Note: This translation has been prepared by the Registry for internal purposes and has no official
character
ANNEX 1
Complaint with civil-party application filed by Transparency International
France and Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa with the Paris
Tribunal de grande instance, 2 December 2008
Complaint with civil-party application filed by Transparency International
France and Mr. Grégory Ngbwa Mintsa with the Paris
Tribunal de grande instance, 2 December 2008
COMPLAINT WITH CIVIL-PARTY APPLICATION

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC AL-KHASAWNEH
Discretion left to judges in delimitation of EEZ/continental shelf  Court should assess
equity of delimitation holistically  Court should not limit itself to assessing gross
disproportionality at third step of delimitation.
Maritime delimitation is, of necessity, a compromise between the need for certainty and
predictability of the law on the one hand and, on the other, the need to take cognizance of the
realities of geography which are never the same in different cases.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC AL-KHASAWNEH
Dissent is confined to land delimitation  Importance of putting to rest a long running
dispute  Ambiguity of 1858 Treaty  Producing no less than six arbitrations  And bilateral
commissions  And negotiations  Court dealing with various aspects of dispute since 2005 
2015 Judgment and present Judgments are res judicata  In conflict with earlier res judicata
decisions  Caribbean shore in general retreat  New point chosen by Court ephemeral  And

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC SIMMA
1980 Treaty Concerning Delimitation of Marine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between
the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Panama  Relevance to this case  Obligations
under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations
1. I have voted in favour of each of the Judgment’s operative paragraphs and agree, for the
most part, with the reasoning set out therein. I wish, in this short declaration, to comment on a point
which has not been addressed in the Judgment, relating to Article 102 of the Charter of the

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GEVORGIAN
Land boundary in the northern part of Isla Portillos  1858 Treaty of Limits  Punta de
Castilla as the starting-point of the boundary  Cleveland and Alexander Awards  the Courtappointed
experts referred to the “remnants” of a former channel  Stability and finality of
boundaries  Nicaragua’s military camp  No need for a finding of breach of sovereignty  The
area was disputed territory  Maritime delimitation in the Caribbean Sea  The “Alexander

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. An interesting and not esoteric question has been raised in this case. It was not necessary
for the Court to pronounce on it in explicit terms. However, the question may have implications for
the functioning of what the Preamble to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(hereinafter “the UNCLOS” or “the Convention”) calls “a legal order for the seas and oceans”1, the
establishment of which was the primary goal of the Convention.