Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugos

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: // www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué

unofficial
forimmediaterelease

No. 2002/25

9 October 2002

Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application

of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminarv Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)

The Court will hold public hearings from 4 to 7 November 2002

THE HAGUE, 9 October 2002. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings in the case concerning the
Application for Revisionof the Judgment of 11July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina_y,_Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina),

from Monday 4 to Thursday 7 November 2002 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the
Court.

As provided for in Article61 of the Statute, these public hearings will be devoted to the
questionof the admissibility of the Application for revision filed by Yugoslavia.

History of the Proceedings

On 24 April2001, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) filed an Application for
revisionof the Judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice on 11July 1996 in the case
concerning the Applicationof the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections. In that case, Bosnia
and Herzegovina on 20 March 1993 instituted proceedings before the Court against Yugoslavia
concerning a seriesf alleged violations ofthe 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide and concerning various questions which were, in the Applicant's view,

linked to these violations. In its Application, Bosnia and Herzegovina relied upon Article IX
that convention as the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court.Article IX reads as follows:
"Disputes between the Contracting Parties 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, shall be submitted to the International Court of

Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute." Bosnia and Herzegovina subsequently
invoked additional bases for jurisdiction. On 26 June 1995, Yugoslavia filed preliminary
objections challenging the jurisdictionthe Court and the admissibility of the Application. In the
above-mentioned Judgment of 11July 1996 (see Press Release No. 96/25), the Court rejected the
preliminary objections raised by Yugoslavia. It found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the case

on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, dismissing the additional bases of
jurisdiction invoked by Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Court further found that the Application
filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina was admissible. -2-

In its Application of 24 April 2001, Yugoslavia contends that a revision of the Judgment is
necessary since it has become clear that it did not continue the legal personality of the Socialist
Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, was not a Member of the United Nations before 1November 2000

(the date on which Yugoslavia was admitted as a new Member of the United Nations), was not a
State party to the Statute of the Court, and was also not a State party to the Genocide Convention,
which is only open to United Nations Members or to non-member States to which an invitation to
sign or accede has been addressed by the General Assembly.

Yugoslavia bases its Application for revision on Article61 ofthe Statute of the Court, which
provides in its first paragraph that"[a]n application for revision of ajudgment may be made only
when it is based upon the discovery of sorne fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which

fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming
revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence".

In its Application, Yugoslavia states that its admission to the United Nations as a new

Member on 1November 2000 constitutes "a new fact", which was "clearly ... unknown to both
the Court and to [Yugoslavia] at the time when the Judgment of 11 July 1996 was given". It adds
that "[s]ince membership in the United Nations, combined with the status of a party to the Statute
[of the Court] and to the Genocide Convention (including its Article IX), represent the only basis

on which jurisdiction over the FRY was assumed, and could be assumed, the disappearance of this
assumption and the proof of the disappearance of this assumption are clearly of such a nature [as]
to be a decisive factor regardingjurisdiction over the FRY".

Yugoslavia also asserts that no alternative basis for the Court's jurisdiction existed.
Yugoslavia further notes that, while on 12March 2001 it submitted to the United Nations
Secretary-General a notification seeking accession to the Genocide Convention, that instrument

includes a reservation to Article IX, by which Yugoslavia declares that it does not consider itself
bound by that Article, and, as a consequence, "before any dispute to which [it] is a party may be
validly submitted to the jurisdictionof the ... Court ... under this Article, the specifie and explicit
consent of the FRY is required in each case". Moreover, according to Yugoslavia, "[a]ccession has

no retroactive effect. Even if it had a retroactive effect, this cannot possibly encompass the
compromissory clause in Article IX of the Genocide Convention, because the FRY never accepted
Article IX. and the FRY's accession did not encompass Article IX."

For ali these reasons, Yugoslavia requests the Court to declare that "there is a new fact of
such a character asto lay the case open to revision under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court". It
further asks the Court to suspend proceedings regarding the merits of the initial case until a
decision on the Application for revisionis rendered.

On 3 December 2001, within the time-limit fixed by the Court for this purpose, Bosnia and
Herzegovina filed written observations on the admissibilityof the Application for revision made by
Yugoslavia. In its observations, Bosnia and Herzegovina contends inter alia that Article IX of the

Genocide Convention "provides a sufficient ground for the jurisdiction of the Court in the case
conceming Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide" and that "this conclusion does not depend on the question whether or not Yugoslavia
was a Member of the United Nations and a Party to the Court's Statute at the time of the Judgment"

of 11July 1996. Consequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina requests the Court "to adjudge and
declare that the Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996, submitted by ...
Yugoslavia ... is not admissible". These observations may be made public by a decision of the

Court at the opening of the oral proceedings, after consultation of the Parties. -3-

NOTE TO THE PRESS

1. The public hearings will be held in the Great Hall of Justice of the Peace Palace in

The Hague, Netherlands. Mobile telephones and beepers are allowed in the courtroom
provided they are turned off or set on silent mode. Any offending deviee will be temporarily
retained.

2. Members of the Press will be entitled to attend the hearings on presentation of a press
card. The tables reserved for them are situated on the far left of the public entrance of the
courtroom.

3. Photographs and TV shots may be taken in the Great Hall of Justice for a few
minutes at the opening of the sittings. The Court's proceedings will be displayed live and in full
on a large TV screen in the Press Room, located on the ground floor of the Peace Palace (Room 5).
There, TV crews may connect their recording deviees directly onto the new video system of the
Court, but advance notice should be given to the Information Department. Joumalists wishing to
make sound recordings of the proceedings may connect their recording deviees directly onto the

Court's own audio system, also in the Press Room.

4. Telephone calls (collect calls only) may be made from the phone located in the Press
Room. Public telephones are located inthe Post Office inthe basement of the Peace Palace.

5. The verbatim records of the public hearings will be published daily on the Court's website
(www.icj-cij.org) with an appropriate delay for on-line publication of translations.

6. Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (Tel.: +31-70-302-2336), as weil as

Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officers (Tel.: +31-70-302-2337; e-mail
address: [email protected]), are available to deal with any Press requests.