Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda) - The Court holds two of Uganda's counter-claims to be admissible and the third inadmissible and fixes time-limi

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2001/36
13 December 2001

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)

The Court holds two of Uganda’s counter-claims to be admissible and the third
inadmissible and fixes time-limits for the filing of further pleadings

THE HAGUE, 13 December 2001. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found in an
Order dated 29November2001 that two of the counter-claims submitted by Uganda against the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory
of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) were “admissible as such and
[formed] part of the current proceedings”, but that the third was not.

In its Application instituting proceedings date d June 1999 and in its Memorial of July 2000,
the Congo requested the Court to adjudge and declare that Uganda had, by way of military and
paramilitary actions against the Congo, illegalexploitation of Congolese resources and acts of
oppression against Congolese nationals, violated rule s of conventional and customary international

law. The Congo sought the immediate cessation of “any internationally wrongful act”, reparation
for damage and guarantees for the future.

In the Counter-Memorial which it filed in Aprl 001, Uganda submitted three
counter-claims. The first concerned alleged acts of aggression against it by the DRC; the second

related to attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and on Ugandan
nationals for which the DRC was alleged to be responsible; and the third dealt with alleged
violations by the DRC of the Lusaka Agreement. Uganda asked that the issue of reparation be
reserved for a subsequent stage of the proceedings.

Reasoning of the Court

In its Order, the Court endeavoured to ascertain whether Uganda’s three counter-claims
fulfilled the conditions set out in Article80 of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to that Article, “a

counter-claim may be presented provided that it is directly connected with the subject-matter of the
claim of the other party and that it comes within the jurisdiction of the Court”.

The Court noted that the DRC did not deny that Uganda’s claims fulfilled the
“jurisdictional” condition laid dow n in paragraph1 of Article80,but that it contended that those

claims were inadmissible as count er-claims because they did not fu lfil the other conditions set out
in that provision. - 2 -

Considering the DRC’s argument that the Ug andan claims did not satisfy the formal
conditions laid down by Article 80 of the Rules of Court, the Court stated that those claims “could

have been presented in a clearer manner”, but that their presentation did not deviate from the
requirements of Article 80 to such an extent that they should be held inadmissible on that basis.

The Court then addressed the issue of whether there was a direct connection “in fact and in

law” between Uganda’s counter-claims and the subject-matter of the DRC’s main claims.

The Court found unanimously that there was such a direct connection in the case of the first
counter-claim and, by fifteen votes to one, that there was also such a connection in the case of the

second counter-claim. According to the Court, the Parties’ respective claims in both cases relate to
facts of the same nature and form part of th e same factual complex (a conflict having existed
between the two neighbouring States, in various forms and of variable intensity, since 1994). The
Parties were moreover pursuing the same legal aims, with each of them seeking to establish the

responsibility of the other on the basis of the same principles of international law. The Court
accordingly concluded that these two counter-claims were admissible as such.

By contrast, the Court unanimously fou nd that Uganda’s third counter-claim was

inadmissible as such, since it was not directly co nnected with the subject-matter of the DRC’s
claims. It noted that this counter-claim concer ned questions relating to methods for solving the
conflict in the region ⎯ that is to say, facts of a different nature from those relied on in the
Congo’s claims, which related to acts for which Uganda was allegedly responsible during that

conflict. The Court further considered that the Parties were not pursuing the same legal aims, since
each of them was seeking to establish the respons ibility of the other based on the violation of
different rules.

In view of the conclusions reached by it, the Court considered it necessary for the DRC to
file a Reply and Uganda a Rejoinder, addressing th e claims of both Parties. It fixed 29 May 2002
as the time-limit for the filing of the Reply an d 29November2002 as that for the filing of the

Rejoinder. Further, in order to ensure strict equality between the Parties, the Court, as it had
already done in other cases, reserved the right of the DRC to present its views in writing a second
time on the Uganda counter-claims, in an additional pleading to be the subject of a subsequent
Order.

Judge ad hoc Verhoeven appended a declaration to the Order.

___________

The Court’s Order and the declaration appe nded thereto will shortly be available on the
Court’s Website (address: http://www.icj-cij.org

___________

Information Department:

Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+ 31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (+ 31 70 302 23 37)

E-mail address: [email protected]