other_document

13 July 2000

QATAR'S RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION PUT BY JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

TO QATAR AND BAHRAIN

At the hearing of 29 June 2000, Judge Parra-Aranguren addressed the following question to
both Parties:

"What is the extent and what are the territorial limits of Zubarah? An accurate
description would be appreciated, with indication of the evidence supporting the
answer".

Qatar'sresponse is as follows:

[Translation]

Reply by Senegal to the questions put on 12 February 1990
by Judge Oda

First Question

Under what internal law or acts of Senegal did the Senegalese Navy

board the fishing vessel Hoyo Maru No. 8 and take it to the port of

Dakar on 9 October 1989, and was the Captain of the vessel subjected to

judicial proceedings as a result of which he was ord.ered to pay a fine of

Reply of the Republic of Burundi to the questions posed by Judges Koroma,

Bennouna and Cançado Trindade at the close of the oral proceedings

[Translation]

The Republic of Burundi thanks the Court for allowing it once again to express its opinion
on certain aspects of the questions put to the C ourt by the General Assembly. The brief comments
which follow are intended to provide some elements of a reply to two of the three questions posed

by the Court.

Question 1 [question posed by Judge Koroma]:

Annex to LUK92/18

Replies by Libya to the questions put by Judge SChwebel

Libya understands that the thrust of the three questions put by
Judge Schwebel is to obtain the views of the Parties on the question
whether the Montreal Convention (various Articles thereof, particularly
10 and 12) applies when the "persan" who has committed the offence and is

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW
OF THE UN/LATERAL DECLARATION OF

INDEPENDENCE BY THE PROVJSIONAL INSTITUTIONS
OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OF KOSOVO

(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)

ANSWERS GIVEN BY THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN
TO THE QUESTIONS POSED BY JUDGES KOROMA,
BENNOUNA AND CANÇADO TRINDADE

Annex to LUS 92/17

Replies by Libya to the questions put by Judge SChwebel

Libya understands that the thrust of the three questions put by
Judge Schwebel is to obtain the views of the Parties on the question
whether the Montreal Convention (various Articles thereof, particularly

EMBASSY OF NICARAGUA

THE HAGUE

5 April2007

Sir,

1have the honour to refer to your letter of 29 March 2007 sent in relation to the
case concerning Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the
Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), by which you inform me that the President has

ESTADO PLURINACIONAL DE BOLIVIA

Embajada LaHaya - Paises Bajos

BOLIVIA'S COMMENTS ON CHILE'S REPLY

TO JUDGE OWADA'S QUESTION

1. Bolivia hereby respectfully submits its comments to Chile's 13 May 2015 reply to Judge

Owada's question to the parties. Chile's reply merely repeats its argument that the 1904Treaty

EMBASSY OF NICARAGUA
THEHAGUE

NICARAGUA'S COMMENTS ON COLOMBIA'SRESPONSE TO JUDGE
BENNOUNA'S QUESTION

1. Colombia makes three points in its summary response to Judge Bennouna's question,
each of which is either incorrect or misleading.

2. First, Colombia asserts that in the present case there are no areas of continental shelf

lying more than 200M from the nearest land territory.

1. Question Asked By Judge Koroma on 1 November 1995.

Part 1 of Question: Was resolution WHA 46.40 validly adopted?

Response:

Yes. Under Article 96 (2) of the United Nations Charter, specialized agencies may
request advisory opinions if authorized to do so by the General Assembly. Such

authorization is contained inArticle X.2 of the Agreement between the United Nations and
WHO.

Resolution WHA 46.40 was adopted in accordance with Article 76 of the