Counter-claims

Code

Public sitting held on Monday 11 March 2002, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Public sitting held on Wednesday 6 March 2002, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Public sitting held on Thursday 21 February 2002, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from July 15th to 26th, and on August 27th, 1952, the President, Sir Arnold McNair, presiding

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from September 26th to November 27th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 23 December 2008, the Federal Republic of Germany instituted proceedings against the Italian Republic, requesting the Court to declare that Italy had failed to respect the jurisdictional immunity which Germany enjoys under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it in the Italian courts seeking reparation for injuries caused by violations of international humanitarian law committed by the Third Reich during the Second World War. In addition, Germany asked the Court to find that Italy had also violated Germany’s immunity by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni, German State property situated in Italian territory. Finally, Germany requested the Court to declare that Italy had breached Germany’s jurisdictional immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek civil courts rendered against Germany on the basis of acts similar to those which had given rise to the claims brought before Italian courts. Germany referred in particular to the judgment rendered against it in respect of the massacre committed by German armed forces during their withdrawal in 1944, in the Greek village of Distomo in the Distomo case.

As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, Germany invoked Article 1 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957, ratified by Italy on 29 January 1960 and by Germany on 18 April 1961.

The Memorial of Germany and the Counter-Memorial of Italy were filed within the time-limits fixed by the Order of the Court of 29 April 2009. In its Counter-Memorial, Italy, referring to Article 80 of the Rules of Court, made a counter-claim “with respect to the question of the reparation owed to Italian victims of grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by forces of the German Reich”. The Court found that the counter-claim presented by Italy was inadmissible, because the dispute that Italy intended to bring before the Court by way of its counter-claim related to facts and situations existing prior to the entry into force as between the parties of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957, which formed the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction in the case (Order of 6 July 2010).

On 13 January 2011, Greece filed an Application requesting permission to intervene in the case. In its Application, Greece stated that it wished to intervene in the aspect of the procedure relating to judgments rendered by its own courts on the Distomo massacre and enforced (exequatur) by the Italian courts. The Court, in an Order of 4 July 2011, considered that it might find it necessary to consider the decisions of Greek courts in the Distomo case, in light of the principle of State immunity, for the purposes of making findings with regard to Germany’s submission that Italy had breached its jurisdictional immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts founded on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich during the Second World War. This permitted the conclusion that Greece had an interest of a legal nature which might have been affected by the judgment in the case and, consequently, that Greece could be permitted to intervene as a non-party “in so far as this intervention is limited to the decisions of Greek courts [in the Distomo case]”.

In its Judgment rendered on 3 February 2012, the Court first examined the question whether Italy had violated Germany’s jurisdictional immunity by allowing civil claims to be brought against that State in the Italian courts. The Court noted in this respect that the question which it was called upon to decide was not whether the acts committed by the Third Reich during the Second World War were illegal, but whether, in civil proceedings against Germany relating to those acts, the Italian courts were obliged to accord Germany immunity. The Court held that the action of the Italian courts in denying Germany immunity constituted a breach of Italy’s international obligations. It stated in this connection that, under customary international law as it presently stood, a State was not deprived of immunity by reason of the fact that it was accused of serious violations of international human rights law or the international law of armed conflict. The Court further observed that, assuming that the rules of the law of armed conflict which prohibited murder, deportation and slave labour were rules of jus cogens, there was no conflict between those rules and the rules on State immunity. The two sets of rules addressed different matters. The rules of State immunity were confined to determining whether or not the courts of one State could exercise jurisdiction in respect of another State. They did not bear upon the question whether or not the conduct in respect of which the proceedings were brought was lawful or unlawful. Finally, the Court examined Italy’s argument that the Italian courts were justified in denying Germany immunity, because all other attempts to secure compensation for the various groups of victims involved in the Italian proceedings had failed. The Court found no basis in the relevant domestic or international practice that international law made the entitlement of a State to immunity dependent upon the existence of effective alternative means of securing redress.

The Court then addressed the question whether a measure of constraint taken against property belonging to Germany located on Italian territory constituted a breach by Italy of Germany’s immunity. It noted that Villa Vigoni was being used for governmental purposes that were entirely non-commercial; that Germany had in no way consented to the registration of the legal charge in question, nor allocated Villa Vigoni for the satisfaction of the judicial claims against it. Since the conditions permitting a measure of constraint to be taken against property belonging to a foreign State had not been met in this case, the Court concluded that Italy had violated its obligation to respect Germany’s immunity from enforcement.

Finally, the Court examined the question whether Italy had violated Germany’s immunity by declaring enforceable in Italy civil judgments rendered by Greek courts against Germany in proceedings arising out of the massacre committed in the Greek village of Distomo by the armed forces of the Third Reich in 1944. It found that the relevant decisions of the Italian courts constituted a violation by Italy of its obligation to respect the jurisdictional immunity of Germany.

English

Counter-Memorial of Italy

22 December 2009

5 October 2010

Available in:

English French

Annexes

Annexes

English

Letter from the Agent of Italy

5 September 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English French

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 29 April 2009

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 6 July 2010

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Joint declaration of Judges Keith and Greenwood

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Gaja

English French Bilingual

Order of 4 July 2011

Application by the Hellenic Republic for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Summary of the Judgment of 3 February 2012

Available in:

English French

Latest Developments

Judgment of 1 December 2022

Merits, including counter-claims of Bolivia

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Tomka

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Charlesworth

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Simma

English French Bilingual

Press release 2022/68

1 December 2022

Verbatim record 2022/14 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 14 April 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)

Available in:

Original Language

Available in:

English French

Volume 2 - Annexes

English

Press release 2019/27

21 June 2019

Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court authorizes the submission by the Republic of Chile of an additional pleading relating solely to the counter-claims of the Plurinational State of Bolivia

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French

Order of 18 June 2019

Fixing of time-limit: additional pleading relating solely to the counter-claims

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Rejoinder of Bolivia

15 May 2019

Reply of Chile

15 February 2019

Available in:

English French

Volume 2 - Annexes 92-99

English French

Volume 3 - Annexes XI-XIV to the Expert Reports

English

Order of 15 November 2018

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Press release 2018/56

30 November 2018

Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) - The Court directs the submission of a Reply by Chile and a Rejoinder by Bolivia limited to the Respondent’s counter-claims

Available in:

English French

Counter-Memorial of Bolivia

3 September 2018

Available in:

English French

Volume 2 - Annexes 1-17

English French

Volume 3 - Annex 17

English

Volume 4 - Annex 17

English

Volume 5 - Annexes 17-18

English

Press release 2018/23

5 June 2018

English French

Volume 3 - Annexes 40-76

English French

Volume 4 - Annexes I-III to the Expert Reports

English

Volume 5 - Annexes IV-X to the Expert Reports

English

Volume 6 - Maps

English

Press release 2016/22

14 July 2016

English

Press release 2016/16

6 June 2016

Chile institutes proceedings against Bolivia with regard to a dispute concerning the status and use of the waters of the Silala

Available in:

English French

Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 18 November 2010, the Republic of Costa Rica filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Nicaragua in respect of an alleged “incursion into, occupation of and use by Nicaragua’s Army of Costa Rican territory as well as [alleged] breaches of Nicaragua’s obligations towards Costa Rica”, namely the principle of territorial integrity and the prohibition of the threat or use of force.

In its Application, Costa Rica contended that Nicaragua had, in two separate incidents, occupied the territory of Costa Rica in connection with the construction of a canal from the San Juan River to Laguna los Portillos (also known as “Harbour Head Lagoon”), and carried out certain related works of dredging on the San Juan River. According to Costa Rica, the dredging and the construction of that canal would seriously affect the flow of water to the Colorado River of Costa Rica, and would cause further damage to Costa Rican territory, including the wetlands and national wildlife protected areas located in the region. This case was entered in the General List of the Court under the title Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (hereinafter the “Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case”).

On 18 November 2010, Costa Rica also filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures aimed at protecting its “right to sovereignty, to territorial integrity and to non-interference with its rights over the San Juan River, its lands, its environmentally protected areas, as well as the integrity and flow of the Colorado River”. By its Request, Costa Rica sought in particular to obtain the withdrawal of all Nicaraguan troops from the territory in dispute, the immediate cessation of the construction of the canal and the suspension of the dredging of the Colorado River. By an Order indicating provisional measures dated 8 March 2011, the Court asked the Parties to refrain from sending to, or maintaining in, the disputed territory any personnel, whether civilian, police or security. However, it did authorize Costa Rica to dispatch to the disputed territory, subject to certain conditions, civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment. Finally, it asked the Parties to refrain from aggravating or extending the dispute.

On 22 December 2011, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica “for violations of Nicaraguan sovereignty and major environmental damages to its territory”. In its Application, Nicaragua contended that Costa Rica was carrying out major construction works along most of the border area between the two countries with grave environmental consequences. This case was entered in the General List of the Court under the title Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) (hereinafter the “Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case”).

On 6 August 2012, Nicaragua filed its Counter-Memorial in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case, in which it submitted four counter-claims.

In a letter dated 19 December 2012, submitted on the filing of Nicaragua’s Memorial in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, Nicaragua requested the Court to join the proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica cases.

By two Orders dated 17 April 2013, the Court, taking account of the circumstances and in conformity with the principle of the sound administration of justice and with the need for judicial economy, decided to join the proceedings in the two cases.

By an Order dated 18 April 2013, the Court ruled that the subject‑matter of the first counter‑claim presented by Nicaragua in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case (a claim relating to the damage that might result from the construction of the aforementioned road by Costa Rica) was identical in substance to its principal claim in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case and that, as a result of the joinder of the proceedings, there was no need for it to adjudicate on the admissibility of that counter‑claim as such. The Court found the second and third counter‑claims inadmissible, since there was no direct connection between those claims, which related to the question of sovereignty over the Bay of San Juan del Norte and Nicaragua’s right to navigation on the Colorado River, respectively, and the principal claims of Costa Rica. Finally, the Court found that there was no need for it to entertain the fourth counter-claim, relating to the implementation of the provisional measures already indicated by the Court, since the Parties were free to take up that question in the further course of the proceedings.

On 23 May 2013, Costa Rica presented the Court with a request for the urgent modification of its Order of 8 March 2011. In its Order of 16 July 2013, the Court considered that the change in the situation that had occurred did not justify a modification of its earlier Order. Furthermore, it reaffirmed the measures indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011, in particular the requirement that the Parties “shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”.

On 24 September 2013, Costa Rica filed a Request for the indication of new provisional measures in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case. This Request followed the construction by Nicaragua of two new channels (caños) in the northern part of the disputed territory, the larger of the two being that to the east (“the eastern caño”). In its Order of 22 November 2013, the Court decided not only to reaffirm the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011 (see above), but also to indicate new measures. The Court thus directed that Nicaragua must refrain from any dredging or other activities in the disputed territory, and, in particular, refrain from work of any kind on the two new caños, and must also fill the trench on the beach north of the eastern caño. The Court further directed that, except as needed for implementing this obligation, Nicaragua must cause the removal from the disputed territory of all personnel, whether civilian, police or security, and prevent any such personnel from entering the disputed territory; it must likewise cause the removal from and prevent the entrance into the disputed territory of any private persons under its jurisdiction or control. The Court further stated that, subject to certain conditions, Costa Rica might take appropriate measures related to the two new caños.

For its part, on 11 October 2013, Nicaragua filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, stating that it was seeking to protect certain rights which were being prejudiced by the road construction works carried out by Costa Rica (see above), in particular the transboundary movement of sediments and other resultant debris. After holding hearings on that Request at the beginning of November 2013, the Court decided, in an Order dated 13 December 2013, that the circumstances, as they now presented themselves to the Court, were not such as to require the exercise of its power to indicate provisional measures.

Public hearings in the joined cases were held in April 2015, and the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits on 16 December 2015. Regarding the first case, the Court found, inter alia, that Costa Rica had sovereignty over the disputed territory lying in the northern part of Isla Portillos. It therefore considered that the activities carried out by Nicaragua in the disputed territory since 2010, including the excavation of three caños and the establishment of a military presence in parts of that territory, were in breach of Costa Rica’s territorial sovereignty and Nicaragua’s obligations under the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 indicating provisional measures. In its Judgment, the Court ruled that Nicaragua had an obligation to compensate Costa Rica for the material damages caused by its unlawful activities and that, failing an agreement on the matter between the Parties within 12 months, the Court would settle this question in a subsequent procedure.

In the same Judgment, regarding the second case, the Court found that the construction of the road by Costa Rica carried a risk of significant transboundary harm and that Costa Rica therefore had an obligation under general international law to carry out an environmental impact assessment. However, since Costa Rica had not complied with that obligation, the Court found that there was no need for it to determine whether Costa Rica had a duty to notify and consult with Nicaragua. Turning to the alleged breaches of substantive obligations, beginning with the obligation to exercise due diligence to avoid causing significant transboundary harm, the Court concluded that Nicaragua had not proved that the construction of the road caused significant transboundary harm, and it therefore dismissed Nicaragua’s claims on this point. Turning to the reparation requested by Nicaragua, the Court concluded that a declaration of wrongful conduct in respect of Costa Rica’s violation of the obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment was the appropriate measure of satisfaction for Nicaragua.

By a letter dated 16 January 2017, Costa Rica, referring to the decision rendered in the first case (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), requested the Court to settle the question of the compensation due to Costa Rica for the material damages caused by Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in the border area. Following the conclusion of two rounds of written pleadings, the Court began its deliberation and gave its ruling in a Judgment rendered on 2 February 2018.

In that Judgment, the Court took the view that damage to the environment, in particular the consequent impairment or loss of the ability of the environment to provide goods and services, and the cost of the restoration of the damaged environment, was compensable under international law. Before assigning a monetary value to the damage to the environmental goods and services caused by Nicaragua’s wrongful activities, the Court determined the existence and extent of that damage, and whether there existed a direct and certain causal link between the damage and Nicaragua’s activities. Following its valuation of the damage caused to environmental goods and services, the Court awarded Costa Rica the sum of US$120,000 for the impairment or loss of the environmental goods and services of the affected area, and the sum of US$2,708.39 for restoration measures in respect of the wetland. In addition to the compensation for environmental damage, the Court awarded Costa Rica total compensation in the amount of US$236,032.16 for costs and expenses incurred as a direct consequence of Nicaragua’s unlawful activities in the northern part of Isla Portillos, as well as US$20,150.04 in pre‑judgment interest on those costs and expenses. The Court concluded that the total amount of compensation to be awarded to Costa Rica was US$378,890.59, to be paid by Nicaragua by 2 April 2018. In a letter dated 22 March 2018, Nicaragua informed the Registry of the Court that, on 8 March 2018, it had transferred to Costa Rica the total amount of compensation awarded to it.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

18 November 2010

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request by Costa Rica for the Indication of Provisional Measures

18 November 2010

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Memorial of Costa Rica

5 December 2011

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French

Volume II - Annexes 1-39

English French

Volume III - Annexes 40-138

English French

Volume IV - Annexes 139-165

English French

Volume V - Annexes 166-238

English

Counter-Memorial of Nicaragua

6 August 2012

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French

Volume II - Annexes 1-26

Memorial of Costa Rica on Compensation

3 April 2017

Available in:

English French

Volume I including Annexes 1-5

English French

Available in:

English French

English French Bilingual

Order of 5 April 2011

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard

English French Bilingual

Order of 22 November 2013

Request presented by Costa Rica for the Indication of new Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Guillaume

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Dugard

English French Bilingual

Order of 2 February 2017

Fixing of time-limits: written pleadings on the question of compensation

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 18 July 2017

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 16 December 2015

Merit

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 2 February 2018

Compensation owed by the Republic of Nicaragua to the Republic of Costa Rica

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda “for acts of armed aggression committed . . . in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”. In addition to the cessation of the alleged acts, the DRC sought reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of the respective respondent States. In its Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda, the DRC referred, as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction, to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the New York Convention of 10 December 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and, lastly, Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court. However, the Government of the DRC informed the Court on 15 January 2001 that it intended to discontinue the proceedings instituted against Burundi and Rwanda, stating that it reserved the right to invoke subsequently new grounds of jurisdiction of the Court. The two cases were therefore removed from the List on 30 January 2001.

In the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the DRC founded the jurisdiction of the Court on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the two States. On 19 June 2000, the DRC filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures to put a stop to all military activity and violations of human rights and of the sovereignty of the DRC by Uganda. On 1 July 2000, the Court ordered each of the two Parties to prevent and refrain from any armed action which might prejudice the rights of the other Party or aggravate the dispute, to take all measures necessary to comply with all of their obligations under international law and also to ensure full respect for fundamental human rights and for the applicable provisions of humanitarian law.

Uganda subsequently filed a Counter-Memorial containing three counter-claims. By an Order of 29 November 2001, the Court found that two of the counter-claims (acts of aggression allegedly committed by the DRC against Uganda; and attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and on Ugandan nationals for which the DRC is alleged to be responsible) were admissible as such and formed part of the proceedings.

Following oral proceedings in April 2005, the Court handed down its Judgment on the merits on 19 December 2005. The Court first dealt with the question of the invasion of the DRC by Uganda. After examining the materials submitted to it by the Parties, the Court found that from August 1998, the DRC had not consented to the presence of Ugandan troops on its territory (save for the limited exception regarding the border region of the Ruwenzori Mountains contained in the Luanda Agreement). The Court also rejected Uganda’s claim that its use of force, where not covered by consent, was an exercise of self-defence, finding that the preconditions for self-defence did not exist. Indeed, the unlawful military intervention by Uganda was of such magnitude and duration that the Court considered it to be a grave violation of the prohibition on the use of force expressed in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter.

The Court also found that, by actively extending military, logistic, economic and financial support to irregular forces operating on the territory of the DRC, the Republic of Uganda had violated the principle of non-use of force in international relations and the principle of non-intervention.

The Court then moved to the question of occupation and of the violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Having concluded that Uganda was the occupying power in Ituri at the relevant time, the Court stated that, as such, it was under an obligation, according to Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, to take all measures in its power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety in the occupied area, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the DRC. This had not been done. The Court also considered that it had credible evidence sufficient to conclude that UPDF (Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces) troops had committed violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law. It found that these violations were attributable to Uganda.

The third issue that the Court was called upon to examine concerned the alleged exploitation of Congolese natural resources by Uganda. In this regard, the Court considered that it had credible and persuasive evidence to conclude that officers and soldiers of the UPDF, including the most high-ranking officers, had been involved in the looting, plundering and exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources and that the military authorities had not taken any measures to put an end to these acts. Uganda was responsible both for the conduct of the UPDF as a whole and for the conduct of individual soldiers and officers of the UPDF in the DRC. This was so even when UPDF officers and soldiers had acted contrary to instructions given or had exceeded their authority. The Court found, on the other hand, that it did not have at its disposal credible evidence to prove that there was a governmental policy on the part of Uganda directed at the exploitation of natural resources of the DRC or that Uganda’s military intervention was carried out in order to obtain access to Congolese resources.

In respect of the first counter-claim of Uganda (see above concerning the Order of 29 November 2011), the Court found that Uganda had not produced sufficient evidence to show that the DRC had provided political and military support to anti-Ugandan rebel groups operating in its territory, or even to prove that the DRC had breached its duty of vigilance by tolerating anti-Ugandan rebels on its territory. The Court thus rejected the first counter-claim submitted by Uganda in its entirety.

As for the second counter-claim of Uganda (see above concerning the Order of 29 November 2011), the Court first declared inadmissible the part of that claim relating to the alleged maltreatment of Ugandan nationals not enjoying diplomatic status at Ndjili International Airport. Regarding the merits of the claim, it found, on the other hand, that there was sufficient evidence to prove that there were attacks against the Embassy and acts of maltreatment against Ugandan diplomats at Ndjili International Airport. Consequently, it found that the DRC had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The removal of property and archives from the Ugandan Embassy was also in violation of the rules of international law on diplomatic relations.

The Court noted in its Judgment that the nature, form and amount of compensation owed by each Party had been reserved and would only be submitted to the Court should the Parties be unable to reach agreement on the basis of the Judgment just rendered by the Court. Following the delivery of the Judgment, the Parties have regularly informed the Court on the progress of negotiations.

On 13 May 2015, noting that the negotiations with Uganda on this question had failed, the DRC asked the Court to determine the amount of reparation owed by Uganda. While Uganda maintained that this request was premature, the Court, in an Order of 1 July 2015, observed that although the Parties had tried to settle the question directly, they had clearly been unable to reach an agreement. The Parties have subsequently filed written pleadings on the question of reparations.

By an Order of 8 September 2020, the Court decided to arrange for an expert opinion, in accordance with Article 67, paragraph 1, of its Rules, on some heads of damage claimed by the DRC, namely the loss of human life, the loss of natural resources and property damage. By an Order of 12 October 2020, the Court appointed four independent experts for that purpose, who submitted a report on reparations on 19 December 2020.

After holding oral proceedings in April 2021, the Court delivered its Judgment on the question of reparations on 9 February 2022, awarding US$225,000,000 for damage to persons, US$40,000,000 for damage to property and US$60,000,000 for damage related to natural resources. It decided that the total amount due should be paid in five annual instalments of US$65,000,000 starting on 1 September 2022, and that, should payment be delayed, post‑judgment interest of 6 per cent would accrue on any overdue amount as from the day after the day on which the instalment was due.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

23 June 1999

Available in:

English French

Annexes to the Application instituting proceedings, Livre blanc (Volumes I and II) (French version only)

23 June 1999

Available in:

French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures (French version only)

19 June 2000

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

French

Memorial of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (French version only)

6 July 2000

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Counter-Memorial of Uganda

21 April 2001

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

Volume II - Annexes

(bilingual version) Bilingual

Volume III - Annexes

(bilingual version) Bilingual

Volume IV - Annexes

(bilingual version) Bilingual

Rejoinder of Uganda

6 December 2002

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English

Volume II - Annexes

English

Volume III - Annexes

English

Volume IV - Annexes

English

Volume V - Annexes

English

Additional Written Observations of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on Counter-Claims submitted by Uganda (French version only)

28 February 2003

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

French

Annexes

(French version only) French

Memorial of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the question of reparations

1 September 2016

Volume X - Annexes 6.1 - 7.4

English French

Memorial of Uganda on the question of reparations

28 September 2016

Available in:

English French

Volume II - Annexes

English French

Counter -Memorial of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the question of reparations

1 February 2018

Available in:

English French

Counter-Memorial of Uganda on the question of reparations

6 February 2018

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Order of 21 October 1999

Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 1 July 2000

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Order of 29 November 2001

Finding on Counter-claims; fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge ad hoc Verhoeven (translation)

English French Bilingual

Order of 7 November 2002

Extension of time-limit: Rejoinder

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 29 January 2003

Decision regarding submission of additional pleading on Counter-claims; fixing of time-limit

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 1 July 2015

Fixing of time-limit: Memorials on the question of reparations

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Cançado Trindade

English French Bilingual

Order of 10 December 2015

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Sebutinde

English French Bilingual

Order of 12 October 2020

Appointment of experts

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 19 December 2005

Merits

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Kateka

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 9 February 2022

Reparations

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 26 November 2013, Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against Colombia relating to a “dispute concern[ing] the violations of Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and maritime zones declared by the Court’s Judgment of 19 November 2012 [in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)] and the threat of the use of force by Colombia in order to implement these violations”.

In its Application, Nicaragua requested the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia was in breach of several of its international obligations, and that it was obliged to make full reparation for the harm caused by its internationally wrongful acts.

Nicaragua based the jurisdiction of the Court on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá. It further contended, “[m]oreover and alternatively, [that] the jurisdiction of the Court [lay] in its inherent power to pronounce on the actions required by its Judgments”.

On 19 December 2014, Colombia raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. On 17 March 2016, the Court rendered its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia. The Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to adjudicate upon the dispute regarding the alleged violations by Colombia of Nicaragua’s rights in the maritime zones which, according to Nicaragua, the Court declared in its Judgment of 19 November 2012 appertain to Nicaragua.

In its Counter-Memorial filed on 17 November 2016, Colombia submitted four counter-claims. The first was based on Nicaragua’s alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect and preserve the marine environment of the south‑western Caribbean Sea; the second related to Nicaragua’s alleged breach of its duty of due diligence to protect the right of the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago to benefit from a healthy, sound and sustainable environment; the third concerned Nicaragua’s alleged infringement of the artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants of the San Andrés Archipelago to access and exploit their traditional fishing grounds; the fourth related to Nicaragua’s adoption of Decree No. 33-2013 of 19 August 2013, which, according to Colombia, established straight baselines and had the effect of extending Nicaragua’s internal waters and maritime zones beyond what international law permits.

In an Order on the said counter‑claims handed down on 15 November 2017, the Court found that the first and second counter‑claims submitted by Colombia were inadmissible as such and did not form part of the ongoing proceedings, and that the third and fourth counter‑claims submitted by Colombia were admissible as such and did form part of the ongoing proceedings.

Public hearings on the merits of the case were held in a hybrid format from 20 September to 1 October 2021.

On 21 April 2022, the Court rendered its Judgment on the merits, in which it found that Colombia had violated Nicaragua’s sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the latter’s exclusive economic zone.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

English French

English French

Written Observations of Colombia on the admissibility of its Counter-Claims

English French

Annexes

English French

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 17 March 2016

Preliminary objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Subscribe to Counter-claims

Counter-claims

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

23 December 2008

Available in:

Written proceedings

12 June 2009

Available in:

Annexes - volume I

Annexes - volume II

22 December 2009

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

22 December 2009

Available in:

Annexes

24 March 2010

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

25 May 2010

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

5 October 2010

Available in:

Annexes

10 January 2011

Available in:

13 January 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

23 March 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

28 March 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

6 May 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

26 May 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

27 May 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

3 August 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

26 August 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

Annexes

5 September 2011

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

Oral proceedings

Public sitting held on Monday 12 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Tuesday 13 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Wednesday 14 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Thursday 15 September 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Friday 16 September 2011, at 2.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)

Available in:

Translation

Other documents

21 September 2011

Available in:

23 September 2011

Available in:

23 September 2011

Available in:

29 September 2011

Available in: