COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
MBMOLRES,PLAIDOIETDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DU DÉTROIT
DE CORFOU
PROC~DW 0RtU(DEIMEMPARTIE)
INTERNATIONALOFJUSTICE
PLEADINORALARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
THE CORFU
CHANNEL CASE
ORALPROCEEDINGS(SECONDPART)Tous droits réservés par la
Cour internationale de Justice
Al1 rights reserved by the
International Court of Justice
NOde ven:e
1Saies nu48e1AFFAIRE DU DETROIT DE CORFOU
THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE COUR INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE
- MEMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DU DETROIT
DE CORFOU
ARRBTSES25 MAR1948,9AVRIL ET DECEMBR1949 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
THE CORFU
CHANNELCA-SE
JUDGMENTS OF M25th194APRI9thAND
DECEhlISth1949
VOLUME IVPROCÉDURE ORALE (suite)
D. - SÉANCES PUBLIQUES
tenues au Palais de la Paix, La Haye,
les 17 novembreIj décembre1949
ORAL PROCEEDINGS (cont.)
D.-PUBLIC SITTINGS
held ut the PeacePalace, The Hague,
on November 17th and Decemberrgth, 1949 RIINUTES OF THE SITTINGS HELD
ON NOVEMBER 17th AND DECEMBER 15th, 1943
(COMPENSATION)
YEAR 1949
TWBLFTR PUBLIC SIITING1 (17 xr 49, 4fi.m.)
Prese~~t Vict-P~8sidG e.nERRERO ,cting as Py8.esi ;deJadges
ALVARER ZX, CKWORT H ,NIARÇKI ,ORICIC DE T~IÇSCHE Rr ARNOLD
McNar~, KLAESTAD , ADAI~IP I~snn, KRYLOV, RE.~D,HSU MO,
AZEVED A!€EEER,Judge ad Iloc;HegislraRAMRR ;Sir Eric BECKETT,
K.C.M.G., K.C., Agsnt for ths Goueïwnentof the Unit~d Kingdom;
Sir Frank Sos~zce,K.C.,M.F., CourasefortheGou~wrne~o tttheUnited
I<ingdonz.
The Government of the lJeople's Republic of Albailiawas not
represen ted.
The ACTIN GRESIDEN Tn,taking his seat, expressed his regret that
two members of the Coiirtwere absent: the PresidentM. Basdevant,
waç detained in the United States, where he was representing tlie Court
at the United Nations' General Assembly;Judge Fabela was unable,
foc reasons of health, tu be present on the Eench.
It was probable that President Basdevant would only be absent for
one or two sittings. Tlze President asked whether, if that were the case,
the United Kingdom Agent would agree that President Basdevant
should returntoliis place in the preçent proceeclings, prheiwere
able to do so before the Court began its private deliberationç,
The Wnitcd Kingdom Agent, Sir Eric BECKETT ,greed.
Tlie ACTINGPRESIDENtT hen referrcd to the fact th011April gtk,
1949,the Courthad given judgment that tPeople'sRepublic ofAlbania
was responsible, in international law, for the explosions lvkich occurred
on October zznd, 1946, in Albanian waters, and for the damage and loss
oflife that res~rltedtherefrom. ï'he Court reçerved for further considera-
tioil the assessrnent of cornpensstion, and, by an order of the same date,
fixed the time-lirnits for the Governlnents conctonfile tlieir obser-
Government.themount ofcompensation claimedby theUnited Kingdom
At the request of the Albanian Governmen t-the United Kingdom
Government havingmade no objection-thesetirne-limits were extended
to July 1st and August ~st,1949 ,espectivelyby an Order made on
Sixty-sixth meetingtheCourt. TWELFTH SITTING (17 XI 49)
703
June 24th, 1949. A further time-limit, espiring on September ~st, 1949,
was fixed for the Albanian Government to file any reply to the Observa-
tions of the United ICingdom Go\~ernment.
In a letter of June zgth, the Agent of the Albanian Government
informed the Registrar that :
"....The Government of the People's Republic of Albania
considers tliat, in accordance jvith the Special Agreement signed
between the Agents of the People's Republic of Albania and of Great'
Britain, on March 25th, 1948, and presented to the Court on the
same date, the Court had solely to consider the question whether
Albania was, or was not, obliged to pay compensation for the clamage
caused to the British warships in the incident of Octoberznd, 1946,
and the Special Agreement did not provide that the Court should
have the nght to fis the amount of compensation and corisequently
to ask Albania forinformation on that subject."
A copy of this letter was transmitted to the Agent of the United
Kingdom Government, and, within the time-limit specified, the Agent
of the United Kingdom Goverilment filed his Observations, in which lie
referrecl to Article53 of the Statute and askecl the Court to decide in
favour of the claim of his Government and indicated the final amount
claimed by the United Kingdom Government as compensation.
These Observations were transmitted to the Agent of the Albanian
Government, who, on September rst, had filed no document.
The Acting President observecl that the Court was now sitting to
assess the amount of this compensation. The Parties had been cluly
notified of the sitting.
He took note that Sir Eric Beckett, K.C.M.G., K.C., Legal Adviser to
the Foreign Office,and Sir Frank Soskice, K.C., NP., Solicitor-General,
who were respectively Agent and Counsel for the United Kingdom, were
present in Court.
In atelegram tothe Registrar filed in the Registry on November 16th,
1949, the Deputy-Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic
of Albania had stated that, in accordance with the view expressed by the
Albanian Government's -4gent in a letter addressed to the Court on
June zgth, 1949, the latter Government did not deem it necessary to be
represented at the present hearing fised for November 17tl1, 1949.
The Acting Prcsiderit therefore took forma1 notice that the Agent
and Counsel for.the Albanian Governilient were absent.
He announced that Judge Krylov \$fishedto.put a cliiestion to the
United Icingdom Agent. Sir Eric Beckett would not, however, be obliged
to reply immediately to that question.
Juclge KRYLOV asked the question reproduccd in the annex l.
Sir Eric BECKETTgave the reply reproduced in the annexl.
Judge KRYLOVwas asked by the President whether he was satisfied
with this reply, and answered in the affirnlativc.
The ACTING PRESTDEN then caiied on Sir Frank Soskice, Counsel
for the United Kingdom Government.
' See infra, p.706.
45 THIRTEENTH SITTING (15 XII 49) 7O4
Sir Frank SOSKICE made and concluded the speech reproduced in the
annex '.
The ACTING PRESIDEN Ttated that the Court intended to make an
Order instructing experts to verify the figures contained in the claim
of the United Kingdom Government for reparation. This task would be
entrusted to two experts : Rear-Admiral Berck and Engineer De Rooy,
Director of Naval Construction, both of Netherlands nationality.
In accordance with Article 50 of the Statute, the Acting President
asked the United Kingdom Agent if he wishedto be heard on this subject.
In reply to the President's question, Sir Eric BECKETT said he had no
observations to make on the subject of the expert enquiry that had been
announced.
The ACTINGPRESIDENT stated that when the experts' report had
been submitted, it would be forwarded to the Agent for the United
Kingdom Government, who woulclbe given a time-limit for the submis-
sion of any remarks. The Court would then deliberate and give a final
dccision.
The Court rose at 5.20 p.m.
(Signed) J. G. GUERRERO,
Acting President.
(Signed) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar.
THIRTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING2 (15 XII 49, 10.30 am.)
Present: [See tlvelfth sitting, with the exception of Sir Eric Beckett
and Sir Frank Soskice, replaced by Mr. Maurice Reed, on behalf of the
Agent of the Government of the Unitcd Kingdom.]
Thc ACTIWG PRESIDENT opened the meeting and saicl that the Court
had met to deliver Judgment on the assessment of compensation in the
Corfu Channel case between the Government of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's
Republic of Albania. This Judgment follows on tliat rendercd by the
Court on the rnents in the same case on April 9th last. In conformity
with Article 58 of the Statute, the Agents of the Parties had been duly
notified that the Judgment would be read during the present public
sitting.
The President stated that the officia1 test of the Judgment had
been handed to the Representative of the United Jcingdom, who \vas
alone present in Court, the Albanian Government having sent no
representative.
'Scc iiafra. 707.
Eighty-fiftmeeting of the Court. . . . THIRTEENTH SITTING (15 XII 49) 705
He announced that, the Court having decicledthat the French was to
be the authoritativc text, he would read the decisionin French '.
The Acting Presiclcnt then asked the Registrar to read the operative
clause of the Judginent in English.
The REGISTRAh Raving read the English test, the ACTING PRESIDENT
stated that Judge Krylov had declared that 11cwas unable to agree either
with the operative clause or with the reasons for the Judgment.
Judge EEER,Judge ad hoc, having declared that he was unable to
agrce with the Judgment, avaiied himself of the right conferred on him
by Article 57 of the Statute and appended to the Juclgrnent a statement
of his dissenting opinion.
The ACTING PRESIDENT askcd Judge Ecer if he wvishedto read his
dissenting opinion.
Judge ECEKanswered in the affirmative and read his opinion
The ACTINGPRESIDENT thcn closed the sittirig.
The Court rose at 11.20 a.m.
[Szgnatuves.]
--
1 Sec ReportsO/ Judgrnctzts, Advisor)! Opt?zlotrsand Orders 1949,pp.2jI-2
(Salcç No.2s).
2 SCe Z~C?Jpp. 252-256 ANNEXEAUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX
EXPOSÉ ORAL DU 17 NOVEMBRE 1949
1,
ANNEXTO THE MINUTES
ORAL STATEAIENT OF NOVEMBER 17th, 1949
l
(COMPENSATION)
I STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE
Judge KRYLOVS .ir Eric,feel it necessary to ask you the foilowing
question:Having in mind that in the Order of the 9th Apd, the Court
reserved the right of the Parties to make use of A68iof the Rules
approach you, as Agent of the British Government,th the intentioned to
to come to the settlement of the question of compensation, and if the
British Government tried to come to such final agreement ?That is all.
Sir Eric BECKETT. &Ir. Prcsident, 1 am prepared to reply to that
quBy a letter of the 13th July, the Albaniaii Ambassador at Paris wrote
to inc and suggested that we should discuss out of Court and try to reach
agrccment on the ainount of damages. 1 replied to that letter on the
12th Scptember and 1willread to the Court two sentencesfrom my reply.
The first sentcnce stated that the Government of the United Kingdom
considered "that the procedure before the Court should not be interrupted
and that the Court xnust be left to give its judgrnent on the arnount of
damages".
Government) are therefore not prcpared to enter into discussionsmith the
representatives of the Nbanian Government on this question at the
present moment."
The Albanian Ambassador in Paris, in a lettcr of 4th October, again
declared the rcadiness of the Albanian Government to discuss this matter
out of Court and in a further letter 1wrote to him on the 12th Oc-
tober, wc again said we \vislied the proceedings before the Court to
continue.
Le PRÉSIDENT. Êtes-vous satisfaiMonsieur Krylov ?
l
1 M. KRYLOVO . ui.
Le PRÉSIDENT Je donne la parole au conseil du Gouvernement dii
Royaume-Uni. Sir Frank SOSKICEM . ay it please the Court.
In this case, the Court pronounced its Judgment on Apnl gth, 1949.
The decision of the Court (p. 23 of tlie Judgment) was that "Albania is
responsible under international law for the explosions which occurred
on October zznd, 1946,in Albanian waters, and for the damage and loss
of human life which resulted from thcm, and that there is a duty upon
Albania to pay compensation to the United I<ingdom".
In the last two minutes of their last oral submission before the Court,
Counsel for the Albanian Government for thc first time asserted that
the Court would have no jurisdiction by virtue of the Special Agreement
to assess the amount of the compensation. The Court in its Judgment
considered this submission made on behalf of the Albanian Government
and (p. 26)arrived at the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to assess the
amount of the compensation. This issue ofjurisdiction is now resjudicata.
1sayno more on this point beyond referring to paragraph 3of the Obser-
vations of the United Kingdom delivered in July last. The Court having
held it had jurisdiction went on to Sayin its Judgment that the amount
of dainages could not be fised at that tirne and, if 1 might quote, stated:
"The Albanian Goverilment has not yet stated which items, if
any, of the various sums claimed it contests, and the United King-
dom has not submitted its evidence with regard to them.
The Court therefore considers that further proceedings on this
subject are necessary ;the order and time-limits of these proceedings
will be fixed by tlie Order of this date."
On the 9th April the Order was made. In this Order the Court reserves
for further consideration the assessrnent of the amount of compensation
and fixes tlie time-limits within wliich the two Parties should deliver
written Observations on the amount of damages. The Albanian Govern-
ment, llomcver, had not seen fit to plead before the Court on the issue
of the amount of damages, but the United Kingdom duly delivered its
written Observations on the 28th July, in compliance with the Court's
Order. As stated in paragraphs 4 and j of the United Kingdom Observa-
tions, 1 submit tliat Article 53 of thc Court's Statute is now applicable
and 1 now clesireto make submissions with a view to assistiiig the Court,
in the words of Article 53 (2) to "satisfy itsclf" that the amount of
damages which the United Kingdom is now claiming is "well founded
in fact and law".
1 apprehend that the Court would desire me to caii their attention
to the specific items making up the amount claimed by the United
Kingdom and the evidence we tender in support of Ourclaim. The total
amourit of the claim as set out at the end of the conclusionsof the United
Kingdom iî'iemorial is ,587j,ooo, consisting of ,57jo,o00 in respect of
H.M.S. Sazrmarez, which was a total loss, £75,000 for damage to H.M.S.
Volage and &~O,OOO compensation for the death and injuries of naval
personnel.
The Court wdi remember that Annex IO of the Memorial contains
a report on the darnage to H.M.S. Saumarez and Annex II a report on
the damage to H.M.S. Volage.Annex 14 contains a statement of the
cost of repairs to the Volageand the cost ofreplacement of the Saumarez.
Annexes 12 and 13contain a list of the sailors kiiled and injured, togetlier
with a statement of the pensions and expenses payable in respect of
them and tlieir dependants. In the Unitcd Kingdom Observations of the STATERIENT BY SIR FRANK SOSI~ICE (u.K.) - 17 XI 49
708
28th July anclfor reasons set out in these Observations, we seek to make
some change in the previous figures presented in the Memorial, which
were estimated figures. As revisetl in the Observations of July last, the
United Kingdom claim now stands at @43,947 instead of as before at
,C875,00o.Appended to the Observations are appendices consisting of
afficlavits onwhich, together witli the annexes to the RIemorialto wliich
1 previously referred, the United Kingdom reliesas constituting eviclence
to substantiate the various items wliich go to make up the claim. In
addition 1 also rely on the afficlavit of Mr. Richarcl Royle Powell, .the
Deputy-Secretary of the Aclrniralty, which was filed with the Court a
week ago.
Uefore dealing further with the individual items, 1 should like to refer
tlie Court to a decisionofits predecessor, the Permanent Court, which is
generally taken as being the leading authority on tlie principles of inter-
national law relating to the assessment of darnages. This decision of the
Permanent Court was given in 1925. It is Judgment No. 13, Chorz6w
Factory, Merits, reportecl in Series A, No. 17. The passage which 1 sliall
quote will be founclat page 47 of the Judgment, and reads as follows : -
"Tlie essential principle containecl in the actual notion of an
iiiegai act-a principle which seemstobeestablished by international
practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral tribunals-is
that reparation must, asfaras possible, wipeout ailtheconsequences
of the illegal act and re-establish the situation whicli woulcl,in al1
probability, have esistecl if that act hacl not been committed.
Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum
corresponding to the value which a restitution in kind wodd bear ;
the award, if need be, of damages for loss sustained whicli woulcl
not be covered by restitution in lcind or payrnent in place of it-
such are the principles whiclishould serve to determine the amount
of con~pensationdue for an act contrary to international law."
hlr. President, perhaps it would be convenient if 1 pause here for
a moment in order that tlie translator may translate what 1 have said
into the French language.
1 would like liowever to begin by referring to that part of our claim
which relates to the human victims of this .tragedy. Whatever can be
said of anybody else concerned in the incidents on which the Court has
pronounced judgment, these persons-S6 officers and men kiiled and
injured-were beyond controversy innocent from ail points of view and
the least deserving of the fate that befell them when these explosions
took place. As stated in paragraph 6 of our Observations, it might
perhaps liave been possible consistently with legal principle to include
some claim in-respect of the sufferings and physical injuries inflicted
on these men resulting in many cases in their death as representing a
loss to the United Kingdom which is the only actual claimant in this
case. At the same time, no money award can compensate in the real
sense for the loss of so many brave lives or adequately redress the wrong
that has been done to the many killed and injured. These are losses
which cannot be reckoned in nioney. It seemed to us that to be more
fitting and more in accord witli the reverence due to their memory that
we should not treat these matters as heaclsof monetary loss. We have
accordingly lirnited our claim, as will be seen from Our pleadings and
observations, to expenditure in regard to the pensions and awards madeto thesc men or their depcndants, costs of administration, cost of medical
treatment, etc., rcpresenting actual or prospective oiitlay to the United
I<ingdom. The actual sum now claimcd is ;650,048, and the detailed
statement showing how tliis is made up is to be found in Anneses 12
and 13 to the Mcmorial as siipplemcnted and amendecl bj7Appcndis I
to the Observations of the 28th July.
I submit to the Court that this head of claim lias been moderately
and carefully prepared and that the affidavits filedwith the Court amply
substantiate it.
1 will now pass, if Imay, to tlie claim in respect of the total loss of
H.RI.S. Saz~nzarez.As amended in the further Observations filed by
tlie United Kingdoni tliis claim now figures as £700,087. The estimated
amount of this claim, as stated in Anncs 14 to thc Memorial, was, as
1 have already said, L750,000. The reasons why this estimatecl figure
\vas reduced to tlie present figure of Ourclaim, namely, L7oo,o87,appear
in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Our furthcr Observations of July laçt. \Ve
thought tliat the Court rnight desire to have further information and
cvidence to substantiate the figure of L700,ooomcntioned in OurObser-
vations and accordingly the furtlier affidavit of Mr. Powell was filed a
week ago, showing on what basis this figurc was arrivcd at. From this
it wiil appear that ~700,ooo is a conservative figure for the cost of
building an identical ship at 1946prices.In order to implement in relation
to the facts cf this case the general principle relating to the assessrnent
of damages as enunciated in the passage from the Chorzow Judgment
which 1have quoted, 1submit tliat the only basis which can be adopted
is the replacement cost as at the time when the wrongful act was
committed in the case of the Saz~marezand the cost of repairs in the case
of the Volage. The Court will remember that the Saz~wzarez becamc a
total loss as a result of the explosion andthe claim put fonvard in respect
of her is the amount whicli it would have bcen necessary to expend in
1946, at 1946prices, in order to replace her with a ship as far as possible
exactly similar. In the Chorzow case the Permanent Court said that if
restitution in kind isnot possible a sum sliould be paid "corresponding
to the value which a restitution in kind would bear". Restitution in kind
would have bcen another ship esactly likc the Saz~marezand a sum of
money corresponding to another ship like,the Saz~marezis lier replaccnieiit
value at 1946prices. Not only is this the basis indicatecl by the Chorzow
Judgmcnt, but in fact, no otlier obvious basis on which the computation
can be made presents itself. In the case of articles which have a market
value, the market value should perhaps be taken'into account, but it is
not possiblc to say tliat there was a market value for the Sazrmarez.It
is true that on occasions and for special reasons warships which have
been in comn~ission(as distinct, of course, from ncw warships made by
private shipbuilders to the order of a foreign government) have been
sold hetween governments as, for esample, when during World War II
the United Kingdom sold ships in commission to Allied Governments in
order to assist the joint Allied war effort.
Furtliermore, as stated by Mr. Powell in his affidavit, the Admiralty
have sold a number of warships to foreign governments silice tlie end
of tlie Second World War. The ships to which he refers in fact include
four ships of the Saumarez class, three of \vliich were sold to the Dutcli
Government and one to the Nonvegian Government. These ships were
solcl at special prices to these Governments. In the case of the ships sold710 STATEMENT BY SIR FRANK SOSKICE (u.K.) - 17 XI 49
to the Dutch Government, a circumstance which influenced the price
was the desire of Great Britain to assist its Aiiy the Netherlands, whose
Navy had been seriously depleted, in carrying on the war in the Far
East, and although the ships themselvcs were delivered in October 1945
after the war ended, the negotiations for the sale of these sliips to the
Dutch Govemment werc begun during the war. In the case of Nonvay,
the ship in question was sold as part of a largcr transaction and special
considerations also were taken into account. In the caseof thSaumarez,
however, the British Government was not and would not have been
surplus to recluirements in October 1946. Thereforec1submit that there
is no other basis of valuation to which recourse could be had except
thc replacement value at 1946 prices. It is true that the ship was
completed in 1943, but at the same tirne, as statecl by Mr. PoweU,she
was, immediately before the incident of October zznd, 1946, as good as .
new. The Court will appreciate that a warship which is an operative unit
in commission in the British Navy lias to be maintained in first-class
condition, and it therefore would be unrealistic in the case of such a
warship to apply rates of depreciation which might be considered
applicable in other cases.
(Pause for interpretation.)
There are some further individual items of loss to which 1would like
to refer.
In paragrapli 13 of OurObservations the value of the stores actually
lost with H.M.S. Saumarez is given at £23,887, and the value of the
equipment which might be used from H.M.S. Saunzarez is given as
£20,000. Jn this connexion 1:should explain the differencebetween stores
and equipment. By stores is meant portable things, whereas equipment
is built into the structure of the ship. Thus guns are stores, but gun
mountings are equipment. Apart from a smaii arnount in respect of the
outfit of "first fitting stores" (anchors, cables, etc.). the value of storcs
is not included in the cost of constructinç the ship, whereas tlic cost of
equipment is so included. Radar, asdics and echo-sounding gear are
stores, even when they have been instaiied in the sliip. The metliod of
arriving at the figure of &o,ooo for re-iisable equipnient was as foll:ws
Al1the departments in the Admiralty concerned with equipment, as
distinct from stores, were asked to say what equipment they wanted
removed from H.M.S. Saumarez for possible re-use and to give its value
as new. Tlicy produced a list of equipment valued as new at £74,870. A
reduction of 50 % was made to allow for dcpreciation in respect of the
three years that the hulk of theSaumarez had been lying at Malta since
1946and possible damage in the incident in the Corfu Channel. 1 sliould
point out that the United Kingdom Government did not think it right
to remove or make use of the equipment until the Court had pronounced
judgment, in case it was necessary for an inspection to be made of the
vesse1as evidence in the case. The only exception is a single mechanical
pump which was taken from Sau??zare znd instailed onVolage. In view
of the cost of removing any equipment which it might be desired to use,
transporting it and reinstaliing it in another ship, it was thought
reasonable further to reduce the figure of £37,500 to ~z0,ooo. It must
be borne in mind that it cannot be known until the equipment has been
removed and tested whether in fact it would be serviceable for furtheruse. In the result thc figure which is allowed for usable cquipment and
in reduction of thc claim is now (C20,ooo.
With regard to the £23,887 for stores lost in the Saumarez, this is
subclivided as set out in Appendix 5 to the Observations of July.
Perhaps 1 should say a word with regard to the figure for scrap value
of ,63,Soomentioned in paragraph 13 of the Observations. This figure is
arrived at as foilows:
Of the standard displaccment of the Sa~mtarez,namely, 1,730 tons,
it was estimated that some So % namely, 1,384 tons, including steel
scrap and non-ferrous scrap, were recoverable. From this a further 150-
tons werededucted as it was necessary to cut offand jettison the damaged
bows of the Saumarez in order to tow her to Malta from Corfu. (In order
to avoid confusion, 1 would remind the Court that it was the Volage
whose bows wereblown off and sank to the bottom.) The net result was
that some 1,234tons of steelscrap and non-ferrous scrap are recoverable.
After allowing for shipbreaking costs, transport and so on, and taking
the controiled price of £3.10.0 per ton for steel scrap and 5.0.0 for
ferrous scrap (including castings) and £50 for non-ferrous material
(that is, brass, copper, etc.) the estimated scrap value was brought out
at the figure given in Our Observations, namely, £3,800.
There remains the final heacl of claim, namely, that in respect of
H.M.S. Volage. This, as origindy put forward in the Mernorial and
Anncx 14 to the Rlemorial,was in the estimated sum of L7j.000. ln the
Observations of July this estimatcd figure is amended to the figure of
£93,812., as appears in paragraph II and the appendices referred to in
this paragraph. It will be seen that while the actual cost of repairs to
the Volage was rcduced to £65,830, a figure of £27,9S2was included
for stores lost, bringing out the figurewhichave mentioned of ,593,812.
With regard to the individual figuresmaking up the cost of repairing the
Volage, namcly, ,C65,S30,and the cost of the stores and equipment to
the value of £27,982, 1do not think that 1can usefully add any further
details to those already given in Appendices 4 and 5 of OurObservations,
but, of course, tlie United l<ingdomGovernment \vil1be happy to supply
further information on any matter whicli the Court rcquires.
Mr. President, this completes what 1 desire to Say in substantiation
of the United Kingdom claim totalling, as I have said, £843,947 If the
Court desire any further information 1\vil1be only too happy to furnish
it to the best ofmy ability, but subject to this, 1donot think t1would
be usefully occupying the timc of the Court by dilating further on indi-
vidual items, and 1 submit that the Court now has bcfore it evidcnce
substantiating to the full the claim we have put forward. 1 accordingly
ask that jiidgment may be pronounced in favour of the United Kingdom
that they are entitled to be paid the amount claimed.
Mr. President and Members of the Court, I would not like to part
from this long and difficult case in which 1 believe 1 am probably now
making my final address to you without espressing to you on my own
behalf and on behalf of my coileagueswith whom 1 have coilaborated in
presenting the United Kingdom case, their deep sense of gratitude for
the unremitting courtesy with which you have treated us and the care
and patience with which you have received and esamined the vanous
arguments and the evidence which has been brouglit before you.
Minutes of the Sittings held on November 17th and December 15th, 1949