Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) - (Compensation owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea) - The Court decides that the amoun

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. 2012/22
19 June 2012

Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)

(Compensation owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo
to the Republic of Guinea)

The Court decides that the amount of compensation due from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea for the injury
suffered by Mr. Diallo is US$95,000

THE HAGUE, 19June2012. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, today de livered its Judgment in the case concerning
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) (compensation
owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea).

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

(1) fixes, by fifteen votes to one, the amount of compensation due from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea for the non-material injury suffered by Mr.Diallo at
US$85,000;

(2) fixes, by fifteen votes to one, the amount of compensation due from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea for the material injury suffered by Mr.Diallo in
relation to his personal property at US$10,000;

(3) finds, by fourteen votes to two, that no compensa tion is due from the Democratic Republic of
the Congo to the Republic of Guinea with regard to the claim concerning material injury
allegedly suffered by Mr.Diallo as a resultof a loss of professional remuneration during his
unlawful detentions and following his unlawful expulsion;

(4) finds, unanimously, that no compensation is due from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to

the Republic of Guinea with regard to the clai m concerning material injury allegedly suffered
by Mr. Diallo as a result of a deprivation of potential earnings;

(5) decides, unanimously, that the total amount of compensation due under points 1 and 2 above
shall be paid by 31 August 2012 and that, in case has not been paid by this date, interest on

the principal sum due from the Democratic Republ ic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea
will accrue as from 1 September 2012 at an annual rate of 6 per cent; - 2 -

(6) rejects, by fifteen votes to one, the claim of th e Republic of Guinea concerning the costs
incurred in the proceedings.

I. Heads of damage in respect of which compensation is requested

The Court notes that Guinea seeks compensati on under four heads of damage: non-material

injury and three heads of material damage.

A. Compensation for the non-material injury suffered by Mr. Diallo

The Court takes into account various factors in order to assess the non-material injury
suffered by Mr.Diallo, including the arbitrary natu re of Mr.Diallo’s arrests and detentions, the
unjustifiably long period during wh ich he was detained, the unsu pported accusations against him,

his wrongful expulsion from a country where he had resided for 32years and where he had
engaged in significant business activities, and the lin k between Mr. Diallo’s expulsion and the fact
that he had attempted to recover debts which he believed were owed to his companies by the
Zairean State or companies in which the State he ld a substantial portion of the capital. The Court

also takes into account the fact that it has not been demonstrated that Mr. Diallo was mistreated.

The Court considers that, on the basis of equitable considerations, the amount of US$85,000
would provide appropriate compensation for the non-material injury suffered by Mr.Diallo

(paras. 21-25).

B. Compensation for material injury suffered by Mr. Diallo

1. Alleged loss of Mr. Diallo’s personal property (including assets in bank accounts)

The Court considers that Guinea has failed to prove the extent of the alleged loss of
Mr.Diallo’s personal property, namely the furnis hings that appear on the inventory of personal

property in Mr. Diallo’s apartment, certain high-valu e items alleged to have been in the apartment,
which are not specified on that inventory, and asset s in bank accounts, and the extent to which any
such loss was caused by the DRC’s unlawful conduct. The Court recalls, however, that Mr. Diallo

lived and worked in the territory of the DRC for over 30years, during which time he surely
accumulated personal property. It considers that Mr.Diallo would have had to transport his
personal property to Guinea or to arrange for its disposition in the DRC. Thus, the Court is
satisfied that the DRC’s unlawful conduct caused some material injury to Mr. Diallo with respect to

the personal property that was in his apartment.

In such a situation, the Court considers that , on the basis of equitable considerations, the
amount of US$10,000 would provide appropriate comp ensation for the material injury suffered by

Mr. Diallo (paras. 30-36).

2. Alleged loss of remuneration during Mr. Di allo’s unlawful detentions and following his
unlawful expulsion

The Court considers that Guinea has failed to establish that Mr.Diallo was receiving
remuneration from his two companies in the period i mmediately prior to his detentions. The Court
notes that Guinea also has not explained how Mr. Di allo’s detentions caused an interruption in any

remuneration that Mr.Diallo might have been receiving in his capacity as gérant of those
companies. Under these circumstances, the C ourt considers that Guinea has not proven that
Mr.Diallo suffered a loss of professional remuneration as a result of his unlawful detentions

(paras. 37-46). - 3 -

The Court considers that the reasons for rejecting the claim for loss of professional
remuneration during the period of Mr.Diallo’s dete ntions also apply to the claim relating to the

period following Mr.Diallo’s expulsion. The C ourt adds that the claim is moreover highly
speculative and assumes that Mr. Diallo would have continued to receive a monthly amount had he
not been unlawfully expelled. Thus, the Court c oncludes that no compensation can be awarded for
Guinea’s claim relating to unpaid remuneration following Mr. Diallo’s expulsion (paras. 47-49).

The Court therefore awards no compensation for remuneration that Mr. Diallo allegedly lost
during his detentions and following his expulsion (para. 50).

3. Alleged deprivation of potential earnings

The Court notes that Guinea makes an additi onal claim that it describes as relating to
Mr. Diallo’s “potential earnings”. The Court considers that this claim amounts to a claim for a loss

in the value of the companies allegedly resulting from Mr. Diallo’s detentions and expulsion. Such
a claim is beyond the scope of the proceedings, given the Court’s prior decision that Guinea’s
claims relating to the injuries alleged to have been caused to the companies are inadmissible.

For these reasons, the Court awards no compensation to Guinea in respect of its claim
relating to the “potential earnings” of Mr. Diallo (paras. 51-54).

II. Total sum awarded and post-judgment interest

The Court concludes that the total sum awarded to Guinea is US$95,000 to be paid by
31 August 2012. The Court decides that, should payment be delayed, post-judgment interest on the

principal sum due will accrue as from 1 September 2012 at an annual rate of 6 per cent (para. 56).

III. Procedural costs

The Court decides that each Party shall bear its own costs (para. 60).

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor;
Judges Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood,
Xue, Donoghue, Gaja, Sebutinde; Judges ad hoc Mahiou, Mampuya; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge Cançado Trindade appends a separat e opinion to the Judgment of the Court;
JudgeYs usuf and Greenwood append declarations to the Judgment of the Court;
Judges ad hoc Mahiou and Mampuya append separate opinions to the Judgment of the Court.

*

A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No.2012/3”. This press
release, the summary and the full text of th e Judgment can be found on the Court’s website
(www.icj-cij.org), under the heading “Cases”.

___________ - 4 -

Note: The Court’s press releases do not constitute official documents.

___________

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Char ter in June1945 and began its activities in

April1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six
principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court has a
twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by
States (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and,

second, to give advisory opinions on legal questi ons referred to it by duly authorized United
Nations organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15judges elected for a
nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.
Independent of the United Nations Secretariat, it is assisted by a Registry, its own international

secretariat, whose activities are both judicial and diplomatic, as well as administrative. The official
languages of the Court are French and English. Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only
court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.

The ICJ, a court open only to States for cont entious proceedings, and to certain organs and
institutions of the United Nations system for advisory proceedings, should not be confused with the
other ⎯ mostly criminal ⎯ judicial institutions based in The Hague and adjacent areas, such as the

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, an adhoc court created by the
Security Council), the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent international criminal
court, established by treaty, which does not bel ong to the United Nations system), the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon (STL, an independent judicial body composed of Lebanese and international

judges, which is not a United Nations tribunal an d does not form part of the Lebanese judicial
system), or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA, an independent institution which assists in
the establishment of arbitral tribunals and fac ilitates their work, in acco rdance with the Hague
Convention of 1899).

___________

Information Department:

Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)