Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda) - The Court finds that Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in international relations and of non-

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. 2005/26
19 December 2005

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

The Court finds that Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in international
relations and of non-intervention; that it violated its obligations under international
human rights law and international humanitarian law; and that it violated other
obligations owed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

The Court also finds that the Democratic Republic of the Congo violated obligations owed
to Uganda under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961

THE HAGUE, 19 December2005. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, todarendered its Judgment in the case concerning Armed
Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda).

In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court

(1) By sixteen votes to one,

Finds that the Republic of Uganda, by engaging in military activities against the Democratic
Republic of the Congo on the latter’s territory,by occupying Ituri and by actively extending

military, logistic, economic and financial support to irregular forces having operated on the
territory of the DRC, violated the principle non-use of force in international relations and the
principle of non-intervention;

IN FAVOUR : President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,

Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buer genthal, Elaraby, Owada,
Simma, Tomka, Abraham; Judgead hoc Verhoeven;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Kateka;

U(na)nimously,

Finds admissible the claim subm itted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo relating to
alleged violations by the Republic of Uganda of its obligations under international human rights
law and international humanitarian law in the course of hostilities between Ugandan and Rwandan

military forces in Kisangani;

(3) By sixteen votes to one, - 2 -

Finds that the Republic of Uganda, by the conduct of its armed forces, which committed acts
of killing, torture and other forms of inhuman e treatment of the Congolese civilian population,

destroyed villages and civilian buildings, failed to distinguish between civilian and military targets
and to protect the civilian population in fighting with other combatants, trained child soldiers,
incited ethnic conflict and failed to take measures to put an end to such conflict; as well as by its
failure, as an occupying Power, to take measures to respect and ensure respect for human rights and

international humanitarian law in Ituri district, violated its obligations under international human
rights law and international humanitarian law;

IN FAVOUR : President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,

Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buer genthal, Elaraby, Owada,
Simma, Tomka, Abraham; Judgead hoc Verhoeven;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Kateka;

(4) By sixteen votes to one,

Finds that the Republic of Uganda, by acts of looting, plundering and exploitation of

Congolese natural resources committed by members of the Ugandan armed forces in the territory of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and by its failure to comply with its obligations as an
occupying Power in Ituri district to prevent acts of looting, plundering and exploitation of
Congolese natural resources, violated obligations owed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

under international law;

IN FAVOUR : President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,
Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buer genthal, Elaraby, Owada,

Simma, Tomka, Abraham; Judgead hoc Verhoeven;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Kateka;

U(na)nimously,

Finds that the Republic of Uganda is under obliga tion to make reparation to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo for the injury caused;

U(na)nimously,

Decides that, failing agreement between the Parti es, the question of reparation due to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo shall be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the

subsequent procedure in the case;

(7) By fifteen votes to two,

Finds that the Republic of Uganda did not comply with the Order of the Court on provisional
measures of 1 July 2000;

IN FAVOUR : President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,

Parra-Aranguren, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka,
Abraham; Judgead hoc Verhoeven;

AGAINST : JudgeKooijmans; Judgead hoc Kateka;

U(na)nimously,

Rejects the objections of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the admissibility of the
first counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda; - 3 -

(9) By fourteen votes to three,

Finds that the first counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda cannot be upheld;

IN FAVOUR : President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,
Parra-Aranguren, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Abraham;

Judge ad hoc Verhoeven;

AGAINST : JudgesKooijmans, Tomka; Judgead hoc Kateka;

(n0a)nimously,

Rejects the objection of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the admissibility of the
part of the second counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda relating to the breach of the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961;

(11) By sixteen votes to one,

Upholds the objection of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the admissibility of the

part of the second counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda relating to the maltreatment
of individuals other than Ugandan diplomats at Ndjili International Airport on 20 August 1998;

IN FAVOUR : President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva; Judges Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins,

Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buer genthal, Elaraby, Owada,
Simma, Tomka, Abraham; Judgead hoc Verhoeven;

AGAINST : Judge ad hoc Kateka;

(n2a)nimously,

Finds that the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by the conduct of its armed forces, which
attacked the Ugandan Embassy in Kinshasa, maltr eated Ugandan diplomats and other individuals

on the Embassy premises, maltreated Ugandan diplom ats at Ndjili International Airport, as well as
by its failure to provide the Ugandan Embassy and Ugandan diplomats with effective protection
and by its failure to prevent archives and Ugandan property from being seized from the premises of

the Ugandan Embassy, violated obligations owed to the Republic of Uganda under the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961;

(n3a)nimously,

Finds that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is under obligation to make reparation to
the Republic of Uganda for the injury caused;

(n4a)nimously,

Decides that, failing agreement between the Parti es, the question of reparation due to the
Republic of Uganda shall be settled by the Court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent
procedure in the case.

Reasoning of the Court

⎯ The DRC’s first submission: use of force against the DRC

Having examined the materials put before it, the Co urt finds that it is clear that in the period
preceding August 1998 the DRC did not object to Uganda’s military presence and activities in its
eastern border area. It however states that athe Victoria Falls Summit in August1998 the DRC - 4 -

accused Rwanda and Uganda of invading its territory. Thus, any earlier authorization or consent
by the DRC to the presence of Ugandan troops on its territory was at the latest withdrawn by

8 August 1998, i.e. the closing date of the Summit.

The Court states that it has not been established to its satisfaction that Uganda participated in
the attack on Kitona (which lies in the west of the DRC, some 1,800 km from the Ugandan frontier)

on 4 August 1998. It however finds that Uganda captured a number of locations in the east of the
DRC and in other areas of that country between August 1998 and early July 1999.

The Court finds that the Lusaka Agreement, the Kampala and Harare Disengagement Plans

and the Luanda Agreement did not (save for the limited exception regarding the border region of
Mt Ruwenzori contained in the latter) constitute consent by the DRC to the presence of Ugandan
troops on its territory for the period after July 1999, in the sense of validating that presence in law.
The Court observes that the Lusaka Agreemen t only represented an agreed modus operandi for the

parties, providing a framework for orderly withdrawal of all foreign forces from the DRC.

The Court does not accept Uganda’s cont ention that its military actions from early
August 1998 to July 1999 can be justified as actions in self-defence.

The Court concludes that Uganda has violated the sovereignty and also the territorial
integrity of the DRC. Uganda’s actions equally constituted an interfe rence in the internal affairs of
the DRC and in the civil war raging there. The unlawful military intervention by Uganda was of

such magnitude and duration that the Court considers it to be a grave violation of the prohibition on
the use of force expressed in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter. The Court however states that
there is no credible evidence to support the DRC’ s allegation that Uganda created and controlled
the Congo Liberation Movement (MLC), a rebel movement led by Mr. Bemba.

⎯ The issue of belligerent occupation

The Court then considers the question as to whether or not Uganda was an occupying Power

in the parts of the Congolese territory where its troops were present at the relevant time. It
observes that, under customary international law, territory is considered to be occupied when it is
actually placed under the authority of the hostile ar my, and that the occupation extends only to the
territory where such authority has been established and can be ex ercised. In the present case, it has

before it evidence sufficient to prove that Uganda established and exercised authority in Ituri (a
new province created in June 1999 by the commande r of the Ugandan forces in the DRC) as an
occupying Power. As a consequence, the Court holds that Uganda’s responsibility is engaged both
for any acts of its military that violated its interna tional obligations and for any lack of vigilance in

preventing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by other actors present in
Ituri, including rebel groups acting on their own account. It further notes that Uganda at all times
has responsibility for all actions and omissions of its own military forces in the territory of the

DRC in breach of its obligations under the rules of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law which are relevant and applicable in the specific situation.

⎯ The DRC’s second submission: violations of in ternational human rights law and international

humanitarian law

Having examined the case file, the Court considers that it has credible evidence sufficient to
conclude that the Ugandan armed forces, in th e course of their military intervention, committed

acts of killing, torture and other forms of inhumane treatment of the civilian population, destroyed
villages and civilian buildings, failed to distingui sh between civilian and military targets and to
protect the civilian population in fighting with other combatants, incited ethnic conflict and took no
steps to put an end to such conflicts, was involve d in the training of child soldiers, and failed to

take measures to ensure the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in Ituri. - 5 -

The Court finds that these acts are in clear violation of the obligations under the Hague
Regulations of 1907, which are binding on the Parties as customary international law, and of a

number of international humanitarian law and international human rights law instruments, to which
both Uganda and the DRC are parties.

The Court thus concludes that Uganda is in ternationally responsible for violations of

international human rights law and international humanitarian law committed by the UPDF and by
its members in the territory of the DRC and fo r failing to comply with its obligations as an
occupying Power in Ituri in respect of violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law in the occupied territory.

The Court points out that, while it has pronounced on the violations of international human
rights law and international humanitarian law committed by Ugandan military forces on the
territory of the DRC, it nonetheless observes that the actions of the various parties in the complex

conflict in the DRC have contributed to the i mmense suffering faced by the Congolese population.
The Court is painfully aware that many atrocities have been committed in the course of the conflict.
It is incumbent on all those involved in the conflict to support the peace process in the DRC and
other peace processes in the Great Lakes area, in or der to ensure respect for human rights in the

region.

⎯ The DRC’s third submission: illegal explo itation of natural resources and question of
attributability to Uganda

Having examined the case file, the Court finds th at it has not been presented with credible
evidence to prove that there was a governmental policy of Uganda directed at the exploitation of
the DRC’s natural resources, or that Uganda’s military intervention was carried out in order to

obtain access to Congolese resources. At the same time, it considers that it has ample persuasive
evidence to conclude that officers and soldiers of the UPDF, including the most high-ranking
officers, were involved in the looting, plundering and exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources
and that the military authorities did not take any measures to put an end to these acts.

Thus, the Court concludes that Uganda is in ternationally responsible for acts of looting,
plundering and exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources committed by members of the UPDF in
the territory of the DRC, for violating its obligation of vigilance in regard to these acts and for

failing to comply with its obligations under Artic le43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 as an
occupying Power in Ituri in respect of all acts of looting, plundering and exploitation of natural
resources in the occupied territory.

⎯ The DRC’s fourth submission: legal consequences of violations of international obligations by
Uganda

The Court does not find it established that Uganda, following the withdrawal of its troops
from the territory of the DRC in June 2003, has c ontinued to commit internationally wrongful acts,
as alleged by the DRC. The Court accordingly concludes that the DRC’s request that Uganda
cease forthwith all “continuing internationally wrongful acts” cannot be upheld.

As to the DRC’s request that Uganda provide specific guarantees and assurances of
non-repetition of the wrongful acts, the Court refers to the commitments assumed by Uganda under
the Tripartite Agreement on Regional Security in the Great Lakes, signed on 26October2004 by

the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda, and concludes that they must be regarded as meeting the DRC’s
request. The Court expects and demands that the Parties will respect and adhere to their
obligations under this Agreement and under general international law.

Finally, given the character of the interna tionally wrongful acts for which Uganda has been
found responsible, the Court considers that those act s resulted in injury to the DRC and to persons - 6 -

on its territory. Consequently, the Court finds that Uganda has an obligation to make reparation for
the injury caused. The Court considers appropriate the request of the DRC for the nature, form and

amount of the reparation due to it to be determined by the Court, failing agreement between the
Parties, in a subsequent phase of the proceedings.

⎯ The DRC’s fifth submission: compliance with the Court’s Order on provisional measures

The Court examines the question whether Uganda has complied with its Order indicating
provisional measures of 1 July 2000. It states that the DRC did not put forward any specific
evidence demonstrating that after July 2000 Uganda committed acts in violation of the Order. The

Court however observes that in its Judgment it ha s found that Uganda is re sponsible for acts in
violation of international humanitarian law a nd international human rights law which were
committed until 2June 2003. The Court thus concludes that Uganda did not comply with the
Order.

The Court further notes that the provisional measures indicated in its Order were addressed
to both Parties. The Court’s finding that Uganda did not comply with the Order is without
prejudice to the question as to whether the DRC did not also fail to comply with the provisional

measures indicated.

⎯ Counter-Claims

The Court first finds that the DRC is entitled to challenge the admissibility of Uganda’s
counter-claims.

In its first counter-claim, Uganda contends that, since 1994, it has been the victim of military

operations and other destabilizing activities carried out by hostile armed groups based in the DRC
and either supported or tolera ted by successive Congolese governments. In rebutting Uganda’s
first counter-claim, the DRC divides it into three pe riods of time, corresponding to distinct factual
and legal situations: (a) the period prior to PresidentLaurent-Désiré Kabila coming to power in

May 1997; (b) the period starting from the accession to power of PresidentKabila until
2August1998, the date on which Uganda’s military attack was launched; and (c) the period
subsequent to 2August1998. It submits that, in so far as the alleged claim that the DRC was
involved in armed attacks against Uganda covers the first period, it is inadmissible on the basis that

Uganda renounced its right to invoke the international responsibility of the DRC (Zaire at the time)
in respect of acts dating back to that period; and, in the alternative, groundless. It further asserts
that the claim has no basis in fact for the second period and that it is not founded in fact or in law

regarding the third period.

With respect to the question of admissibility of the first part of the counter-claim, the Court
observes that nothing in the conduct of Uganda can be considered as implying an unequivocal

waiver of its right to bring a counter-claim re lating to events which occurred during the Mobutu
régime. With respect to the merits of that part of the counter-claim, the Court finds that Uganda
has not produced sufficient evidence to show that Zaire provided political and military support to
anti-Ugandan rebel movements. With regard to the second period, the Court finds that Uganda has

failed to provide conclusive evidence of actual s upport for anti-Ugandan rebel groups by the DRC.
The Court notes that during this period, the DRC wa s in fact acting together with Uganda against
the rebels, not in support of them. In relation to the third period, the Court considers that any
military action taken by the DRC against Uganda during this period could not be deemed wrongful

since it would be justified as action taken in self-defence. Moreover, the Court has already found
that the alleged participation of DRC regular troops in attacks by anti-Ugandan rebels against the
UPDF and the alleged support to anti-Ugandan insu rgents in this period cannot be considered
proven. The first counter-claim thus fails in its entirety. - 7 -

In its second counter-claim, Uganda conte nds that Congolese armed forces attacked the
premises of the Ugandan Embassy, confiscated pr operty belonging to the Government of Uganda,

Ugandan diplomats and Ugandan nationals; and maltreated diplomats and other Ugandan nationals
present on the premises of the mission and at Ndjili International Airport.

Addressing the DRC’s objections to the admissi bility of the counter-claim, the Court finds

that its Order of 29 November 2001 did not preclude Uganda from invoking the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, since the form ulation of the Order was sufficiently broad to
encompass claims based on the Convention. It further observes that the substance of the part of the
counter-claim relating to acts of maltreatment against other persons on the premises of the Embassy

falls within the ambit of Article 22 of the Convention and is admissible. It however states that the
other part relating to the maltreatment of persons not enjoying diplomatic status at Ndjili
International Airport as they attempted to leave the country is based on di plomatic protection and
that, in the absence of evidence with respect to the Ugandan nationa lity of the persons in question,

that part of the counter-claim is inadmissible.

With respect to the merits of the counter-c laim, the Court finds that there is sufficient
evidence to prove that there were attacks against the Embassy and acts of maltreatment against

Ugandan diplomats on the Embassy premises and at Ndjili International Airport. It concludes that,
by committing those acts, the DRC breached its obligations under Articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Court further states that the removal of property and
archives from the Ugandan Embassy was in violation of the rules of international law on

diplomatic relations. It however points out that it would only be at a subsequent phase, failing an
agreement between the Parties, that the specifi c circumstances of these violations, as well as the
precise damage suffered by Uganda and the extent of the reparation to which it is entitled, would
have to be demonstrated.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Shi; Vice-President Ranjeva;
JudgesKoroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Ara nguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh,
Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham; Judges ad hoc Verhoeven, Kateka;
Registrar Couvreur.

Judge Koroma has appended a declaration to the Judgment of the Court;
JudgesParra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Elaraby and Simma have appended separate opinions;
JudgeTomka and Judge ad hoc Verhoeven have appended declarations; Judge ad hoc Kateka has

appended a dissenting opinion.

___________

A summary of the Judgment is published in the document entitled “Summary No.2005/3”,

to which summaries of the declarations and opini ons attached to the Judgment are annexed. The
present Press Release, the summary and the full te xt of the Judgment also appear on the Court’s
website under the “Docket” and “Decisions” headings (www.icj-cij.org).

___________

Information Department:

Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Head of Department (+ 31 70 302 23 36)

Mr. Boris Heim and Mr. Maxime Schouppe, Information Officers (+ 31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]