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 COURT OF WSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:

[email protected]. Internet address: http://www.icj-cij.org.

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2003/8

3 February 2003

Application for Revision o(the Judgment ofll 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), Preliminary Objections

(Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)

The Court finds that Yugoslavia's Application for revision is inadmissible

THE HAGUE, 3 February 2003. Today the International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal

judicial organ ofthe United Nations, delivered its Judgment on the admissibility of the Application
filed by Yugoslavia for the revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the case conceming
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia).

The Court, by ten votes to three, finds that "the Application submitted by the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia for revision, under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, of the Judgment
given by the Court on 11 July 1996 is inadmissible".

Reasoning of the Court

After recalling the Parties' arguments, the context of the case and the procedural history
leading up to the Court's Judgment of 11 July 1996, the Court addresses the issue of whether the
Application for revision submitted by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) is admissible
under the terms of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court.

The Court begins by noting in particular that an application for revision of a judgment may
be made only when it is "based upon the discovery" of sorne fact which, "when the judgment was
given", was unknown. Such a fact must have been in existence prior to the Judgment and have
been discovered subsequently. A fact which occurs severa! years after a judgment has been given

is not anew" fact within the meaning of Article 61; this remains the case irrespective of the legal
consequences that such a fact may have.

The admission of the FRY to the United Nations occurred on 1 November 2000, weil after
the 1996 Judgment. The Court considers that that admission cannot be regarded as a new fact

within the meaning of Article 61, capable offounding a request for revision ofthat Judgment.

In the final version of its argument, the FRY claimed that its admission to the United Nations
and a letter of 8 December 2000 from the Organization's Legal Counsel simply "revealed" two
facts which had existed in 1996 but had been unknown at the time: namely, that it was not then a

party to the Statute of the Court and that it was not bound by the Genocide Convention. On this
point, the Court considers that, in so arguing, the FRY does not rely on facts that existed in 1996
but that, in reality, ites its Application for revision on the legal consequences which it seeks to
draw from facts subsequent to the Judgment which it is asking to have revised". The Court - 2-

concludes that those consequences, even supposing them to be established, cannot be regarded as
facts within the meaning of Article 61. The FRY's argument cannot accordingly be upheld.

The Court observes that, at the time when the Judgment of 1996 was given, the situation
obtaining was that created by General Assembly resolution 47/1. This resolution, adopted on
22 September 1992, stated inter alia:

"The General Assembly ... considers that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro) cannot continue automatically the membership of the former
Socialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia in the United Nations; and therefore decides

that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should apply for
membership in the United Nations and that it shall not participate in the work of the
General Assembly."

In its present Judgment, the Court observes that

"the difficulties which arose regarding the FRY's status between the adoption of that
resolution and its admission to the United Nations on 1November 2000 resulted from

the fact that, although the FRY's claim to continue the international legal personality
of the Former Yugoslavia was not 'generally accepted' ... , the precise consequences
of this situation were determined on a case-by-case basis (for example,
non-participation in the work of the General Assembly and ECOSOC and in the

meetings of States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
etc.)".

In its Judgment, the Court finds that "resolution 47/1 did not inter alia affect the FRY's right

to appear before the Court or to be a party to a dispute before the Court under the conditions laid
down by the Statute. Nor did it affect the position of the FRY in relation to the Genocide
Convention".

The Court further states that resolution 55112of 1November 2000 (by which the General
Assembly decided to admit the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to membership in the United
Nations) cannot have changed retroactively the sui generis position which the FRY found itself in
vis-à-vis the United Nations over the period 1992 to 2000, or its position in relation to the Statute

of the Court and the Genocide Convention.

From the foregoing, the Court concludes that it has not been established that the request of

the FRY is based upon the discovery of "sorne fact" which was, "when the judgment was given,
unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision". The Court accordingly finds that
one of the conditions for the admissibility of an application for revision prescribed by paragraph 1
of Article 61 of the Statute has not been satisfied.

Article 61 of the Statute lays down further requirements which an application for revision of
a judgment must satisfy in order to be admissible. However, the Court recalls that "once it is
established that the request for revision fails to meet oneof the conditions for admissibility, the

Court is not required to go further and investigate whether the other conditions are fulfilled". The
Court concludes that "the FRY's Application for revision must accordingly be rejected".

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges
Ranjeva, Herczegh, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Parra-Aranguren, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal,
Elaraby; Judges ad hoc Dimitrijevié,Mahiou; Registrar Couvreur. - 3-

Judge Koroma appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Vereshchetin
appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Rezek appends a declaration to

the Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc Dimitrijevié appends a dissenting opinion to the
Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc Mahiou appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the
Court.

A summary of the Judgment is given in Press Release No. 2003/Sbis, to which a summary of

the declaration and opinions is annexed. The full text of the Judgment, declaration and opinions is
available on the Court's website (www.icj-cij.org).

Information Department:

Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+31 70 302 23 36)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr Boris Heim, Information Officers (+31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]