
extradite/suITender perpetrators (Article IV). Another associated obligation is not to
classify genocide as a political crime for purposes of extradition (Article VII). Finally,
acceptance of the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction via ratification of the Rome
Statute or by declaration on acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction with respect to genocide
pursuant to A1ticle 12, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute are potential steps which States
might undertake to fulfil the obligation derived from Article VI of the Convention.
Calling upon competent organs
29. Furthe1more, States, when discharging their duty to prevent genocide, "may only act within
the limits permitted by international law", as stated in a previous case brought under the
Convention.17 Such an interpretation is further co1Toborated by a reading of Article I, in
particular in the context of A1ticle VIII of the Convention. The latter provision reads as
follows: "Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations
to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for
the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in
A1ticle Ill".
30. A1ticle Vlll of the Convention encourages the Contracting Parties to act through "the
competent organs of the United Nations". It must be emphasized that travaux
preparatoires of the Convention clearly indicate that Soviet delegates insisted that States
should be obliged to report genocide to the Security Council. 18 The final wording of
Article VIII is not as strict as desired by the USSR, of which the Russian Federation is a
continuator. Article Vlll uses the phrase "may call upon", which might suggest that
informing UN bodies is an option but not an obligation. However, the subsequent practice
17 Ibidem.
18 UN Doc. E/AC.25/7.
9
of States parties to the Genocide Convention within the United Nations should be taken
into account. Those states supported the exercise by various UN organs of their powers
to address genocide or the threat to commit genocide. Nowadays, genocide is treated as a
threat to peace, 19 and so-called "crime of crimes" that constitutes the most serious
violation of human rights.20 As such, it should be of concern to the principal organs of the
United Nations, including the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and
Social Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice, as this case
demonstrates, as well as to various subsidiary bodies like the Human Rights Council or
the Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. Confomation of this
concern was provided, for example, by Security Council Resolution 2150 of 16 April
2014, General Assembly Resolution 60/1 of 20 September 2005 (para. 138-141), and
Human Rights Council Resolution 43/29 of 22 June 2020 on the Prevention of
Genocide.21 Therefore, in today's well-developed system of prevention and reaction to
genocide, States that suspect such a crime may have been committed can and should call
upon the competent organs of the UN before they decide on unilateral action, especially
if it involves the use of force. This interpretation is consistent with the Preamble of the
Genocide Convention, which emphasizes that "in order to liberate mankind from such an
odious scourge, international co-operation is required". In consequence, having in mind
the gravity of accusations of genocide, the Convention's Preamble directs States to
multilateral institutions to properly assess the situation in an unbiased fashion.
31. The involvement of competent United Nations organs can be essential in assessing the
credibility of evidence for the commission of genocide. In particular, this applies to
determining the existence of any evidence - direct or indirect - indicating specific intent.
Due to the legal and social gravity of accusations of genocide, specific intent cannot be
presumed in such cases.
19 E.g. S/RES/955 of 8 November I 994; S/RES/2150 of 16 April 2014; see also International Law Commission,
'Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Eighth Session, 6 May- 26 July 1996', UN
Doc. A/51 11 0, p. 22.
20 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ([CTR), Prosecutor v. Kambanda, Judgment and Sentence of 4
September 1998, ICTR-97-23-S, para. 16.
21 Cf. also Resolution of Human Rights Council no. 7/25 of28 March 2008, 22/22 of22 March 201 3, 28/34 of27
March 20 15 and 37 /26 of 23 March 2018.
10
32. Similarly, the International Law Commission in Article 41 of its Articles on State
Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (200 I), with reference to a serious breach
of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law, emphasized the
obligation of States to cooperate to bring to an end any such breach through lawful means.22
False accusations of genocide
33. The Convention was manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose.
Its aim was to protect specific groups from abuses leading to their physical extermination
over the short or the long term. The deliberate fabrication and dissemination of false
accusations of genocide, without any genuine effort to verify them through the competent
organs of the United Nations pursuant to Article VIII, can have serious negative
consequences. Such conduct creates an atmosphere of fear and hatred or at the very least
revives old resentments which can provide fertile ground for the commission of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes against groups that have been falsely accused and
dehumanized. Threats related to misinfom1ation and disinformation were also recognized
by the Security Council in its Resolution 2686 of 14 June 2023.
34. The notion of genocide today cannot be reduced solely to a legal concept which triggers
State responsibility and international mechanisms. A special odium attached to genocide
provokes a correspondingly strong social reaction. This is why the international community
of states is so cautious about labelling atrocities as genocide. Jn any case, the duty to
"prevent" genocide necessarily encompasses the duty not to create and disseminate false
accusations of such a grave crime being committed.
Obligation to punish genocide
35. With respect to the duty to punish, which is an obligation distinct yet connected to the duty
to prevent such crimes,23 the Republic of Poland is of the opinion that it certainly requires
clear and convincing evidence of the commission of genocide. Furthe1more, Article I of
the Genocide Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to punish
genocide is limited to punitive measures of a criminal nature directed against individuals.
22 Cf. also ILC, Draft conclus ions on identification and legal consequences of peremptory no1ms of general
international law Uus cogens), 2022, Conclusion 19.
11
36. The concept of"punishment" is known to national and international criminal law. It covers
a reaction to a prohibited act aimed at detenence, retribution, and rehabilitation of an
offender (in proportions different for each and every legal system). By its very nature, such
"punishment" cannot be imposed on a State. For this reason, the International Law
Commission in Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts
abandoned the concept of "international crime" and "punishment" in reference to State
responsibility.
3 7. This ordinary meaning of the word "punishment" is confirn1ed by systemic analyses of the
Genocide Convention. In the context of "punishment", the Convention deals with classical
criminal law institutions of individual criminal responsibility ( elements of crime - Article
II, modes of conduct - Article III, personal immunities - Article IV, effectiveness of
penalty - Article V, jurisdiction - Article VI, extradition - Article VII). On the other hand,
in the context of action that can be taken against a State (not against an individual person),
it uses the term "suppression" (A1ticle VIII) instead of "punishment."
Elements of the definition of genocide
38. Article II of the Genocide Convention reads as follows:
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harn1 to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent bi1ths within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group".
Article II of the Convention deals with the definition of genocide. The Republic of Poland
contends that the elements of genocide are already well established in the case law of the
Court and supports its interpretation.
12
Requirement of special intention
39. In order to assign responsibility to a State for breaching the obligation not to commit
genocide, it must be demonstrated that genocide as defined in Article II of the Convention
has been committed.24
40. Specifically, in order to demonstrate that genocide has occurred, there is a requirement to
establish both genocidal acts (actus reus) and a (specific) genocidal intent (mens rea)
besides the mental elements present in the acts listed in Article 11.25
41. The Genocide Convention is designed to prevent the physical or biological destruction of
all or part of a protected group. When assessing the existence of genocide, the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia considered the detrimental long-term
consequences the actions in question had for the physical survival of the group, as well as
the residual possibility that the group could reconstitute itself26
, endorsing a quantitative
and qualitative element for the actus reus.
42. Genocidal intent, often referred to as specific (special) intent, is considered as the intention
to destroy, in whole or in part, the group protected by the Convention as such. It is to be
distinguished from other motivations the perpetrator may have which are legally
irrelevant. 27 Therefore, the Court stressed that "from the viewpoint of mens rea, genocide
is an extreme and most inhuman form of persecution."28 However, in order to classify
attacks against members of the group as genocide, there needs to be a sufficiently clear
manifestation of the intent to destroy the group as such in whole or in pait.29 Genocide is
aimed against the existence of the group as such, rather than seeking its subjugation or
mere persecution of its members.
24 Ibidem, at p. 119, para. 180.
25 Ibidem, at pp. 121 - 122, paras. 186-189.
26 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (JCTY), Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic, IT-98-33-A,
Judgement in Sentencing Appeals of 19 April 2004, paras. 24-31.
27 ICTR, Niyitegeka v. Prosecutor, ICTR-96-14-A, Judgment, 9 July 2004, para. 49, idem, Prosecutor v.
Ntakirutimana (ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Judgment, 13 December 2004, para. 304, 363.
28 ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of26 Februa1y 2007, l.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 122, para.
188.
29 !bidem, at pp. 121-122, paras. 187, 189.
13
43. In turn, the fact that civilian casualties occurred during the course of armed conflict is not
per se evidence of genocidal action or genocidal intent. Unlawful killings of civilians or
other kinds of attacks against civilians in armed conflicts might be classified as war crimes,
and if those attacks are systematic or widespread, it is possible to classify them as crimes
against humanity. The genocide label may be used only if specific intent is clearly
demonstrated. Specific intent - as this Court has stressed - is the "essential characteristic
of genocide,which distinguishes it from other serious crimes".30
44. Where direct evidence for specific intent is absent, the Court has detennined that " in order
to infer the existence of dolus specialis from a pattern of conduct, it is necessary and
sufficient that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in
question".31 This statement clearly shows that classification of any atrocities as genocide
should not be done lightly. Genocide is grounded in such extreme hatred and has such an
odious, incomprehensible aim (the irreversible destruction of a group as a whole or in part)
that the Court indicates other explanations and - in consequence - other legal qualifications
must be taken into account.
45. As for standards of proof, the Court requires that it be fully convinced of allegations made
during the proceedings that the crime of genocide or other acts enumerated in Article Ill
are clearly established to have been committed. The same standard applies to the proof of
attribution for such acts. 32
IV. Construction of the Statute of the International Court of Justice
IV.I. Introduction
46. In its Memorial, Ukraine requests that the Court, among other things:
"Adjudge and declare that, by failing to immediately suspend the military operations that
it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine, and by failing to ensure that
30 JCJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v.
Serbia), Merits, Judgment of 3 February 2015, I.CJ . Reports 2015, p. 3, at p. 62, para. I 32.
31 Ibidem, at p. 67, para. 148; ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, J.C.J. Reports
2007, p. 43, at pp. 196-197, para. 373.
32 / bidem, at p. 129, para. 209.
14
any military or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as
any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control or direction, take no
steps in furtherance of these military operations, the Russian Federation violated the
independent obligations imposed on it by the Order indicating provisional measures issued
by the Court of 16 March 2022".33
47. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirement stipulated in Article 82, paragraph 2(b) of the
Rules of Court, Republic of Poland states that Article 41 of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice is also a provision which it considers to be in question.
48. It should be noted that the Registrar of the Court has not notified the Members of the United
Nations that the construction of the Statute of the International Court of Justice - and in
pa11icular Article 41 - could be in question. There are obvious reasons for this. The
Registrar cannot be expected to know at the initial phase of proceedings whether the
construction of the Statute will be in question in a particular case. The proceeding
concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) proves this asse1tion.
The Registrar's notification is dated 30 March 2022, while the Memorial submitted by
Ukraine which drew attention to the obligations stemming from Article 41 of the Statute is
dated l July 2022.34 Thus, the Registrar's lack of notification that the construction of the
Statute could be in question does not deprive Republic of Poland of its right to intervene in
this respect.
49. The provisions and purpose of Article 63 suggest no reason why a State should not be
permitted to intervene over the construction of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice. A1ticle 63 does not differentiate between treaty types and is unqualified in its
wording: "[ w ]henever the construction of a convention ... is in question". This approach
is corroborated by Article 82, para 6 of the Rules of the Court, which states: "Such a
declaration may be filed by a State that considers itself a party to the convention, the
33 Memorial submitted by Ukraine, I July 2022, para 178.
34 Memorial submitted by Ukraine, Chapter 4 Russia Has Flagrantly Violated The Court's Provisional Measures
Order Of 16 March 2022.
15
construction of which is in question but has not received the notification referred to in
Article 63 of the Statute".
50. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Registrar does not expressly notify Members of
the United Nations when the Charter of the United Nations is cited before the Cout1.35
Under Article 92 of the Cha1ter the Statute of the Comt, which is annexed to the Charter,
forms its integral part.
51. Additionally, Article IX of the Genocide Convention refers to the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice. Therefore, in an indirect way, Article IX alludes to the
Statute of the International Court of Justice, which provides the basis for the Court's
conduct. It also authorises States Parties to the Genocide Convention to refer in their
interventions based in Article 63 of the Statute to those provisions of the Statute which are
of particular importance to achieve the Convention's aims.
52. When applied to cases concerning genocide, respect for provisional measures is of special
importance. Bearing in mind the humanitarian character of the Genocide Convention, the
obligation to respect provisional measures ordered by the Court has an absolute character.
Through the introduction of Genocide Convention's compromissory clause in Article IX,
States Parties recognised the Court, with all its powers, as an instrument not only for
reacting to but also for prevention of genocide. This also means that provisional measures
ordered pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute aimed at non-aggravation of the situation
might be linked with Article I of the Genocide Convention and derive from it an obligation
to prevent genocide. By accepting the compromissory clause contained in Article IX, States
Parties accept that the Court is solely empowered to decide both on the content of
provisional measures and about the duration of any obligation they may impose, from
beginning to end.
53. Furthermore, a particular unique characteristic of Article 41 of the Statue should be noted
- namely, that it can potentially be activated through the Court's provisional measures
35 Alina Miron, Christine Chinkin, ' Article 63' in: Christian J. Tams, Karin Oellers-Frahm, Christian Tomuschat
(eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commenta1y (3rd Edition), Andreas Zimmermann,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20 19, p. 1754.
16
order, imposing an independent obligation under international law. Any breach of this
independent obligation would engage the international responsibility of a State.
IV.2. The Statute provision whose construction Republic of Poland considers to be in
question
54. Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice reads as follows: "1. The
Court shall have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any
provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either
patty. 2. Pending the final decision, notice of the measures suggested shall forthwith be
given to the parties and to the Security Council."
Binding character of provisional measures
55. In accordance with the Court's jurisprudence, the provisional measures order has a binding
character36 pending a final decision by the Court. As the Court has stressed, "Obligations
arising from provisional measures bind the parties independently of the factual or legal
situation which the provisional measure in question aims to preserve".37 Finding the
violation of an order indicating provisional measures is independent of the conclusion that
other international law obligations were violated. 38
56. The Court's silence in its judgment on preliminary objections concerning provisional
measures must be understood as expressing its will to maintain these provisional measures
until its final judgment in merit phase.
36 ICJ, LaGrand (Gennany v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of27 June 2001, l.C.J. Reports 2001 ,
p. 466, at p. 506, para. I 09.
37 !CJ, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction
of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Merit, Judgment of 16 December
2015, l.C.J. Repo1ts 2015, p. 665, at p. 714 para. 129; !CJ, Application of the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination, Judgment of3 I January 2024, at p. 110, para 391
38 ICJ, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the
International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Judgment of 31 January 2024,
at p. 110, para. 392.
17
V. Conclusion
57. In conclusion, based on the arguments presented above, the Republic of Poland avails itself
of the right confen-ed upon it by Article 63(2) of the Statute to intervene as a non-party in
the proceedings brought by Ukraine against Russia in this case.
58. The Republic of Poland reserves the right to amend or supplement this Declaration in the
course of written and oral observation and by filing a further declaration with the Court.
VI. Documents in Support of the Declaration
59. The Republic of Poland submits the following documents in support of this Declaration:
• Annex A: Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Court's Statute;
• Annex B: Confinnation of the Deposition of the Instrument of Accession of the
Republic of Poland to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide;
• Annex C: Confirmation of Withdrawal of Poland's Reservation to Article IX of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
~&~·~
Artur Harazi m
Agent of the Government of the Republic of Poland
18
CERTIFICATION
I ce11ify that the documents attached in the Annexes to this Declaration are true copies of the
originals.
~of..~:~
Artur Harazim
Agent of the Government of the Republic of Poland
19
Annex A
Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63, paragraph I, of the Court's Statute
30 Ms ,h 20:'2
I have the honour w refer Ill Ill\ letter ("v. 1)6153) d3ted : i\lorch 10~2 mfu:mmg )OUl
(Jt"i\.Cttllllit:nt l lhtt, on 26 I c.-hru;'lt) :!0/2 lJlnuru: lik-tt III lh~ Rc,gr,tr} of the Crn1rt :, .-\pp11 .. 1111u:1
,n,tit111in~ prueccdinp nj!ainst the Kepubli, ot the Kuman I e<lernuon 1n the ca;e co~err.ini
6Jlesa1191!} l.'! ( icr11i,:ulc under Jh,; ( <H'\Cf\t1nn 1.1n l~frncl) lllfil d11J P11rr1,ho£lll 111 th~ Cr1.,11c !JI
Cornci,ide LIJl-ri11nt ,, RU1\t~'I [r,l~r31i9!l.) A C<>p) uf the Appli-.ution "a' appcru.kd ,., tlut !cite•
( hL tc,r of 1hc Applic•tmn i, ul,o c1'nd ble on th~ ,,..d,,1tc cf the Cuurt '""" r J·<·u O/ll
A11rclc 61, l'"'·'l\l"I'~ I, n' the ~l•tute ul lht l l'ur1 pw, id..-, that
(,, )hem:, t·r tl1c tl111"ctrth.l1on t I u i.:on\cn11,1n 't..,~" htt..h '.\!ate~ other than L'1,~i:'. CO'h.cm~d
111 th,· en,, arc p.,m.:, i, 111 quc,11<111 t~c Rc~l\lr.11 \h;,11 no1tl) ~II <11_h \t.itc, lorth" 1th.
I u:iher, unclc1 i\rti~lc 4 l, p.1r,,greph I. ul th~ Kuk, of c ·,,.,n
• \\ 1i~11i.::,1.:r th"" i.:,>11,1n1c1H1n ()! ft '-'"l\t'nt1on hl ~h1d1 Sta!e,, u!hc-r t :, Ch
l,11J\:4-:1ni.::t.! in d11..· La,1.· lll\.' p.u1:t", UHi) h\· 111 qu~110., within the m1.:.u,mg ot Art1dt> b\
I"'' ilftaph I. t1I the ',htlulc, tht t '<><s1 ,l~11l rn,"idc1 "hat d·rcct11111, th•II be~""" 1-, 1:i.:Rc11,1,
tr.11 ir1 tht-~ nwnc, '
On the 111si111~ tro11, t1l the t'ou 1, 1,t1H11 1n 11,e1J1,IJn,< \\Ith llrc -.aid pt,n r,rc,n ul t~c Kul.--. of
t'ouit. I ha\t· the: lumo1Jr l,1 nottt\ \.OIII (io,cr11rnc11l ,1f th"· iull,,,\rn~
Jn the .-,ti,wc 111c.·nliof\cJ 1\pplu.:Jt1nn 1tu.: l9a\S ( P:l',crtl H'l-1101' t11c: l'n:\1.·r·t1on anJ Pur.uhrnrru
,,I the n,,11, ul C,cm><.11.k (11n,inat1c1 the ·<,.11c>c1dc l o.11cnt1<>n .. ) i, m,okd I,; th n, a b.\,,. "f Ille
C ·.,11r1 ·, J11t1>dict:on and ,1, n ,uh,tnnm • bn,h ,,t tl:,· ,\ppltcm,1·, cl•rn" "" tire rrerrl, In part,,ul.tr.
rht:" ,\ pp1H.:.w! "-ll:~' lo found the Co11rt, ·urh,d1ct 1,'.\ll on the c1.--;mprvm1,WC} cJ;s. K C\1nta1n\;j 1n
Arti.lc IX,.,, 1hr c;~n11udt· Cn11,c1111C1n. J\~I the l'oun w decl:u~ that 11 h" rwt c, 1111111n·d a g:·1cs:;..k
n, ck r,11.-d j,, Article, II ,111d 111 e>f th~ { ·or•, CIIIIL'"· ,,,,( """" ljllt:,tr,,n, W!1C("110ll lh<' 5C<l!"<" of rhc
dur, lo pre, CIII ·"'" p1111,,h j!CIIO\:ldC 1111drr Article J ,,r tht l 011\ rnllrlll It tb.:r~·-•re appca:, th t !Ix
tt10'-tnn·11011 t'I' th11.i 111,trumc:111 \\ ill be m quc,tH1n l'l the c.: t'C
II cllct "' 11c State, p,,r11cs tCl th, C,rnncidc Con-,0111111
(r,ccp! l 1krni~e nnd lhL Ru,,,;111 l·eJcrulkm)J
t'°J'III t iJ( l. t'a, \. (. ·11.,:,~I :_
ltil7 "-.I La HI",· P,~, 8.u
ltlq,\.,c ·)l1fl1i::1 1C:l:12J•~.i~1•11; ·.11,u,~ ")..-.J~h
'5,1~• :r:r...,._1 v.•,o,-,,. ...:""" ,i;
20
ha...: 1-"'2:t.."t" L
.2' I~ ).;.J :lt<: ~ e- • '-.:t'lc.rl
lc1t?taJh. •JI (QJ '"'."u lr: .!1 :~ h &: -I
Yo.'el- ,: ._,.,."ft C -<1 N~
COJI• 1-.:n?J,;ATIO:-i.~Ll
m 1Js-1.:£
l', T~'-ATl0r--<L CO ~•
Of fUS.-1..::f
Y1H.r t.:ol.rlll") i~ i11clud.:d in the list of partll.;S 10 lh~ Gc1,~1,.;i1k Con,cntion TI:1: pn:'>Cnl letter
sl:ould acco,dingly be regarded a, the 11ot1fal!!101 co.1teillpla1c:d b) Article 63. p:'.ragrn.ph l. of 1he
Sc.:i1111t. I wo11ld add 1hu1 this not11ic11t1on in n:i wn} prcjl'dgc~ an:i, queslion ofth:: po~~ihl.: 1!ipplic.,1ior:
or Article 63. μara/!raph ~- of the Statu:e. \~luch the Court ma) ,at~ be calka upo:i to determine m
tl11~ c-,~~
/\ccepl, I ,cc.:llcn~), the a:.surnn.:c.--, of my high~t cons1dt"rntion
cf~; . ~ Rei i stra,
21
Annex B
Confirmation of the Deposition of the Instrument of Accession of the Republic of Poland
to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
U N I TE I> :-.; A'I I O N S
l'iEW YORK
C,N,196,1950,TREATIES
COOVENTION OF 9 W:::EMBER 1948 ON THE fR.!M?ITiot/
AND PCJHIS-U~T OF 'IllE CRll!E Or GEtOCIDE
ACCE.SSION WI'llf R:SrnVATIOt6 BY POU!ID
Sir,
I am directed by t.htl Secret.ary-G«1eral. to inton:i you that
on 14 Nove111bcr 1950 t.ho im,ll"llrnent. o! accession of the Government
of the Republic o! Polana to I.he Convent.ion on the Pren,ntion
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, with reeerv11Uon.,
relating to Hs Articltls IX and XII, waa deposited 'With the
Secret.a.ry-General in accordance wi U- Article ll of the Convent.ion,
A certified true copy of this inst.rui::ent of accension and an
English translation thereof are herewith attached.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Serva."lt, ~ ...----
~-
Assistant Secretary-General ~
-n-. Minister for Foraie,i Aff&ira,
Ministry ot Forei.Wl Affairs,
Warsaw,
Poland,
22
Legal Depart.cent
Annex C
Confirmation of Withdrawal of Poland's Reservation to Article IX of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
ll l. 2
I•. l
IV 9
Vl . 16
x: . A. f>
UN I TED NATIONS @f> ~AT I O ' S li~IES
c.tl. 460.lU't TREAtl&6 (Oepcaitary Not1!1cation)
MUl,TlLATO:RAL TIU>A'rIES DHPOSJT'J!D WYT!f TH& SliC'll!ITA.l!Y GFJH,kAI,
MITHDAAl!AL QP f,iS1'RVATIQFS IW>E BY PQLAl'"P
Tbo Socrct~ry-Gcncr-~l of the On1ted Nations, acting in hla
capacity •s depoaitary, cocn:'IUJlicate• the following,
In a notification received 16 October 1997, too Govermrenl of
Poland notified tile Sccreury•Genera~ that it ha• d~c1ded to withdr-ftw
the reservations 111ade by Poland conNrn1ng the c~lsory
jurisdiction of the Jnternatiooal court of Juetica and co~.pul■ ury
arbitration w1th reepect to the treatia• depoelted vith the
Secr-etary-Gencr-al, aa ~~ • t~d below. The text o t the rr~ervat1ona can
be round in the r-el~v•nl chaptoU Of tt>r publicatio>1 ~ltih~
trc~tic, deponit,:-d with the sccr~~a,D'...Jit:nQ.;.44' ·
C'Ol>'VEf<TlON ON nu; FRH'IU:GBS Al:U U(K~lTIEG or Till! SPJ.ClALIZLD
AGCNCl 89 . APPROV'£D BY 't"llll 01,t,1£~,-;, ASSEMBLY Or Till! Ulll rnn NATlc»;i: Otl
i. t:,o\'KMR~A 1947 !With r~~~r-d to 9ection& 2• and 32)
C'OlNDn'Hlf; ON TH& PJUNFJl'TlOll )U;t> PU,ITSHM<"f,7 Of Tilli C'iUMII 01' Ga;oc:&li
ADOPTED BY TllE GE!ffiRAL J\SSl:MllLY OF' TllE ll»ITEl> NATlO-JJS or.
9 DRC'FXBER 19•9 (li;th regard ~o flrtlc18 IX )
Uin.JUlA'TlO.~l\l, C'O:WR!n"JQtl OIi 'rnE BLI.Ml.NJ\TIOO OF ALL POP.MS OF P.AC:Ir..L
nISC'RIMJNATiotl, OPliNRO J'Oll S:C.NATIJJU;. AT H'1™ YORY. OJ, 7 tu.Rctl 1966
( Iii th reqflril to ~r-tj eh 2:11
COWJ!NTION Oil 'l1IJI 1-LIMH~'l.TlON 01' A:L F'ORM., 01' D1SC.R.:l'Hlill':'10N AW.INST
WOMEtl. AOOPTliD BY Tll6 GlimlRAL ASS~LY OF Tf!S l:'tlJTJ!:) IJATIONS ON
1s OECEMIIBA 1979 {Wi~h r~gard to article 29. paragraph 1 )
L'ON'\/'H~ION ON PSYCROTROPIC SUBST.t.J,.'C"~S. cor~CJ.\JDE'O AT \'IENNA 0:.1
ll r11BKUAAY 1971 (With re<a•r-d to ~rticl~ 31 , p~ragraph 2)
CONVEUTIO!I CONCERNlll:l ct;S'rol<.S FACILlTUS ro:l'i Tot-'l<ll,3
NBW YOU 0~1 ~ JUNE 1954 (111th r~gat-<l to articlr 2))
OONl! AT
Attention~ Tlrat)· SteL-Yicea of ,n,~ttiei: of ;"orc1gn Atla1r• Plnd of
inte 1 n ■ tional organ~tat1on• concnrncd
The trc~ty refrr~nc~ nWl1ber8 lco~binat1on■ of Rcxr~n and
A.r&tllc nUJ11eralsl indicated v1th respect to ead, t r ,eaty ae listed
rcte r to the relev0n~ C'hapter ot the publication Mu:t.lat<>r~l
treati~@Jkops1tcd with tho $ocre~"n: G<:oeral (S7/LEG/SXR.R/1S) and
to tnc indlvidu;,,J tr-eatic11 within that c1'>;,pt11r
23
Xl . A. '1
XI .A 8
X1 .A 10
XJ.A . H
XI . J\ . a
XI .D, 10
l!I.D . ll
Xl,ll . 12
)II .ll. 13
X I .B. 16
x1 ,s.a
Xl H.20
U N ll'l-:D NATIONS 9 NATION lJ N 1 l:S
Ml)ITtONAI, ~ROTOCOL TO TIIK COflVElrfIOtl c:or;ct Rlft~ C\1$1'0KS ,ACJ r..1T:U
FOR TOU'll!NO, REUlTIIIG TO THI JMPORTATJON OF TOtlllIIT PU8LlC1TY
OOCl,IMilNTll l'\tlll M)ITEflIAL. . DOlilE I\T tllW YORll ON 4 .nn,171 l t54 11'-ith 1c<;1•rd
to ert.i e-ii- HI
CUfl'tOM.'l CO~IVJllilTl0.1-1 OIi 1'111 T'B"lPORAR)' IMPORTATI0:1 OF PRlVATi R:OAO
V8H ICLES, OOHr. AT lritW YORK OH 4 .:U:-1'8 1~14 !With t~lrd to
11rt lol lOl
CUSTOMS CONVJ;h,-J ON Otf '.MU. Tt MPOPl,'R'( fMPOR'TATIOtl OF CO,,'i-1.:PCI I\L JOA%:
VSHlCl..f.S . 00,t:t: AT GBNKVA 011 11 KAY 11'5• IWH.h ~•rd te art.l.c1e lll
EUllOPEl<N COlfVIWl'Jc»J O~J COS'l'OOCS 'l"Rl!A1'M"-lrT Ot l'ALLl:TI usm IN
lN"l'IRNATl OHAl, TRA.1'0PORT, OOt'S AT OIINtvA 0:1 9 l:l&CC-U,1'11 1910 OHt.h
re-gnrd to artlcle ll, pAr•urapha 2 111\d ll
CLl!i~IJ COINIW1'tm~ ON THII Im'IRNA'l'lONAL 't'AA."ISPOH O CiOOll).S lr.\':)EP covrn OP TlR CJJINl!'l'S (TJR COIIVIDn'lONI CONCLUDL'll AT <lCIIVA 0:1
H l\~Vr,,IEIER a,~ 1111th t'llgard to IITtJch 117, pATllJJllJ;h• ; to &l
CONVt.NTIOi: 011 TI!£ TAXATIOtl or ROAD Vl.'HICL!£ fOlt l'lllVATE UGi H I
INTtRNAT:Cllfhl- TAAV-YlC, oomr. AT 0£1,11."VA Ol'J 11 MAY 1!1'1£ OrHh 1'e<Jllrd to
art.icla 10, p•ragraph• 2 and 3)
C'O}IV~UTtON 0>1 Tlll! COI\ITIIAC"I' FON Tllll lll'l'Klt.'fATfONAl. (.'.,.,,RIAGI! or 000~ •Y
RCA» ICl'(R) , DO~lJ! AT on;l"VA ON 19 NAY l 9U (With Tf1<141td to
•rt.ic:lu t7)
CO.Wk~frio.N ON 'l'tlB 'l'MATlON OP llOAO Vll1JICUS t:.'<W.EO W Ih"l'UltATIOta.:,
OOOV'1 TRAtlOPOllT . 00~111 !'IT Oi:JEVA Off U OllCDUU,'11 106 (!ol lth r-..;llrd to
art icle II, p!)ragr6pha ~ •ml l)
CONV1<trr1~ ON THE TAXAr:0:1 OF l!OAJ) VEllICU:l Dr.l'-OSD UI ll1Ti.JUIAT100~.
PA!l!J l'}(ClRR ~Al'JSPOltT . CON1, AT Ol:UI/VA 0el lC DEC'IMIIIR l n, (With rf<9trd
to <lt't. t c:lc 9, p., r,,1.1nP.ha ; .. 11d 31
I\ClRJlY,MllNT C'ONC'llltNIN!I THB ADOPT10 11 or !WI l'OIUI Tl-C:K:UCAl, l'lll:SC'IUPTtO:rs
JIOR N>lllEU!D V.l!HICUlS, EQUIPMl!NT A?ID PAATII WIUOI CAN B£ FIT'ne N'iP/Ofl
Ill< U!ll!W ON lo/Hlllll,t?I) Vl'-HICLJ!S AllD "11111 COMJlTlOtl"I roa JiSClPJ!OCA:.
RECOClNITtDH O}' APPNO\'Al..S CIRAl'l'l't:0 Oil 'l'Ha bASr& o• THIISI: l'IIIESCR:l"T:01,s
DONE AT ONNHVA ON ~o ~M,11 1,s, lWith regard to art1cl• 10)
CONVRN'trON 0 1~ RO/Ul TRM'FtC , COIICLtIDJID AT Vlotlll~ 0 :1 NOl/f:"f8£,. ltO
(Wi th r""Jo rd to article ~21
COh'Vltr,,lON or~ IIOAD UO!IS ANO 9 l(HIAL,5 C:Ot(Cf.lJDI:) AT VIU IA 011
8 NO\IEMIIER 1968 IW~t h re?Ard t o •rt1cl~ 441
24
JCl.D , ll
XI .n.2.4
Xf.ll . 2~
Xl.B.;?3
XII , J
XVI , 1
XV tlI . 7
f~ \ UN l l' ED NAT I ONS lft~ N Al'IOSS NIES
-3-
11a111;i;MSN't ON 1'Hl!l JI, r&Rl/l<HOIIIAL C>JlR IAOI! 01' PkR lfillAflt.S FOO;:IST\.'i'l"S ;,:;:o
ON THt llPllC'TAl, E:QUfPMI!)IT 'l'0 IIE U!Hm ~II llUCH CJJlRt..OE (ATPI
C'ONCUJDED Al' Of:rntVA ON 1 sgl'TEMSER 1970 (lli,n ngnd to uttcle 15,
paragraph• 2 and 3J
E;\IMOPllAN AORl:E:)o!UI'? .GUPPI.J!!HEtUlt/lJ 'n!E CONVE?-"TIOi, ON ,to,.:i Tll.l,Ff:C
01,lE:ln!.D FOR GIIDll<TVR.E A'I' VID,11A ()tl II NOVE'IIlil! 1968 . coi:C--UDl1l A":
01!::tlEVA ON l C"..AY U7l (lilith r~erd to nruclt! 9)
EUROPEAN AO'IIB&MJ::m' SU1'PLE>IE1n'Hl'Q ml:: CO,..'\I~ 1011 ON ii.0AD SIG-!~ A!'O
SIG};l\LS 0PEnlii:D f'OR .S1Cll'IA'IVRI; AT VI l!NNA Q:l 8 ~lOVBMDEII l 9'8 C'OtlCUJl)£1J
AT GENEVA 0..V l MY 1971 (Wi~h r~q~rd to irtiCle 9)
PROTOCOL otl ROA!: l'.M!O HGS, ,r.J)l)lTl0NM. TO nu; BUF0Pt.AM 1-CllEXC;'f
[email protected]. Tl-11! CONVENTtOt: Otl R.OA:l SIG.'l'J A.!lD stOAAL.S OrE::.nl FOR
S lGliAT\IRE AT VI!<NNA OH 8 00\r»<BER 1968 . COtlC1.Utll:'t> 1,-; CE:1BVA O~I
1 l'U'\RCH l~73 c• i t h r(lg~rd to article 91
EUROPltAll J\GRfil!MEST ON MAIS lNTh"JiJlllTlO?;AL TRAFFIC l'JlfilllliS (Ul.11 ) .
COtlCt,UI)&t) A'i' 0 9 fEVA ON 15 Z.OVEMBER 1!175 (-.fith regard to atticlc HI
CQNVl!.MTI ON RE!.ATING TO THE tiNIFICATlW OF C.Eil'1'A.Ul Rill.&S CO?IC'.EltNl~
COLLISIO?l!l rn INLAND NAVI GATIO~ ' COI.CLl.,'t)El) AT GENEVA <m
.1.5 KARCH ll),~o (With ra.gau:-d to artlc:l" t 4 )
CONVENTlON ON THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OP WOME~. OPENED FO?
SIONA'!URE AT NEW YOH.IC ON H l(ARCH l9S3 (lllt t.h resard to
,nt icl<: IX)
Cot(l/ENt'fON ON TID! PREVErl'l'IOS AND PUlll Sl'OON!" OF CP.It-F.S AOAl l>iST
IITT'EP.Ni\TIONA.l,LY t'l'<O'r:;;cTU> PKR.SONS, mcuro11~0 Dll>l.,OMATIC AGlU'l'l'S
AOOPTJ::V BY fflE 0B~JtAL :.SS!iHBI.Y OP THPi WlTED AA'J'l~:s ct1
14 DEC8M3BR 1973 (With regard to a r ticl e 13, pa1agr~~h l l
25