Public sitting held on Wednesday 15 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Co

Corrigé
Corrected

CR 2015/4

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THE HAGUE LA HAYE

YEAR 2015

Public sitting

held on Wednesday 15 April 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,

President Abraham presiding,

in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

____________________

VERBATIM RECORD
____________________

ANNÉE 2015

Audience publique

tenue le mercredi 15 avril 2015, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président,

dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) ; Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c.Costa Rica)

________________

COMPTE RENDU
________________ - 2 -

Present: President Abraham
Vice-President Yusuf

Judges Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue

Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard

Registrar Couvreur

 - 3 -

Présents : M. Abraham, président
M. Yusuf, vice-président

MM. Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue

M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
MM. Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian, juges
MM. Guillaume
Dugard, juges ad hoc

M. Couvreur, greffier

 - 4 -

The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Manuel A. González Sanz, Minist er for Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of
Costa Rica;

H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador on Special Mission,

as Agent;

H.E. Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Member of

the Permanent Court of Arbitration,

as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;

Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva, member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court

Chambers,

Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, member of
the Costa Rican Bar,

Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in Queensland, Australia, and in England and Wales,

Ms Katherine Del Mar, member of the English Bar, 4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Simon Olleson, member of the English Bar, 13 Old Square Chambers,

as Counsel;

Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,

Ms Shara Duncan, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,

Mr. Gustavo Campos, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,

Mr. Rafael Saenz, Minister Counsellor at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Ms Ana Patricia Villalobos, Official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,

as Assistant Counsel;

Ms Elisa Rivero, Administrative Assistant at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,

as Assistant. - 5 -

Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Manuel A. González Sanz, ministre des affaires étrangères et des cultes de la
République du Costa Rica ;

S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur en mission spéciale,

comme agent ;

S. Exc. M. Sergio Ugalde, ambassadeur du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des Pays -Bas, membre

de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;

M. MarceloKohen, professeur de droit international à l’Institut de hautes é tudes internationales
et du développement de Genève, membre de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court

Chambers,

M. Arnoldo Brenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
membre du barreau du Costa Rica,

Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Queensland (Australie), Angleterre et pays de Galles),

Mme Katherine Del Mar, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
comme conseils et avocats ;

M. Simon Olleson, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 13 Old Square Chambers,

comme conseil ;

M. RicardoOtarola, conseiller auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,

Mme Shara Duncan, conseillère auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,

M. Gustavo Campos, ministre-conseiller et consul général du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,

M. Rafael Saenz, ministre-conseiller à l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Ana Patricia Villalobos, fonctionnaire du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,

comme conseils adjoints ;

Mme Elisa Rivero, assistante administrative au ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,

comme assistante. - 6 -

The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,

as Agent and Counsel;

Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of L aw, Sacramento, former Member and former Chairman of the
International Law Commission,

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, former Member
and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Inst itut de droit
international,

Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney -at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the United States
Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,

Mr. Andrew B. Loewenstein, Attorney- at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. César Vega Masís, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Director of Juridical Affairs,
Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

as Counsel;

Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy o f Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,

Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Ms Cicely O. Parseghian, Attorney -at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Mr. Benjamin K. Guthrie, Attorney- at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Mr. Ofilio J. Mayorga, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the Republic of
Nicaragua and New York,

as Assistant Counsel; - 7 -

Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez , ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,

comme agent et conseil ;

M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, pr ofesseur de droit international à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento, ancien membre et ancien président de la Commission
du droit international,

M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit
international,

M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux de la Cour suprême
des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,

M. Andrew B. Loewenstein, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. César Vega Masís, ministre adjoint des affaires étrangères, directeur des affaires juridiques, d e
la souveraineté et du territoire au ministère des affaires étrangères,

M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,

M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,

comme conseils ;

M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des

Pays-Bas,

M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,

Mme Cicely O. Parseghian, avocate au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,

M. Benjamin K. Guthrie, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,

M. Ofilio J. Mayorga, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux de la République
du Nicaragua et de New York,

comme conseils adjoints; - 8 -

Mr. Danny K. Hagans, Principal Earth Scientist at Pacific Watershed Associates, Inc.,

Mr. Robin Cleverly, Geographical and Technical Consultant,

Ms Blanca P. Ríos Touma, Ph.D., Assistant Professor at Universidad Tecnología Indoamérica in
Quito, Ecuador,

Mr. Scott P. Walls, Master of Landscape Architecture  Environmental Planning, Sole Proprietor
and Fluvial Geomorphologist at Scott Walls Consulting, Ecohydrologist at cbec ecoengineering,
Inc., and Chief Financial Officer and Project Manager at International Watershed Partners,

Ms Victoria Leader, Geographical and Technical Consultant,

as Scientific Advisers and Experts. - 9 -

M. Danny K. Hagans, spécialiste principal des sciences de la terre de Pacific Watershed
Associates, Inc.,

M. Robin Cleverly, consultant dans les domaines géographique et technique,

Mme Blanca P. Ríos Touma, P h.D., professeur adjoint à l’Universidad Tecnología Indoamérica
de Quito (Equateur),

M. Scott P. Walls, titulaire d’une maîtrise en architecture paysagère et en planification de
l’environnement, propriétaire unique et géomorphologue fluvial de Scott Walls Consulting,

spécialiste en écohydrologie de cbec ecoengineering, Inc., directeur financier et chef de projet
pour International Watershed Partners,

Mme Victoria Leader, consultante dans les domaines géographique et technique,

comme conseillers scientifiques et experts. - 10 -

Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. L’audience est ouverte. La Cour se réunit ce matin

pour entendre la suite et la fin du premier tour de plaidoiries du Costa Rica. Je donne la parole à

Madame Del Mar.

Ms DEL MAR:

Violations of Costa Rica’s navigational right

A Introduction

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you for the first time

on behalf of Costa Rica. It is my task to address Nicaragua’s violations of Costa Rica’s perpetual

right of free navigation on the San Juan. In its Memorial, Costa Rica asked the Court to adjudge

and declare that Nicaragua had infringed its right 1. I will catalogue the various ways by which

Nicaragua has done so.

2. Costa Rica was entitled to expect that the Court’s Judgment of 13 July 2009 in the case

concerning Navigational and Related Rights would bring an end to Nicaragua’s attempts to prevent

Costa Rica from exercising its right of free navigation on the San Juan. The Court’ s

2009 Judgment set out in terms the content and scope of Costa Rica’s navigational right under the

1858 Treaty of Limits, interpreted in light of other obligations binding on both States 2. Costa Rica

had anticipated that the 2009 Judgment would provide a foundation on which the two c ountries

might build a new relationship characteriz ed by goodwill and co- operation. Regrettably this has

not proved to be the case.

3. In breach of its obligations under the 1858 Treaty of Limits, and the Court’s

2009 Judgment, Nicaragua has obstructed Costa Rica from exercising its right of free navigation in

three principal respects:

(a) first, by enacting legislation that in effect defines the right out of existence for all functional

purposes;

1Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (C osta Rica v. Nicaragua) (“Certain Activities”),
Memorial of Costa Rica ( MCR), Vol. I , pp. 299-300, para. 7.See also Certain Activities, Application instituting
proceedings, 18 Nov. 2010, p. 26, para. 41 (f).
2
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 233, para. 36. - 11 -

(b) second, by harassing private Costa Rican citizens navigating on the San Juan; and

(c) third, by preventing Costa Rican personnel carrying out works in accordance with the

provisional measures indicated by the Court.

4. Mr. President, almost as soon as the Court handed down the 2009 Judgment, Nicaragua

began pursuing the same course of conduct that led Costa Rica to initiate those earlier proceedings

3
in 2005. Contrary to the 2009 Judgment , Nicaragua continued to impose charges on Costa Rican

vessels and their passengers for navigat ing on the San Juan. Cos ta Rica was forced to issue a

4
formal protest note to Nicaragua less than a fortnight af ter the Court rendered its 2009 Judgment .

These were not isolated incidents. Nicaragua has repeatedly breached its obligations since the

handing down of the Court’s 2009 Judgment until now: a period of almost six years.

B. Breach No. 1: Nicaraguan Decree N° 79-2009 and Regulatory Norms

5. I turn to the first category of breaches. Regulations were enacted by the President of

Nicaragua in the form of Decree N o. 79-2009, and Regulatory Norms; they were published in the

5
official Gazette on 1 October 2009 . They are at tab 8 of the judges’ folder. The Decree is set out

on the first four pages, followed by the Regulatory Norms. Superficially, it appears that Nicaragua

has simply regulated navigation, only along that part of the San Juan where  to use the

expression employed by the 1858 Treaty of Limits  “navigation is common ” 6. The practical

effect of these instruments, however, is death by regulation. The regulati ons are entirely unsuited

to the people who need to use the River.

3
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (“Navigational and Related
Rights”), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 271, para. 156 (2) (c).
4Dispute concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa
Rica) (“Construction of a Road”), Rejoinder of Costa Rica ( RCR), Vol. IV, Ann. 16, Note from Minister for Foreign

Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 27 July 2009, ref. DM -543-09. See
also ibid., Ann. 17, Note from Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Acting Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 21 Aug. 2009, ref. DVM -176-09; and ibid., Ann. 18, Note from Minister for Foreign
Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 7Sept. 2009, ref. DM-674-09.
5Construction of a Road , Counter-Memorial of Costa Rica ( CMCR), Vol. III, Ann . 26, Nicaraguan Decree
No. 79-2009 “Creation of the Inter -Institutional Commission to Develop and Implement the Regulations regarding

Navigation on the San Juan River, specifically where the International Court of Justice Grants Limited Navigation Rights
to the Republic of Costa Rica”. The Spanish original was published in (185) La Gaceta pp. 5577- 5590, available on the
website of the Nicaraguan Government at http://www.cancilleria.gob.ni/diferendos/Gaceta_RegRSJNCR.pdf .
6Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 1, p. 11, Costa Rica-Nicaragua Treaty of Limits (Cañas-Jerez), San José,
15 Apr. 1858 (“1858 Treaty of Limits”), Art. VI. - 12 -

6. The Nicaraguan Decree and Regulatory Norms must have the characteristics stipulated by

the Court in the 2009 Judgment. They must:

“(1) only subject the activity to certain rules withou t rendering impossible or
substantially impeding the exercise of the right of free navigation;

(2) be consistent with the terms of the [1858] Treaty [of Limits] . . .;

(3) have a legitimate purpose . . .;

(4) not be discriminatory . . .; [and]

(5) not be unreasonable, which means that [their] negative impact on the exercise of
the right in question must not be manifestly excessive when measured against the
protection afforded to the purpose invoked” . 7

7. Mr. President, the Court specified these characteri stics in the specif ic context of the

San Juan. That context is important. The boats used on the San Juan look like this. This is a boat

8
belonging to a Costa Rican family . They also look like this. This is a photograph taken from

Nicaragua’s White Book, published in Nov ember 2010 9. It shows a Nicaraguan boat. They also

look like this. This is a photograph from an article in the Nicaraguan press dated 5 April 2011. It

shows another Nicaraguan boat 1. They also look like this. This is a photograph from an article in

the Nicaraguan press from 2012. It shows a boat used by contingents of Nicaraguans who travelled

to the disputed territory 11. They also look like this. This is a photograph from April 2014 . It is 12

another Nicaraguan boat alongside Costa Rican territory.

8. I turn now to the regulations themselves. Nicaragua’s Regulatory Norms require Costa

Rican vessels to have certain characteristics, which are completely at odds with the characteristics

of boats that actually use the San Juan, and they are unreasonable to impose. These include the

7Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, pp. 249-250, para. 87.
8
Navigational and Related Rights , CRM, 29 August 2006, photograph opposite p. 66 entitled ‘A family on the
Costa Rican bank of the San Juan (near La Tigra) with their boat’.
9
Certain Activities, CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 26, “Complete Nicaragua White Book, San Juan de Nicaragua River, The
Truths That Costa Rica Hides”, 26Nov. 2010, p. 475.
10
Letter from Costa Rica to the Court, 8 Apr. 2011, ref. ECRPB 029-11, Ann. CR1, La Prensa (Nicaragua),
“Ejército facilita cobertura a JS 19 deJulio en Río San Juan”, 5 Apr. 2011.
11Letter from Costa Rica to the Court, 3 July 2012, ref. ECRPB -025-12, Ann. CR11, El 19 Digital (Nicaragua),
“Harbour Head, synonymous with national sovereignty” , 15 Feb. 2012.

12Letter from Costa Rica to the Court, 21 N ov. 2014, ref. 116-2014, Ann. CR9, letter from Costa Rica to
Nicaragua, 13 Nov. 2014, ref. DM-AM-0716-14, Annex of photographic evidence, photo dated 16Oct. 2014. - 13 -

13 14
requirements that vessels have at least two exits or emergency escapes ; at least one toilet ; a

radio transmitter 1; a hardtop cabin; a central corridor ; individual chairs with backrests;

16
compartments for hand luggage storage; and, curtains on the sides . These regulations purport to

apply to vessels on the San Juan, like the ones I showed you. They render it impossible for

Costa Rican vessels to comply.

9. There is also an assumption made in the Regulatory Norms that all vessels will have

navigational lights 17. This is an unreasonable assumption in view of the fact that Nicaragua has

limited the time of day during which Costa Rican vessels may navigate the r iver to daylight

hours 18.

10. The Decree specifically prohibits Costa Rican vessels from navigating with “any type of

cargo or merchandise” if they cannot demonstrate through “established documentation” that the

transit is for a commercial purpose 19. The Regulatory Norms require documentary proof of the

20
“legality” of the merchandise on board a Costa Rican vessel . A Costa Rican riparian must thus

produce documentary proof that the sack of beans he purchased in Sarapiquí to sell onto members

of his riparian community is “legal” in order to be allowed to exercise the right of free navigation.

For merchandise that is usually sold without documentation or in small quantities, this is

unreasonable.

11. The Decree is discriminatory. It is clear from Article 2 of the Regulatory Norms that the

regulations are targeted at Costa Rican navigation specifically 21. Article 4 of the Decree only

applies to Costa Rican vessels. It specifically prohibits the navigation of Costa Rican vessels on

13
Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 91, Regulatory Norms, Art.17 (4).
1Ibid., Regulatory Norms, Art. 17 (5) and (6).

1See Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 92, Nicaraguan Decree No. 79-2009, Art. 20.
16
Ibid., Ann. 26, p. 98, RegulatoryNorms, Art. 48 (2).
17
Ibid., Ann. 26, p. 93, RegulatoryNorms, Art. 24 (3).
1Ibid., Ann. 26, p. 86, Nicaraguan Decree No. 79-2009, Art. 6, para. 2; ibid., p. 92, Regulatory Norms, Art. 19.

See also Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 261, paras.125-126.
1Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 85; Nicaraguan Decree No. 79-2009, Art. 4 (f). See also

ibid., p. 90, Regulatory Norms, Art. 10 (10).
2Ibid., Ann. 26, p. 90; Regulatory Norms, Arts. 10 (10) and 13 (11).

2Ibid., Ann. 26, p. 87; Regulatory Norms, Art. 2. - 14 -

the San Juan which, for example, harm the environment and ecos ystem of the river, as well as

so-called casino boats and hotel boats . 22

12. The Decree imposes a general prohibition on Costa Rican public vessels navigating the

23
San Juan without the authori zation of the Nicaraguan authorities . This prohibition is contr ary to

both the Cleveland Award and the Court’s 2009 Judgment. The Cleveland Award expressly

24
recognizes navigation of vessels of the revenue service . The Court’s 2009 Judgment does not

draw a distinction between public and private vessels in the exercis e of the right of navigation for

the purposes of commerce 25. It is also contrary to the right of navigation by Costa Rican public

26
vessels, as set out in the Court’s 2009 Judgment .

13. The Decree prohibits the mooring of vessels carrying passengers or tou rists, which do

not have the authori zation of Nicaragua 27. This is contrary to Article VI of the 1858 Treaty of

Limits, which provides in relevant part that : “The vessels of both countries shall have the power to

land indiscriminately on either side of the river, at the portion thereof where the navigation is

28
common.” In the 2009 Judgment, the Court stated that Article VI: “confers a right on the vessels

29
of each Party to land on the bank of the other” .

14. Finally, there is no basis for requiring individuals or corporations engaged in tourism in

Costa Rica, and simply transiting along the San Juan, to register with the Nicaraguan National

Registry of Tourism, or to sign agreements with Nicaraguan tourism companies 30. This

2Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 86; Nicaraguan Decree No. 79-2009, Arts. 4 (i) and (j).
23
Ibid., pp. 84-85, Arts 3 (b), para. 5, and 4 (a). See also Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 86;
Nicaraguan Decree No. 79-2009, Art. 4 (j); ibid., p. 99, Regulatory Norms, Art. 70 (1).
24
Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 7, p. 52, Second Article of the Award of the Arbitrator, the President of
the United States, upon the validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858 between Nicaragua and Costa Rica (Cleveland
Award), reprinted United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards , Vol. XXVIII (2006), Washington, D.C.,
22 March 1888, p. 209.
25
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 247, para. 80.
26
Ibid., p. 270, para. 156(1) (g); p. 246, para. 79; and p. 248, para. 84.
27
Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 85; Nicaraguan Decree No. 79-2009, Art. 4 (e); and ibid.,
p. 92; Regulatory Norms, Art. 18 (2).
2Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 1, p. 11; 1858 Treaty of Limits, Art. VI.

2Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 260, para. 122.

3Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 99; RegulatoryNorms, Art. 67. - 15 -

requirement is contrary to the Costa Rican right of free navigation under Article VI of the Treaty of

Limits, which the Court unanimously held includes the transport of tourists . 31

15. Mr. President, in addition to those provisions of the Decree and Regulatory Norms that I

have just discussed, which are unlawful, there are others which by reason of the broad powers they

confer on the military personnel who man the Nicaraguan checkpoints, give rise to abuses of power

in practice.

16. In order to depart from a checkpoint, a Costa Rican vessel must be issued with a

32
“clearance” . However, a “clearance” may be withheld on any number of grounds, including:

(a) if there is an “incomplete presentation” of a long shopping list of documents, including a

certificate of insurance 3, which must cover items such as burial costs ; 34

35
(b) if the vessel’s crew is “incomplete or unsatisfactory”, whatever that means ;

(c) if the vessel does not have “signs” 36; and

37
(d) if documents demonstrating that the vessel is a commercial vessel are not presented .

17. Costa Rica’s concerns about abuse of these wide- ranging discretionary powers are well

grounded. The Nicaraguan Army personnel manning the checkpoints arbitrarily refuse vessels to

exercise the Costa Rican right of free navigation on the San Juan.

C. Breach No. 2: Harassment of private Costa Rican citizens

18. That brings me to the second category of violations committed by Nicaragua: the

harassment of private Costa Rican citizens navigating on the San Juan.

19. As I have already mentioned, in violation of the Court’s 2009 Judgment 38, Nicaragua has

continued to impose charges on Costa Rican vessels and their passengers.

31
Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 269, para. 156 (c).
3Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann.26, p. 90; RegulatoryNorms, Art. 11.

3Ibid.; Regulatory Norms, Art. 14 (1).

3Ibid., p. 91; Regulatory Norms, Art. 16 (f).
35
Ibid., p. 90; Regulatory Norms, Art. 14 (4).
36
Ibid., p. 91; Regulatory Norms, Art. 14 (9).
3Construction of a Road, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 26, p. 91; Regulatory Norms,Article 14 (13).

3Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 271, para. 156 (2) (c). - 16 -

20. For example, three private Costa Rican individuals reported that, on 18 September 2010,

whilst navigating the San Juan in the direction of Delta Costa Rica, they were charged a so -called

departure tax in the sum of one thousand colones at the Nicaraguan a rmy post at Boca Sarapiquí.

39
On their return journey, they were forced to pay the so-called departure tax a second time .

21. In October 2010, journalists from Costa Rica travelling on a paid boat trip were detained

by Nicaragua soldiers at a checkpoint on the San Juan, and prevented from navigating on the river,

on the pretence that they required a special permit, which they were told they should have obtained

40
from a different army post . They were also told by the Nicaraguan soldiers that if they attempted

to navigate the San Juan again, their personal safety would not be assured 41.

22. More recently, on 26 June 2014, a Costa Rican citizen paid a boat to transport individuals

to his property, located close to the San Juan. Upon arrival at the Nicaraguan a rmy post at Boca

San Carlos, the Costa Rican passengers were made to disembark with their belongings, and were

detained. They were interrogated. The Nicaraguan officials demanded that the Costa Rican

passengers produce a carné de trabajo (a working licence), which is not a document that is

42
available in Costa Rica. The group were prohibited from navigating the San Juan .

23. Mr. President, the Costa Rican right s at issue are not only exercisable by navigation for

the purposes of commerce. As the Court declared in its 2009 Judgment, it is also exercisable by

private individuals who live along the Costa Rican bank of the San Juan to meet their essential

43
needs of everyday life . Many of these individuals live in isolated riparian communities. The

39
Construction of a Road , RCR, Vol. IV, Ann. 71, Note from the Chief of Post, Police Delegation of Sarapiquí,
Costa Rica, to the Regional Director of the Fourth Region-Heredia, Costa Rica, 27 Sept. 2010, ref. 1571-2010-DPS.
40
Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. I, p. 291, para. 6.56.
4Ibid. See also Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. II, Anns. 27 and 28, Affidavits of Franklin Gutierrez Mayorga and
Jeffrey Prendas Arias.

4Construction of a Road, RCR, Vol. IV, Ann. 33, Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 24 July 2014, ref. DM -0373-14. See also ibid., Ann. 62,
Affidavit of Mr . Victor Julio Vargas Hernandez, recorded by Notary Public, M r. Gustavo Arguello Hidalgo, Deed
No. 177-9; ibid., Ann. 63, Affidavit of Mr. William Vargas Jimenez, recorded by Notary Public, Mr . Gustavo Arguello
Hidalgo, Deed N o. 178 -9; ibid., Ann. 64, Affidavit of Ms Mayela Vargas Arce, recorded by Notary Public,
Mr. GustavoArguello Hidalgo, Deed No. 179- 9; ibid., Ann. 65, Affidavit of Ms Gabriela Vanessa Lopez Gomez,
recorded by Notary Public, Mr . Gustavo Arguello Hidalgo, Deed No. 189; ibid., Ann. 66, Affidavit of Mr. Claudio Arce

Rojas, recorded by Notary Public, Mr. Gustavo Arguello Hidalgo, Deed No. 181-9; and ibid., Ann. 68 La Nación, “Costa
Ricans denounce mistreatment and detentions in the northern border ”, 3 August 2014.
4Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 270, para. 156 (1) (f). - 17 -

Court recognized that these individuals navigate the San Juan in order, for example, to travel to and

44
from school or for medical care .

24. On 2 February 2013, a young Costa Rican farmer and his uncle, who both live in

properties adjacent to the River, attempted to navigate the San Juan for this purpose. When they

stopped at a checkpoint, they were detained for approximately three hours, without any

explanation. During this period of detention, a Nicaraguan soldier forced the young man to remove

his trousers for ten minutes, whilst the contents of his wallet were checked. The same Nicaraguan

soldier told the young man that he and his uncle would be freed on condition that they purchased

food and soft drinks for the Nicaraguan soldiers stationed at the post. He was forced to do so,

using his own money 45.

25. A Costa Rican primary school has been forced to close down because Nicarag ua

prevented the sole teacher from travelling to and from school on the San Juan 46. Eight primary

school students  including five Nicaraguan nationals  were unable to resume classes in 2011

because the Nicaraguan Army demanded that their teacher produce a letter of authori zation from

the Nicaraguan capital, which he was unable to do. The sketch -map on your screens shows where
47
Costa Rica had to relocate the school .

D. Breach No. 3: Preventing Costa Rican personnel from carrying out works in accordance
with provisional measures indicated by the Court

26. I turn to the third and final category of violations committed by Nicaragua: the

prevention of Costa Rican personnel from navigating on the San Juan in order to carry out works in

accordance with provisional measures indicated by the Court. In the Order of 8 March 2011, you

indicated that “Costa Rica may dispatch civilian personnel charged with the protection of the

environment to the disputed territory, including the caño” 48.

44
Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 246, para. 78.
45Construction of a Road, RCR, Vol. IV, Ann. 67, Affidavit of Mr. Ruben Francisco Valerio Arroyo, recorded by
Notary Public, Mr. Gustavo Arguëllo Hidalgo, Deed no. 194-9. See also ibid., Ann. 69: La Nación, “He demanded that I
pull down my pants”, 3 Aug. 2014.

46Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. I, p. 292, para. 6.58 ; ibid., Vol. III, Ann. 121, La Nación, “Nica Army impedes
teacher access to Isla Calero, 16 February 2011”; ibid., Ann. 122, La Nación (Costa Rica), “MEP will relocate the school
located in Isla Calero”, 17 Feb. 2011.
47
Certain Activities, MCR, Vol. I, p. 294, sketch-map 6.2.
48
Certain Activities, Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 27, para. 86 (2). - 18 -

27. It appears that Nicaragua considers that Costa Rican personnel have no right to navigate

the San Juan to prevent irreparable prejudice being caused to that part of the wetland located in the

disputed territory. One reason given by Nicaragua is that such a voyage by Costa Rican personnel

49
would amount to navigation “ for scientific purposes” . It is thus apparent that, at the very least,

Nicaragua entirely misunderstands Costa Rica’s right to navigate the San Juan “for the purposes of

commerce”. That applies to the navigation it self, and not the activity to be performed at the final

destination. A group of passengers may plan to have a picnic when they arrive at their final

destination. That does not detract from their navigation being for the purposes of commerce, if

they pay to be transported 50. Your 2009 Judgment is very clear about this. At paragraph 71 you

held:

“. . . the Court finds that the right of free navigation in question applies to the transport
of persons . . . This is the case if the carrier engages in the activity for profit -making
purposes. A decisive consideration in this respect is whether a price (other than a

token price) is paid to the carrier . . . by the passengers or on their behalf. If so, then
the carrier’s activity is commercial in nature and th e navigation in question must be
regarded as ‘for the purposes of commerce’ within the meaning of Article VI [of the
51
1858 Treaty of Limits]. ”

28. In the specific case of Costa Rican personnel charged with the protection of the

environment, if the owner of a private boat is paid to transport them , for a profit, as passengers
52
along that part of the San Juan where Costa Rica has navigational rights , this is navigation for

53
“commercial purposes”, which “includes the transport of passengers” .

29. On 18 Sept ember 2013 Nicaragua prevented Costa Rican personnel charged with the

protection of the environment, who were being transported on a hired private vessel, from

navigating the San Juan to carry out measures to prevent irreparable harm to the disputed

54
territory .

49
Construction of a Road , CMCR, Ann. 48, Note from the Minister f or Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa
Rica, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 5March 2013, ref. MRE/DM-AJ/129/03/13.
5Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 269, para. 156 (1) (b)

5Ibid., p. 244, para. 71.
52
Construction of a Road, RCR, Vol. IV, Ann . 20, Note from the Minister f or Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign affairs of Nicaragua, 20 March 2013, ref. DM-AM-161-13.
53
Navigational and Related Rights, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 269, para. 156 (1) (b).
5Construction of a Road , RCR, Vol. IV, Ann . 23, Note from the Acting Minister f or Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 24Sep. 2013, ref. DM-D VM-550-2013. - 19 -

30. Nicaragua continued to prevent Costa Rican personnel from travelling to the disputed

territory to carry out works to prevent irreparable harm even after the Court indicated new

provisional measures in the Order of 22 November 2013. By paragraph 59 (E) of that Order, you

indicated the following provisional measure:

“Following consultation with the S ecretariat of the Ramsar Convention and

after giving Nicaragua prior notice, Costa Rica may take appropriate measures related
to the two new caños , to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice to the
environment of the disputed territory.” 55

31. In line with this provisional measure, following consultation with the Secretariat of the

Ramsar Convention and after giving Nicaragua prior notic e, Costa Rica has attempted many times

to navigate the San Juan in order to carry out the work of filling in the “eastern caño” to prevent the

irreparable harm being caused.

32. On 10 December 2013 Nicaragua prevented Costa Rican personnel from navigating the

56
San Juan by means of a private vessel to reach the disputed territory . The reason invoked by

Nicaragua on this occasion was an alleged requirement for Costa Rica to co -ordinate with

Nicaragua, and that Costa Rican personnel could enter the disputed territory only with technical
57
experts from Ramsar . The relevant provisional measures indicated by the Court in March 2011

and November 2013 are plainly worded. In both Orders, the Court required Costa Rica to consult

with Ramsar, and give Nicaragua pri or notice. In neither Order are the Costa Rica personnel

required to co-ordinate with Nicaragua, or to be accompanied by Ramsar technicians.

33. Costa Rica needed to transport materials and equipment to the disputed area to carry out

works to prevent ir reparable prejudice 5. Whilst individuals can, with difficulty, access the

55Construction of a Road , Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013 , p. 370,
para. 59 (E).

56Construction of a Road, RCR, Vol. IV, Ann. 27, Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, 10 Dec. 2013, ref. DM-AM-685-13.
57
Ibid.
58
Letter from the Republic of Costa Rica to the Court, 22 Aug. 2014, ref. ECRPB-090-2014, p. 1. - 20 -

59
disputed area by foot , it is not feasible to transport materials and equipment on foot. There is no

road infrastructure permitting access by land using vehicles 60.

34. In view of Nicaragua’s concerted attempts to prevent Costa Rica from navigating the San

Juan, and given the time and cost of mounting such operations, Costa Rica reached an agreement

with Nicaragua whereby Nicaragua would not obstruct Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan in

order to reach the area of the “ eastern caño”, to carry out measures to prevent irreparable damage.

This agreement was reached on a without prejudice basis. Both Costa Rica and Nicaragua

informed the Court of this agreement 61. However, in spi te of this agreement, Nicaragua then

prevented Costa Rican personnel from navigating on the San Juan on 12 November 2014 on the

implausible basis that this “had not been approved by the Court” 62.

35. Although Costa Rica had given prior notice 63, Nicaragua again prevented Costa Rica n

personnel from navigating the San Juan on 5 December 2014. Costa Rica had intended to transport

a first batch of materials to start building the dykes described in Costa Rica’s work plan, previously

64
approved by the Ramsar Secre tariat and communicated to the Court . This time, Nicaragua’s

reason for preventing Costa Rica from navigating the San Juan was a newly thought up

requirement that the Parties first hold a technical meeting 6. When Costa Rica attempted to

5Costa Rica’s first Report on compliance with provisional measures, letter from Costa Rica to the Court,
21 Feb. 2014, ref. ECRB-0 -12, Ann. CR-6, Letter from Minister Castillo Barrantes, Costa Rica, to Minister Santos
López, Nicaragua, 19 Dec.2013, ref. DM-AM-705-13.

6Costa Rica’s third Report on compliance with provisional measures of 22 Aug. 2014, letter from Costa Rica to
the Court, 22 Aug. 2014, ref. ECRPB-090-2014, p. 3, para. 7.

6Letter to the Court from Nicaragua, 23 Sep. 2014, ref. HOL-EMB-124; Letter to the Court from Costa Rica,
25 Sep. 2014, ref. ECRPB-103-14. See, also, Costa Rica’s fourth Report on c ompliance with provisional m easures of
21 Nov. 2014, letter from Costa Rica to the Court, ref. 116-2014, p. 2, paras. 6 and 7.

6See Costa Rica’s fourt h Report on c ompliance with p rovisional measures of 21 Nov . 2014, letter from
Costa Rica to the Court, ref. 116-2014, Ann. CR-2, Costa Rica, MINAE, “ Log of notification of entry by water through
San Juan River to the territory declared in dispute by the International Court of Justice ”, 12 Nov. 2014. See, also, ibid.,
Ann. CR-3, Diplomatic Note from Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs to Costa Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs

and Worship, 11 Nov . 2014, ref. MRE-DMDGAJST-456-11-14; and ibid., Ann. CR-4, Diplomatic Note from Costa
Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship to Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs, 14 Nov . 2014,
ref. DM-AM-0718-14.
63
Costa Rica’s fifth Report on c ompliance with provisional measures of 20 Feb . 2015, letter from Costa Rica to
the Court, ref. ECRPB-020 -2015, Ann. CR-1, Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Worship to the Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs, 2 Dec. 2014, ref. DM-AM-0774-11-14.
64
Costa Rica’s fifth Report on c ompliance with provisional measures of 20 Feb. 2015, letter from Costa Rica to
the Court, ref. ECRPB-020-2015, p. 2, para. 7.
65
Ibid., Ann. CR-2, Diplomatic Note from the Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Costa Rican
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worsh ip, 2 Dec. 2014, ref. MRE/DM/677/12/14. See, also, ibid., Ann. CR-3,
Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister f or Foreign Affairs and Worship to the Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign
Affairs, 4 Dec. 2014, ref. DM-AM-0789-14. - 21 -

transport sand bags on the San Juan to commence works to close the eastern caño, this was refused

by Nicaraguan military and immigration personnel on the basis that there was no letter from

66
Nicaragua’s Minister or Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs authorizing their navigation .

36. Costa Rica agreed to hold a technical meeting with Nicar agua on 17 December 2014 at

the facilities of the Nicaraguan Army at the Delta, with a view to obtaining an assurance from

Nicaragua that Costa Rica could navigate the San Juan for the pu rpose of travelling to the disputed

67
territory to prevent irreparable harm . Nicaragua agreed to the date and time proposed by

Costa Rica for the meeting, but requested that Costa Rica comply with Nicaraguan Decree

No. 79-2009, which I addressed earlier. Nicaragua also stated that it should be able to verify

whether the measures Costa Rica would take to close the eastern caño complied with the Court’s

68
Order of November 2013 . Costa Rica rejected the conditions Nicaragua sought to impose, but

nevertheless agreed to participate in the meeting 6.

37. At the meeting, Nicaragua stated that since it did not agree with the works planned by

70
Costa Rica for the closure of the caño, it could not “authorize” navigation of the San Juan .

38. In view of the many recent breaches of Costa Rica’s right of free navigation, as well as

Nicaragua’s persistent refusal to abide by the without prejudice agreement between the Parties,

Costa Rica carried out appropriate measures to close the eastern caño , and thereby prevent

irreparable prejudice being caused to the environment on the disputed territory, by

transporting equipment and personnel by chartered helicopter. This was addressed by

6Costa Rica’s fifth Report on compliance with provisional measures of 20 Feb. 2015, letter from Costa Rica to
the Court, ref. ECRPB-020-2015, Ann. CR-4, Costa Rica, MINAE, Log of the mission of 5 December 2014 entitled “ Log

of notification of entry by water through San Juan River to the territory declared in dispute by the International Court of
Justice”, 5 Dec. 2014.
6Ibid., Ann. CR-6, Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship to the
Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs, 12 Dec. 2014, ref. DM-AM-0818-14. See also ibid., Ann. CR-5, Diplomatic

Note from the Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Costa Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship,
5 Dec. 2014, ref. MRE/DM/-AJ/478/12/14.
6Ibid., Ann. CR-7, Diplomatic Note from the Nicarag uan Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Costa Rican
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship, 15 Dec. 2014, ref: MRE/DM-AJ/482/12/14.

6Ibid., Ann. CR-8, Diplomatic Note from the Costa Rican Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship to the
Nicaraguan Minister for Foreign Affairs, 16 Dec. 2014, ref. DM-AM-0826-14.

7See ibid., CR-9, Diplomatic Note Costa Rica, MINAE, log of the meeting held wi th Nicaraguan authorities on
17 Dec. 2014 entitled “Log of the meeting held on the premises of the Nicaraguan Army post in the Delta to notify the
entry by the San Juan River in order to navigate to the disputed area declared by the International Court of Justice in
Isla Portillos, Costa Rica v. Nicaragua”, 17 Dec. 2014. - 22 -

Ambassador Sergio Ugalde yesterday. This was a much more complex and costly exercise than

navigation on the San Juan.

E. Conclusion

39. Mr. President, Members of the Court, by preventing Costa Rica from exercising its right

of free navigation in the three ways I have described, Nicaragua has breached not only its

international obligations under the 1858 Treaty of Limits, but also under your Judgment of

13 July 2009. Further, it has prevented Costa Rica from carrying out works to prevent irreparable

harm in accordance with the provisional measures indicated by the Court in the present

proceedings, thereby aggravating the dispute.

40. I have given some examples, but these are not isolated incidents of wrongful conduct.

Nicaragua’s repeated breaches over an almost six -year period since this Court’s 2009 Judgment

demonstrate a concerted disregard of its international obligations , including those stemming from

your Judgment. By seeking at every turn to erect barriers to obstruct Costa Rica from exercising its

right, including acting contrary to the Parties’ without prejudice agreement, Nicaragua has rendered

Costa Rica’s right of free navigation devoid of any practical use. Costa Ricans who arrive at a

Nicaraguan checkpoint at the start of their journey are at the mercy of the arbitrary decisions made

by the Nicaraguan military personnel stationed there, whose primary concern appears to be

preventing any exercise of Costa Rica’s right of free navigation.

41. Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention. Mr. President, I ask you to

please call Dr. Parlett.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je donne à présent la parole à Madame Parlett pour la suite des

plaidoiries du Costa Rica. - 23 -

Ms PARLETT:

C OMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONAL MEASURES O RDERS OF THE C OURT

A. Introduction

1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this morning I will address you on Nic aragua’s

breaches of your binding provisional measures Orders in this case. I will also address Costa Rica’s

ongoing compliance with those Orders.

B. Nicaragua’s breaches of the provisional measures Orders

2. Nicaragua has breached the provisional measures Orders in five ways. First, Nicaragua

constructed two new artificial caños in the disputed territory in 2013. Second, Nicaragua

maintained military camps on the disputed territory, until November 2013. Third, from early 2011

until the end of 2013, Nicaragua sent and maintained its nationals on the disputed territory: large

groups of Sandinista Youth, who have caused damage to Costa Rica’s territory. Fourth, Nicaragua

has aggravated the dispute by its conduct. And finally, Nicaragua has failed to comply with its

reporting obligations under the Court’s 2013 Order.

1. Nicaragua’s construction of second and third artificial caños in 2013

3. As Mr. Wordsworth explained yesterday afternoon, sometime between June and

September 2013, Nicaragua constructed two new caños in the disputed territory. Sometime before

71 72
February 2013 Nicaragua also established a military camp on the beach of the disputed territory .

As Mr. Wordsworth mentioned 73, although its position changed several times, Nicaragua

eventually accepted that the works had been carried out in the disputed territory by a senior

71
See photograph of New Nicaraguan camps in tharea indicated by the Court, 5 Feb. 2013, annexed to letter
from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-016-013, 15 March 2013.
7Cf. Nicaragua’s Written Observations on the Request by Costa Rica for the Modification of the Court’s Order
of 8 March 2011 in the c ase concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Areav.Costa Rica

Nicaragua), para. 10, attached to letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, r ef. HOL-EMB-111, 14 June 2013, communicated to
Costa Rica under cover of letter from the ICJ to Costa Rica, ref. 142101, 14 June 2013.
7See CR 2105/3, p. 19, para. 35 (Wordsworth).See also Diplomatic Note sent by Samuel Santos López,
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, to EnriCastillo Barrantes, Minister Foreign Affairs and Worship,
Costa Rica, 18 Sep. 2013, ref. MRE/DM/521/09/13, Att. PM-5 to Costa Rica’s New Request for Provisional Measures;
letter from Nicaragua to the ICJef. HOL-EMB-193, 10 Oct. 2013, p. 2; and l etter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,
ref. HOL-EMB-197, 11 Oct. 2013 (re ference omitted), attached to letter from the ICJ toRica, ref. 142609,

11 Oct. 2013. - 24 -

member of the Nicaraguan Government, Mr. Pastora, and that he had been assisted by a

Nicaraguan Government department . 74

4. Nevertheless, Nicaragua continued to disclaim responsibility for the works. It relied on an

order  which you will find at tab 14 of your folders  it is an order issued by the Chief of the

South Military Detachment of the Army of Nicaragua to the Chief of the San Juan Operations

Directorate of the Army of Nicaragua. Nicaragua’s counsel described this as the “2011 instructions

75
applicable to Mr. Pastora”, ordering him not to carry out works in the disputed territory . This

order is patently directed to the Nicaraguan Army and the Nicaraguan Army only, a nd it was

described as such by Nicaragua: in its Counter -Memorial, Nicaragua said it was a “military

76
order” , “forbidding military personnel ‘to carry out operations, patrols or any type of presence in

the [disputed] territory’” 77. Nicaragua never described it as an order to Mr. Pastora, to the National

Port Authority, or to the Nicaraguan personnel dredging the San Juan River. When Nicaragua was

pressed by the Court for an explanation of its new position, it said that the military order was, in

78
practice, “applied by the Army against all Nicaraguan Government Officials” . That is an attempt

at an explanation, but it is not supported by any evidence, and indeed it is completely contrary to

the fact that Mr. Pastora and Nicaraguan personnel constructed the two new caños in the disputed

79
territory. Those works were patently a breach of your 2011 Order .

5. In addition, by failing to provide timely, genuine, accurate and complete information to

Costa Rica and to the Court, Nicaragua aggravated the dispute. I ndeed, had Nicaragua come clean

about these works in September 2013  when, by its own admission, it knew full well what had

7CR 2013/25, p. 11, para. 17 (Argüello); CR 2013/25, p. 21, para. 15 (Reichler); CR 2013/25, p. 22, para. 17
(Reichler); CR 2013/25, p. 24, para. 24 (Reichler); and CR 2013/25, p. 46, para. 12 (Pellet). See also Certain Activities

carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Pr ovisional Measures, Order of
22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 365, para. 45.
7CR 2013/25, p. 10, para. 12 (Reichler), referring to Order No. 005 from the Chief of the South Military

Detachment for compliance of order from the Chief of staff regarding the implementation of special measures based on
provisional measures of protection ordered by the Internati onal Court of Just ice and maintenance of the anti -drug
trafficking plan, rural, security plan and presidential Decree 79/2009 at the San Juan de Nicaragua directorate,
9 March 2011, CMN, Ann. 36, judges’ folder, tab 14.
76
CMN, para. 7.9.
7CMN, para. 7.8.

7CR 2013/25, p. 37, para. 7 (Argüello).
79
Certain Activities carried o ut by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 27, para. 86 (1). See also Certain Activities c arried out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Pr ovisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013,
I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 367, para. 50 (these activities “are inconsistent with the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011”). - 25 -

80
happened  Costa Rica would not have been compelled to seek a further Order from the Court,

as a result of which additional costs were incurred.

2. Nicaragua’s maintenance of military camps on the disputed territory

6. Further, Nicaragua has maintained a continuous presence on the disputed territory, in

breach of the binding 2011 Order.

7. In early 2011, Nicaragua maintained a mil itary camp in Isla Portillos, near the site of the

first artificial caño, after it represented to the Court that it had removed it. As Mr. Wordsworth has

noted 81, in the four years since that misrepresentation was made, no satisfactory explanation has

82
been forthcoming as to why and how this incorrect information was given to the Court .

8. And then, by early February 2013 83, Nicaragua had established a second camp on the

disputed territory, on the beach of Isla Portillos. You can see now on your screens a close-up of

84
that camp, composed of four tents and a look- out tower . At the 2013 provisional measures

hearing, Nicaragua confirmed that this was a “Nicaraguan military detachment” 85. It tried to justify

86
its placement by claiming that it was outside the disputed territory .

9. You defined the disputed territory in your 2011 Order as Isla Portillos, between “the right

bank of the disputed caño , the right bank of the San Juan River . . . and the Harbor Head

87
Lagoon” . In your 2013 Order, you confirmed that this Nicaraguan military encampment “is

located on the beach and close to the line of vegetation, and is therefore situated in the disputed

88
territory” . It was established there by Nicaragua in breach of your 2011 Order.

8CR 2013/25, p. 22, para. 17 (Reichler).

8See CR 2015/3, 14 April 2015, p. 13, paras. 14-15 (Wordsworth).

8Cf. CMN, para. 7.7.
83
See photograph of new Nicaraguan camps in the area ind icated by the Court, 5 Feb. 2013, annexed to l etter
from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-016-013, 15 Mar. 2013.
84
Photograph of the dis puted territory showing a close -up of the Nicaraguan camp, 18 Sept. 2013, Att. PM-15 to
Costa Rica’s request for new provisional measures.
85
CR 2013/25, p. 29, para. 44 (Reichler).
8Ibid.

8Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 19, para. 55.

8Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013 , p. 365, para. 46. - 26 -

3. Nicaragua’s sending and maintenance of Sandinista Youth on the disputed territory

10. Nicaragua also sent and maintained organized groups of Nicaraguan nationals on the

disputed territory from April 2011 until November 2013, in the form of members of the Sandinista

Youth or the “Guardabarranco Environmental Movement” 89.

11. These organized groups of Nicaraguan nationals established camps on the disputed

90
territory from which they carried out works in that territory . The location of the campsite s is

now indicated on your screens. By early 2013, more than 6,000 Nicaraguan nationals had entered

into the area, with each contingent spending two days training in Nicaragua, followed by eight days

91 92
in Isla Portillos ; by September 2013, apparently more than 10,000 had been there . They were

sent and maintained on the disputed territory in breach of your 2011 Order. They carried out works

there that impacted upon the environment of the disputed territory. They were also accompanied to

the disputed territory by Nicaragua’s Deputy Minister of the Environment 93, and by Nicaraguan

“public officials” travelling in a Nicaraguan military helicopter 94. These visits by Nicaraguan

ministers and officials were also in breach of the Court’s 2011 Order.

12. On 5 and 6 April 2011, personnel from the Ramsar Secretariat and Costa Rican personnel

charged with protection of the environment carried out a site visit to the disputed territory, in

95
accordance with the terms of the Court’s 2011 Order . They were met on 5 April by organized

groups of Nicaraguan na tionals, who protested against the mission and verbally abused the

89
These groups were only finally removed by Nicaragua after the Court’s 2013 Order: see Certain Activities
carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of
22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 369, para. 59 (2) (D).
90
MCR, paras. 6.7-6.24.
9See Nicaraguan press reports from El 19 Digital, “ Movimiento Guardabarranco, fighting for nature in

Nicaragua”, 17 Mar. 2013, Ann. CRPM-3 to Costa Rica ’s request for modification of the Court’s Order of 8 Mar. 2011;
and Prensa Latina, “Movimiento Guardabarranco, fighting for nature in Nicaragua ”, 17 Mar. 2013, Ann. CRPM-4 to
Costa Rica’s request for modification of the Court’s Order of 8 Mar. 2011. The Nicaraguan Minister of the Environment
and Natural Resources confirmed in 2012 that 3,600 Nicaraguan youths had visited the area: see Ministry of the
Environment and Natural Res ources (Nicaragua), official on -line bulletin, “Diploma on the San Juan River as a
Biosphere and National Heritage Reserve is Inaugurated”, 2012, Ann . CR18 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012.

9See El 19 Digital, “10 thousand Nicaraguan environmentalists have visited Harbor Head”, 9 Sept . 2013, tab 6 of
Costa Rica’s judges’ folder for provisional measures hearing, 16 Oct. 2013; judges’ folder for 14 Apr. 2015, tab 11.

9See La Jornada (Nicaragua), “Costa Rican plan to stay, says General Avilés”, 6Apr. 2011, MCR, Ann. 125.
94
El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), “ Ticos continue inspection, rejected by Nicaragua, in disputed area’ ” and
“General Avilés applauds the ‘heroic deed’ of the 19 July Sandinista Youth” , 6 Apr . 2011, MCR, Ann. 126 (a) and
Ann. 126 (b).
95
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 27, para. 86 (2). - 27 -

96
delegates . On 6 April the joint mission attempted to land in Isla Portillos, but were prevented by

the Sandinista Youth, and as a result they suspended further ground inspections 97.

13. It is apparent from statements made by representatives of the Government of Nicaragua

that the actions of these groups of Nicaraguan nationals have been carried out under the

instructions of Nicaragua, and they have been unreservedly applauded by Nicaragua . At tab 19 of

your folders you see some of the evidence establishing Nicaragua’s responsibility for sending and

maintaining these groups of Nicaraguan nationals, and its responsibility for their activities in the

disputed territory.

(a) For example, at the beginning of April 2011, the Nicaraguan Deputy Minister of Natural

Resources and the Environment, Roberto Araquistain, travelled with a group of youths to the

disputed territory 98. He said that around 100 of them would greet the Costa Rican

environmental personnel and personnel from the Ramsar Secre tariat when they landed in

Isla Portillos99. And, as I have mentioned, the Minister’s instructions were carried out: there

followed aggressive protests against the presence of the joint mission, resulting in the field

100
work being abandoned . Nicaragua has responded to this evidence by saying that the Deputy

Minister did not state that the operation was “set up by the Nicaraguan government” 101. Well,

that only takes Nicaragua so far, it says nothing about the Deputy Minister accompanying these

youths to the disputed territory and instructing them to disrupt the joint mission of Ramsar and

Costa Rica.

9Photograph of Nicaraguan citizens harassing the joint Costa Rica -Ramsar mission, available at
http://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2011/april/07/r1440636331.jpg ; judges’folder, tab 18.

9MCR, para. 6.11; see Minutes of the Co-ordination Meeting, Technical Advisory Mission of the Secretariat of
the Ramsar Convention and Representative of the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment, E nergy and
Telecommunications, 7 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 152, para. 2.

9La Jornada (Nicaragua), “Costa Rican plan to stay, says General Avilés”, 6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 125.
99
Inside Costa Rica (Costa Rica), “Ramsar Inspects the Area of Conflic t Despite Protests by Nicaragua” ,
6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 124. See also La Jornada (Nicaragua), “Costa Rican pl an to stay, says General Avilés”,
6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 125.
100
See photograph of Nicaraguan nationals landing at Isla Portillos during the Joint Environmental mission,
5 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 235; photo of Nicaraguan nationals harassing members of the technical environmental
mission, MCR, Ann. 238; Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-235-11, 6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 81; Note from the Permanent Mission of Costa
Rica before the United Nations to Permanent Missions to the United Nati ons and Permanent Observer Missions to the
United Nations, ref. ECR-258-2011; MCR, Ann. 76; and Note from the Ambassador to the Ki ngdom of the Netherlands
and Co-Agent of Costa Rica, to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. ECRPB-029-11, 8 Apr. 2011.

10CMN, para. 7.32. - 28 -

(b) Also in early April 2011, President Ortega endorsed the presence of the se groups in the

disputed territory. He said that these youths had gone there “to face up to what is, in effect, an

invasion”. He defended their “right” to defend the wetland, and “their Nicaraguan heritage” . 102

(c) In May 2011, Rosario Murillo, President Ortega’s wife, who serves as Nicarag ua’s Minister of

Communication, said “we are very proud of the work that is being done by the Sandinista

Youth [and the Guardabarranco Movement] in defence of our environment, of the boys and

girls who are right now on the San Juan River” 103.

(d) In early 2012, the Nicaraguan Minister of Natural Resou rces and the Environment,

Juana Argeñal, confirmed in official press releases that the youths were studying for a

“Diploma” pursuant to a course given by the Nicaraguan Ministry of Natural Resources and the

104
Environment, and that they had been mobilized to carry out works in the area .

14. That these large organized groups of Nicaraguan youths were sent and maintained on the

disputed territory by Nicaragua is also confirmed by statements given by the youths themselves.

Some were interviewed for a video broadcast in Nicaragua in July 2011. An individual identified

as head of the 14th Contingent of the Sandinista Youth said: “It’s Commander Daniel Ortega’s

initiative. He wants us, as young people involved in the different movements that make up the

105
Sandinista Youth organization, to be defending the sovereignty of our San Juan River.” Another

individual in charge of the El Rama contingent of the Sandinista Youth expressed her gratitude to

102
El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), “The Army would capture Costa Rican pilots if they land”, 7 Apr.2011, MCR,
Ann. 127.
103Website of the Sandinista Youth organization, http :// http://juventudsandinista.blogia.com/2011/051001- nos-
sentimos-muy-orgullosos-del-trabajo-de-la-juventud-sandinista.php; MCR Ann. 35.

104Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nica ragua), Official online bulletin, “Diploma on the San Juan River as a
Biosphere and National Heritage Reserve is Inaugurated”, 17 Apr. 2012; Ann. CR13 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012; Ministry of the Environment and N atural Resources (Nicaragua), official on -line
bulletin, “Receiving a Diploma on Protecting our Wetlands”, 2012; Ann. CR15 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012; and Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Nicara gua), official on-line
bulletin, “Diploma on the San Juan River as a Biosphere and National Heritag e Reserve is Inaugurated”, 2012;

Ann. CR18 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012.
105Roberto Salinas G (Director), “The Tr uth about a Contingent”, video documentary: transcription of audio
(extracts), July 2011; MCR Ann. 138, p. 524. - 29 -

Nicaraguan President Ortega for sponsoring her presence there, saying “it was an opportunity our

Commander Daniel was giving us” . 106

15. In your Order of July 2013, you expressed “concerns” about “the presence of organized

groups of Nicaraguan nationals” in the disputed territory . You noted that it carried “the risk of

incidents which might aggravate the present dispute” 107. Even after this expression of concern,

108
Nicaragua continued to support the work of these groups .

16. Nicaragua makes three attempts to avoid responsibility for these acts.

17. First, it says that these large organized groups of Nicaraguans have not committed any

internationally wrongful acts 109. But the terms of your 2011 Order are clear: Nicaragua cannot

send or maintain civilian personnel on the disputed territory, whether or not they cause harm there.

18. Second, it argues that these large groups of Nicaraguans are not “civilian personnel”

within the scope of the 2011 Order. It contends that the Order forbids it sending or maintaining

110
only “State staff or employees” . But the scope of your Order is broad, as is the term “civilian”.

It is a general term that covers all persons who are not otherwise member s of an identifiable group,

such as police, military, or security 111. And in any event, the individual s at issue here are part of

112
the Sandinista Youth , part of Nicaragua’s ruling party. As such, they fall within the scope of

your 2011 Order.

19. And even if these individuals were not paid a salary from the State, it is apparent that

they were State- sponsored. They were accompanied to the disputed territory by Nicaragua’s

10MCR Ann. 138, p. 525. She went on to explain that the Sandinista Youth was on a mission from Ortega, in the
disputed territory, to defend Nicarag uan sovereignty. She said: “we defend it because everything here is ours. As

members of the Sandinista Youth we are brave and it doesn’t matter where we have to go to defend our sovereignty, we’ll
be there as the Sandinista Youth . . . and we’re always ready and willing to do whatever it takes to carry out the missions
that our Commander Daniel Ortega sends us on”: Roberto Salinas G (Director), “The Truth about a Contingent”, video
documentary: transcription of audio (extracts), July 2011 ; MCR, Ann. 138, p. 525.
107
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 16 July 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 240, para. 37.
108
CR 2013/25, p. 14, para. 26 (Argüello), citing Diplomatic Note sent b y Samuel Santos López, Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua to Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister for Foreign Af fairs and Worship, Costa Rica,
ref. MRE-DM-AJ-127-03-13, 5 Mar. 2013, attached to letter from Costa Rica to ICJ, ref. ECRPB-016-13, 15 Mar. 2013.
109
CMN, para. 7.23.
11CMN, para. 7.17-7.18.

11See Oxford English Dictionary Online, available at http://www.oed.com, cited in MCR, para. 6.31.
112
These individuals have identified themselves as being Sandinista youth (see Roberto Salinas G (Director),
“The Truth about a Contingent”, video documentary: transcription of audio (extracts), July 2011; MCR, Ann. 138,
p. 525; and Nicaragua acknowledges that “some of them” are members: see CMN, para. 7.14. - 30 -

113
Deputy Minister of the Environment . They were there under the protection of the Nicaraguan

Army 114. They were given food and water supplies and access “at all hours” to an emergency bo at

from the Nicaraguan Health Centre in Greytown 115. Of course they were sponsored and maintained

by Nicaragua  it is impossible to believe that several thousand young Nicaraguans, unaided,

made their way to this remote location and were fed and housed wit hout Nicaraguan logistical

support and funding.

20. Nicaragua’s third response is to say that the threshold to attribute the acts of private

individuals to a State is high, and it is not met in the present case 116. But again Nicaragua misses

the point: your 2011 Order prohibits Nicaragua from sending and maintaining these groups on the

disputed territory. Whether they were sent and maintained is a question of fact, not of attribution.

21. But in any event, the works they carried out in the disputed terr itory  which are

contrary to Costa Rica’s sovereign rights and therefore internationally wrongful  those acts are

attributable to Nicaragua, pursuant to the rule reflected in Article 8 of the ILC’s Articles on State

117 118
Responsibility . Nicaragua admits tha t they carried out works in Isla Portillos , over which

119
Costa Rica is sovereign. They were trained by the Nicaraguan authorities . The Nicaraguan

Ministry of the Environment instructed them in respect of a particular “operation” 120 to

113La Jornada (Costa Rica), “Costa Rican plan to stay, says General Avilés”, 6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 12.

114El Nuevo Diario (Nicaragua), “Ticos continue inspection, rejected by Nicaragua, in disputed area” and
“General Avilés applauds the ‘ heroic deed’ of the 19 July Sandinista Youth” , 6 Apr . 2011; MCR, Ann. 126 (a) and
Ann. 126 (b).

115La Prensa (Nicaragua), “Army provides support to 19 July Sandinista Youth in River San Juan”, 5 Apr. 2011;
MCR, Ann. 123.

116CMN, paras. 7.24-7.31.

117International Law Commission, Report of International Law Commission, Fifty -eighth Session, UN
doc. A/CN.4/L.684, 2006, Art. 8; see generally Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 64-65, para. 115; and Application of
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 208, para. 400.

118See Nicaragua’s Written Observations on the Request by Costa Rica for the Modification of the Court’ s Order
of 8 March 2011 in the case concerning Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Ricav.

Nicaragua), 14 June 2013, para. 29. See also CR 2013/25, p. 14, para. 22 (Argüello).
119Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Nicaragua), Official online bulletin, “Diploma on the San Juan River as a
Biosphere and National Heritage Reserve is Inaugurated”, 17 Apr. 2012, Ann. CR13 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,

ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012; Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Nicaragua), official on -line
bulletin, “Receiving a Diploma on Protec ting our Wetlands”, 2012, Ann. CR15 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,
ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012; and Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Nicaragua), offici al on-line
bulletin, “Diploma on the San Juan River as a Biosphere and National Heritage Reserve is Inaugurated”, 2012,
Ann. CR18 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-025-12, 3 July 2012.
120
See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v.
Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 208, para. 400. - 31 -

121
demonstrate against the Joint Environmental Mission of Costa Rica and Ramsar . They carried

out those instructions 12. The leaders of these groups have said that they were there at the initiative

123
of Commander Ortega , that they were carrying out “the missions that [their]

124
Commander Daniel Ortega sen[t] [them] on” . They were acting on the instructions and under

the effective control of Nicaragua, and it follows that their conduct is attributable to Nicaragua, and

is an additional breach of Costa Rican sovereignty, in addition to their being “sent and maintained”

on the disputed territory in breach of your 2011 Order.

22. And further, Nicaragua has an obligation to “take the Court’s [Order] seriously into

account” 12. It follows that Nicaragua owes an obligation of due dilige nce, which requires it to

ensure that no persons under its jurisdiction or control are sent to or maintained in the disputed

territory, and not knowingly to permit the presence of any persons in that territory. Nicaragua’s

support, encouragement, and even applauding of these groups and of their activities is a breach of

this obligation of due diligence.

4. Nicaragua’s aggravation of the dispute

23. Mr. President, Members of the Court, all three Orders in this case oblige both Parties to

126
refrain from any a ction which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court . It is

apparent that by its breaches of the Court’s Order  by constructing the artificial caños in 2013, by

12Inside Costa Rica (Costa Rica), “ Ramsar Inspects the Area of Conflict Despite Protests by Nicaragua” ,
6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 123. See also La Jornada (Nicaragua), “Costa Rican plan to stay, says General Avilés ”,

6 Apr. 2011; MCR, Ann. 125.
12See photograph of Nicaraguan nationals landing at Isla Portillos during the Joint Environmental mission,
5 Apr. 2011, MCR, Ann. 235; photo of Nicaraguan nationals harassing members of the technical environmental mission,

MCR, Ann. 238; Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-235-11, 6 Apr. 2011, MCR, Ann. 81; Note from the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica
before the United Nations to Permanent Missions to the United Nations and Permanent Observer Missions to the United
Nations, ref. ECR-258-2011; MCR Ann. 76; and Note from the Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and
Co-Agent of Costa Rica, to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, ref. ECRPB-029-11, 8 Apr. 2011.
123
Roberto Salinas G . (Director), “The Truth about a Contingent”, video documentary: transcription of audio
(extracts), MCR, Ann. 138, p. 524.
124
Roberto Salinas G . (Director), “The Truth about a Contingent”, v ideo documentary: transcription of audio
(extracts), MCR, Ann. 138, p. 525.
125
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States o f America),
Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 144, para. 289.
12Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional

Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 27, para. 86(3); Certain Activities carried out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2013, I.C.J.
Reports 2013, p. 241, para. 40 (2); and Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 22 November 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 369, para 59 (1) (reaffirming the
2011 Order). - 32 -

maintaining a military camp on the disputed territory until late 2013, and by sending and

maintaining the Sandinista Youth on the disputed territory , sponsoring their activities there, and

instructing them to impede access to the disputed territory by Costa Rican and Ramsar

personnel  by all this conduct, Nicaragua has engaged in actions which have the effect of

aggravating and extending the dispute. Further, Nicaragua’s conduct in impeding Costa Rica’s

fulfilment of its responsibilities under the Court’s 2013 Order, as Dr. Del Mar has just referred to,

is a further aggravation of the dispute.

5. Nicaragua’s failure to comply with reporting obligations

24. Nicaragua has also persistently failed to comply with its reporting obligations, under

your 2013 Order. That Order required both States to inform the Court as to their complianc e at

three-monthly intervals. Costa Rica accordingly submitted five reports on compliance, in a timely

manner 12. In contrast, Nicaragua habitually submitted its reports late 128. Instead of informing the

Court as to compliance with the Orders, Nicaragua use d the opportunity to criticize Costa Rica’s

measures of compliance 129, and to produce new and unrelated evidence, which it ought to have

130
submitted using the appropriate procedure s under the Court’s Rules . Thus Nicaragua failed to

comply with its reporting obligations under the Court’s 2013 Order.

C. Costa Rica’s compliance with the Provisional Measures Orders

25. Nicaragua has raised two issues as to Costa Rica’s compliance with the Court’s Orders

on provisional measures. The first relates to Costa Rica dispatching civilian personnel to the

disputed territory. Both Orders permit Costa Rica access to the disputed territory for the purposes

127See letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, reECRPB-0-12, 21 Feb. 2014; letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ,

ref. ECRPB-070, 21 May 2014; letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-090-2014, 22 Aug. 2014; letter from
Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref.116-2014, 21 Nov. 2014; and letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-020-2015,
20 Feb. 2015.
128See letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-033, 7 March 2014 (due on 22 Feb. 2014); letter from
Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-033, 2 June 2014 (due on 22 May 2014) ; letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,

ref. HOL-EMB-166, 28 Nov. 2014 (due on 22 Nov. 2014); and letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-0035,
9 March 2015 (due on 22 Feb. 2015).
129See for example, letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-033, 7 March 2014, pp. 2-4; letter from
Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-033, 2 June 2014, p. 2; letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-166,
28 Nov. 2014, pp. 2-6; and letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref.HOL-EMB-0035, 9 March 2015, pp. 2-8.

130See, for example, letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 March 2015, attaching
“Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical-Financial Progress Report
Corresponding to 2014” (EPN 2014 Annual Report), 2015. - 33 -

of preventing irreparable prejudice to the environment of this internationally protected wetland. On

each occasion that Costa Rican personnel charged with protection of the environment visited the

131
disputed territory, Costa Rica notified the Court, Ramsar, and Nicaragua of these visits .

Contrary to Nicaragua’s assertions 132, the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Security did not carry out

routine and frequent overflights; nor did Costa Rica send its personnel on “fact -finding” missions

there 133. Costa Rica acted in full compliance with its obligations under the Court’s Orders, and

with its obligations of due diligence arising from them.

26. The second complaint made by Nicaragua relates to construction of the road. That is of

course a matter for the hearing next week, but the simple point is that in so far as the construction

of a road within a State’s own territory , in response to an emergency, may give rise to issues of

environmental impact assessment and the like, it does not cause the aggravation of a dispute. It

merely constitutes a measure entirely internal to the constructing State, and poses no threat of any

kind to Nicaragua.

D. Conclusion

27. Mr. President, Members of the Court, for the reasons I have explained, Nicaragua has

breached its obligations under your 2011 and 2013 Orders. In defiance of those Orders, Nicaragua

131
See, for example, letter from the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to th e Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-DVM-217-2011, 30 March 2011, MCR, Ann. 75; letter from the acting
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-
AM-046-12, 27 Jan. 2012, CMN, Ann. 75; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-105-13, 28 Feb. 2013, Attachment 1 to letter from Costa Rica to
the ICJ, ref. DM-AM-109-13, 28 Feb. 2013; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to
the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-678-13, 6 Dec. 2013, Attachment CR-3 to letter from Costa
Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-0-12, 21 Feb. 2014; letter from the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of

Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM- AM-108-14, 7 March 2014, Attachment CR-3 to
letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-070, 21 May 2014; letter from the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and
Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM- AM-348-14, 17 July 2014,
Attachment 1 to letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-090-2014, 22 Aug. 2014; letter from the Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0707-14, 7
Nov. 2014, Road case, RCR, Ann. 47; letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0774-11-14, 2 Dec. 2014, Attachment CR-2 to letter from Costa
Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-020-2015, 20 Feb. 2015; and letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-0818-14, 12 Dec. 2014, Road case, RCR, Ann.
55.

13CMN, paras. 9.47-9.48 and 9.57.
133
See, for example, Note Verbale from C osta Rica to Nicaragua, 28 March 2011, Ann. 3 to letter from Costa
Rica to the ICJ, ref. ECRPB 029-11, 8 Apr. 2011; an d Note from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, ref. DM-AM-146-12, 15 March 2012, Ann. CR1 to letter from Costa Rica to
the ICJ, ref. ECRPB-034-12, 29 Aug. 2012 (answering Note from Ministry for Foreign Affairs to Nicaragua to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, ref. MRE/DM-AJ/116/02/12, 13 Feb. 2012, CMN, Ann. 76, cited in CMN,
para. 9.48). - 34 -

carried out further works in the disputed territory, causing damage. It maintained a military

presence on the disputed territory and it sent, maintained, sponsored and instructed large organized

groups of Nicaraguan nationals to carry out works there. By all this conduct, Nicaragua has, in

addition, aggravated the dispute before the Court.

28. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my remarks for this morning. And I

thank you for your kind attention. Mr. President, I ask that you give the floor to Professor Kohen,

to conclude Costa Rica’s first round presentation.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je donne la parole au professeur Kohen

M. KOHEN :

Remèdes : une simple constatation n’est pas suffisante

1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, il m’appartient d’aborder la

question de la réparation due au Costa Rica en raison du comportement nicaraguayen. A la fin du

second tour, l’agent vous lira les conclusions du Costa Rica. Dans le petitum , il fera mention de

manière détaillée de l’ensemble des obligations violées par le Nicaragua, que le demandeur vous

prie de déclarer. Le Costa Rica considère qu e dans les circonstances d e l’espèce, la simple

constatation du caractère costa- ricien du «territoire contesté» et des violations des obligations

internationales commises par le Nicaragua, bien que nécessaire, n’est pas suffisante. Ma tâche

maintenant consiste à vous présenter les raisons pour lesquelles votre Cour doit aussi décider que le

Nicaragua est tenu de réparer les dommages causés, par le moyen de la restitution et de la

compensation, d’offrir un type de satisfaction autre que la seule constatation de ses violations par

l’arrêt, en sus de donner des garanties de non-répétition.

A. Il ne s’agit pas d’un différend territorial classique mais de l’occupation et de la
dégradation d’un territoire étranger

2. Monsieur le président, le Costa Rica relève que, dans le cas des différends frontaliers

classiques, votre Cour a établi qu’ils sont réglés par le truchement d’un jugement déclaratif, et non

par une décision dans le domaine de la responsabilité, comme vous l’avez notamment précisé dans - 35 -

134
l’affaire Cameroun c. Nigéria . Dans son c ontre-mémoire, le Nicaragua vous invite à suivre ce

chemin dans la présente affaire 13. Je relève la contradiction de cette position avec celle que ce

même Etat a soutenue dans son Différend territorial et maritime contre la Colombie et que vous

avez tranchée en 2012. Dans cette affaire, le Nicaragua avait en effet demandé réparation 13.

3. Votre Cour n’a pas suivi le Nicaragua et il est important de rappeler pourquoi, afin de

montrer ensuite les différences avec notre affaire. Je cite votre arrêt du 19 novembre 2012 :

«La Cour fait observer que la demande du Nicaragua est présentée dans le cadre
d’une instance concernant une frontière maritime qui n’a jamais été tracée auparavant.
Le présent arrêt a pour effet de fixer la frontière maritime entre les deux Parties, le
Nicaragua et la Colombie, dans l’ensemble de la zone pertinente. A cet égard, la Cour

relève que son arrêt n’attribue pas au Nicarag ua la totalité de la zone qu’il revendique
et alloue au contraire à la Colombie une partie des espaces maritimes à l’égard
desquels le Nicaragua demande une déclaration concernant l’accès aux ressources
naturelles. Dans ces conditions, elle estime que la demande du Nicaragua sur ce point
137
[, c’est-à-dire la question de la responsabilité] n’est pas fondée.»

4. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, dans notre affaire la situation est très différente de celles

des affaires Cameroun c. Nigéria et Nicaragua c. Colombie. Dans le cas d’espèce, il ne s’agit pas

d’un territoire ou espace qui faisait l’objet d’un différend à propos duquel les parties

(individuellement ou collectivement) ont saisi la Cour pour le régler. Il ne s’agit encore moins de

tracer une frontièr e qui n’a jamais auparavant existé. Comme nous l’avons déjà abondamment

expliqué, le Nicaragua a occupé un territoire reconnu comme costa-ricien par une sentence arbitrale

et a ensuite, seulement, formulé une revendication à son égard. Dans la présente affaire, le

Costa Rica a prié la Cour de statuer que, par son comportement, le Nicaragua a violé l’obligation

de respecter la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriales du Costa Rica. Le titre que vous avez choisi

pour la présente affaire est, dans cette pe rspective, très parlant : Certaines activités menées par le

Nicaragua dans la région frontalière . Il ne s’agit pas du Différend frontalier

(Costa Rica/Nicaragua) ou de la Frontière terrestre entre le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua . Ces

134
Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Came roun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c. Nigéria; Guinée équatoriale
(intervenant)), arrêt, C.1.J. Recueil 2002, p. 452, par. 319Voir également Temple de Préah Vihéar, fond, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 37.
135 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la ré gion frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), CMN,
par. 8.6.

136Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2012 (II), p. 717, par. 248.
137
Ibid., p. 718, par. 250. - 36 -

activités ont par aille urs produit des dommages matériels et moraux pour le Costa Rica et ils

doivent, comme tels, être réparés.

5. Certes, du fait de la position prise par le Nicaragua, vous devez statuer préalab lement sur

le fait que le Costa Rica est le souverain du territ oire en cause. Si le territoire sur lequel le

Nicaragua a mené ses activités est aujourd’hui contesté, cela ne constitue qu’une aggravation

supplémentaire de son comportement illicite : il s’agit du rejet de la souveraineté costa- ricienne

pourtant déclarée par une sentence arbitrale que le Nicaragua devait respecter. Ce serait grave

 et en fait un très mauvais message  de permettre qu’un Etat puisse se libérer de l’obligation de

respecter la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriales des autres Etats, par le biais d’une revendication

de la souveraineté du territoire qu’il a préalablement occupé. Car j’insiste : ces certaines activités

ont été menées par le Nicaragua avant qu’il avance la moindre revendication sur le territoire

aujourd’hui objet du différend.

6. Compte tenu de ces circonstances, plusieurs modalités de réparation sont nécessaires dans

la présente affaire, mise à part la déclaration quant à la situation juridique que vous allez

préalablement établir : il faudra donc, outre une compensation pécuniaire, la restitution et la

satisfaction sous une forme autre que la déclaration par la Cour. Je commence par la compensation

pécuniaire.

B. Compensation pécuniaire pour les dommages causés

7. Les dommages matériels produits par le Nicaragua sont considérables et avérés. Le

Nicaragua ne nie ni les faits ni leur attribution. La con struction de trois caños, avec la destruction

que cela implique, la déforestation d’une autre zone importante du même secteur, l’utilisation de ce

secteur pour dépos er le sédiment retiré du fleuve constituent autant de dommages matériels

indéniables. Le Costa Rica a dû et devra encore investir de s sommes considérables pour sa remise

en l’état. Il serait tout à fait injuste de faire courir les frais de ces dépenses à l’Eat victime de ce

comportement. L’impossibilité d’exercer les droits de lib re navigation sur le fleuve San Juan a

aussi des conséquences économiques importantes, par exemple dans le besoin d’utiliser d’autres

moyens de transport et de communication b eaucoup plus onéreux. Le Costa Rica demande à la

Cour dans cette phase de l’affaire d’établir l’obligation du Nicaragua de payer une somme d’argent - 37 -

en compensation pour ces dommages, le montant précis restant à déterminer dans une phase

ultérieure .38

C. Restitution

8. Je passe maintenant à une autre modalité de réparation nécessaire dans la présente affaire,

la restitution. Elle est liée à la violation des droits de libre navigation. Pour les raisons expliquées

e
par M Del Mar, le Costa Rica prie la Cour d’ordonner l’abrogation ou la modification du

décret n o 79-2009.

9. Le Nicaragua rejette cette demande au prétexte que votre Cour doit s’abstenir d’émettre

des ordres s’imposant aux Etats 139. Mesdames et Messieurs les j uges, votre capacité de décider

qu’une partie doit abroger une décision interne lorsqu’elle est en contradiction avec une obligation

internationale ne fait aucun doute. C’est ce que vous avez précisément fait, par exemple, dans

l’affaire du Mandat d’arrêt, dans laquelle vous avez décidé que la Belgique devait mettre à néant le

mandat d’arrêt du 11 avril 2000 140. Certes, vous avez dit, comme dans d’autres cas 141, que la

Belgique devait le faire par les moyens de son choix. Plus récemment, vous avez aussi décidé que

le Japon «doit révoquer tout permi s, autorisation ou licence déjà délivré dans le cadre de

142
JARPA II» . En d’autres termes, vous avez, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, dans l’exercice

de votre compétence, toute capacité pour émettre ce genre d’injonction en direction des Etats.

10. Ce que le Costa Rica vous sollicite c’est de dire et juger que le Nicaragua doit révoquer

les dispositions de son décret de régulation de la navigation costa -ricienne qui sont contraires à

votre arrêt de 2009. Il appartient dans tous les cas au Nicaragua d’y procéder selon les moyens de

son choix.

138
Compétence en matière de pêcheries (République fédérale d’Allemagne c. Islande), fond, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1974, p. 204, par. 76 ; Affaire du Détroit de Corfou (Royaume -Uni c. Albanie), fond, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1949, p. 4 ; Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (République de Guinée c. République démocratique du Congo),
indemnisation, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2012 (I), p. 5.
139
Certaines activités, CMN, par.8.16.
140Mandat d’arrêt du 11 avril 2000 (République démocratique du Congo c. Belgique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002,

p. 33, point 3 du dispositif.
141LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2001, p. 513 514, par. 125 ; Demande en
interprétation de l’arrêt du 31 mars 2004 en l’affaire Avena et autres ressortissants mexicains (Mexique Etats-Unis
d’Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 18, par. 47.

142 Chasse à la baleine dans l’Antarctique (Australie c. Japon ; Nouvelle-Zélande (intervenant)) , a rrêt du
31 mars 2014, par. 245 et 247, point7 du dispositif. - 38 -

D. Des formes de satisfaction appropriées sont aussi nécessaires

11. J’en viens maintenant à la satisfaction. Monsieur le p résident, Mesdames et Messieurs

les j uges, par son comportement, le Nicaragua a privé le Co sta Rica de l’exercice de sa

souveraineté sur la partie nord d’Isla Portillos depuis la fin 2010 jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Le

Costa Rica a dû observer comment les forces armées nicaraguayennes demeuraient sur son sol sans

son consentement, comment des centaine s de ressortissants nicarag uayens se sont installés à

Isla Portillos après votre ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 indiquant des mesures conservatoires ; ils y

sont restés jusqu’en 2013 en fait, amenant du bétail, accomplissant des tâches prétendument

environnementales, hissant le drapeau nicaraguayen ainsi que celui d’un parti politique

nicaraguayen 143. Au moment même de l’occupation du territoire en octobre 2010, le Nicaragua a

retiré le drapeau costa- ricien qui se trouvait à Finca Aragón et a installé le sien. S ans surprise, le

drapeau costa-ricien n’a même pas été restitué au Costa Rica.

12. Dans son commentaire à l ’article 37 sur la responsabilité des Etats, la Commission du

droit international constatait que

«[l]a pratique des Etats offre … de nombreux exemples de demandes de satisfaction
lorsque le fait internationalement illicite d ’un Etat cause un préjudice immatériel à un
autre Etat. Ainsi, il peut s ’agir d’outrage à des emblèmes de l’Etat tels que le drapeau
144
national, de violations de la souveraineté ou de l’intégrité territoriale», etc .

La CDI mentionnait comme exemples les affaires Magee, Petit vaisseau et l’affaire qui découla de

l’Outrage au drapeau français à Berlin en 1920 . 145

13. Dans les présentes circonstances, l ’outrage à la souveraineté costa- ricienne, à ses

emblèmes, leur mépris même après que votre Cour ait indiqué des mesures conservatoires, ces

outrages, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ne peuvent pas être satisfaits par une simple déclaration

143 o
MCR, par. 6.22 ; vol. IV, annexe n 108, El 19 Digital, «Costa Rica looking to provoke Nicaragua » ; CMN,
par. 7.14, 7.19 ; Demande du Costa Rica tendant à la modification de l’ ordonnance en indication de mesures
conservatoires rendue par la Cour, 23 mai 2013, par. 11, 12 ; ibid., CRPM -1, Note f rom Costa Rica to the
Secretary General of the United Nations, 14 décembre 2011, réf. DM-AM-663-2011 ; CRPM-2, Note from Costa Rica to
Nicaragua, 20 mars 2013, ré f. DM-AM-161-13 ; CRMP-3, El 19 Digital, «Movimiento Guardabarranco, f ighting for
nature in Nicaragua », 17 mars 2013 ; CRMP-4, Prensa Latina , «Movimiento Guardabarranco, fighting for nature in
Nicaragua»,17 mars 2013.
144
Commission du droit international, «Projet d’articles sur la responsabilité de l’Etat pour fait
internationalement illicite et commentaires y relatifs », Annuaire de la Commission du droit international , 2001, vol. II,
deuxième partie, p. 285, par. 4.
145 Affaire Magee (1874) (Whiteman, Damages, vol. I, p. 64), affaire du Petit Vaisseau (1863) (Whiteman,
Damages, 2nd series, vol. III, No. 2564) et l’affaire qui découla deOutrage au drapeau français à Berlin en 1920
(C. Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law (New York, New York University Press, 1928),

p. 186-187). Ibid., note de bas de page 615. - 39 -

insérée dans le dispositif de votre arrêt. Le non- respect de votre arrêt de 2009 et de vos mesures

conservatoires de 2011 et de 2013 montre clairement qu’ une simple constatation d’illicéité ne joue

aucun rôle, ni dissuasif pour l’une des parties, ni réparateur pour l’autre. Le Costa Rica est confiant

que votre Cour saura trouver les moyens de satisfaction adéquats allant au -delà d’un simple constat

inscrit dans le dispositif de votre futur arrêt.

Restitution pour le dragage

14. Monsieur le président, l’ambassadeur Sergio Ugalde a démontré que le prog ramme de

dragage du Nicaragua est mené dans le but de remodeler la géographie de la partie inférieure du

San Juan, au mépris du Costa Rica et en particulier de son fleuve Colorado. Le Costa Rica, sur la

base de la sentence Cleveland et du droit internatio nal général, demande que les opérations de

dragage soient suspendues jusqu ’à ce que le Nicaragua ait donné la garantie que ces travaux ne

modifient pas, ni ne visent à modifier, le débit du fleuve Colorado.

15. Au vu de la position prise par le Nicaragua à l ’égard de la sentence Cleveland,
146
s’arrogeant le droit de causer des dommages au territoire costaricien , ainsi que de ses activités

récentes, le Costa Rica prie respectueusement votre Cour d ’inclure dans votre décision une

déclaration confirmant que, e n vertu de la sentence Cleveland , le Nicaragua n ’a pas le droit

d’occuper le territoire du Costa Rica, ni de l ’endommager de quelque manière que ce soit, en

conduisant ses travaux sur le fleuve San Juan.

16. Le Costa Rica priera également la Cour d ’ordonner qu ’une étude d’ impact

environnemental transfrontalier soit menée au sujet des travaux de dragage ; à ce que les résultats

de l’étude lui soient transmis avant la reprise du programme de dragage ; et à ce que le Nicaragua

fournisse des preuves scientifiques objectives que le projet de dragage en cours n ’a pas modifié, ni

ne modifiera le débit du fleuve Colorado.

146CR 2011/2, p. 26, par. 21 (McCaffery) ; ibid., p. 30, par. 27 c) (McCaffery) ; ibid., p. 56-57, par. 14 (Pellet) ;
ibid., p. 59, par. 19 (Pellet) ; ibid., p. 61, par. 24 ; CR 2011/4, p. 32, par. 20 (Pellet). - 40 -

E. Des garanties de non -répétition s’imposent face à l ’absence de respect des décisions
précédentes de la Cour

17. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, nous sommes également obligés de vous demander de

décider que le Nicaragua est tenu d ’offrir des garanties de non -répétition de son comportement

illicite. Dans la précédente affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua, vous avez dit que :

«si la Cour peut, comme il lui est arrivé de le faire, ordonner à l’Etat responsable d’un

comportement internationalement illicite d ’offrir à l ’Etat lésé des assurances et des
garanties de non-répétition, 147st seulement si les circonstances le justifient, ce qu ’il
lui appartient d’apprécier» .

18. Vous avez aussi mentionné, en 2009, qu’ «[e]n règle générale, il n ’y a pas lieu de

supposer que l’Etat dont un acte ou un comportement a été déclaré illicite par la Cour répétera à

l’avenir cet acte ou ce comportement, puisque sa bonn e foi doit être présumée» et qu ’ainsi, il faut
148
des «circonstances spéciales» pour que la Cour ordonne de telles assurances .

19. Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, nous sommes ici devant une affaire dans l aquelle ces

circonstances spéciales sont présentes. Car dans cette affaire, nous sommes déjà confrontés

 vous êtes confrontés Mesdames et Messieurs les juges  à des manquements graves à vos

décisions, lesquels ont dû motiver l’adoption d’une deuxième ordonnance en indication de mesures

conservatoires. Je me réfère en particulier à la construction des deux nouveaux caños en 2013 et à

la présence militaire nicaraguayenne sur le «territoire contesté». Mais je me réfère également au

mépris exprimé par le Nicaragua pour les droits costa- riciens de libre navigation tels que vous les

avez interprétés dans votre arrêt de 2009.

20. Face à ces manquements constants, la présomption selon laquelle les Etats s’acquittent de

bonne foi de leurs obligations internationales n ’est plus suffisante. Monsieur le présiden t,

Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, le Costa Rica n’a aucune envie d’avoir à revenir régulièrement à

votre prétoire afin de faire respecter ses droits violés par le Nicaragua. Si vous deviez trouver une

affaire où le besoin d ’offrir des garanties de non -répétition s’avère véritablement nécessaire, c ’est

précisément celle-ci. La preuve est déjà faite que les simples déclarations ne sont pas suffisantes.

Un arrêt et des ordonnances de votre Cour ayant force obligatoire ne l ’ont pas été. S ’il est bien

reconnu  y compris par votre Cour  que les garanties de non-répétition sont un outil disponible

147 Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (CostaRica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 267, par. 150.

148Ibid. - 41 -

dans le domaine de la responsabilité, on ne peut pas faire d ’elles un instrument qui ne peut jamais

être appliqué. Il y va non seulement du respect dû aux autres Etats, mais également du respect dû à

votre Cour.

F. Le Nicaragua doit supporter les frais de procédure concernant les deuxièmes mesures
conservatoires

21. Je passe maintenant à la question des frais de procédure. Monsieur le président ,

Mesdames et Mess ieurs de la Cour, le Costa Rica reconnaît naturellement que, selon la règle

générale établie par l ’article 64 de votre Statut, chaque partie supporte ses frais de procédure.

Cependant, ce même article vous donne la possibilité d ’en décider autrement. L’article 97 de votre

Règlement envisage explicitement une décision selon laquelle les frais de procédure de l ’une des

parties seront entièrement ou partiellement supportés par l ’autre. La Cour a rappelé cette

possibilité par exemple dans l ’affaire Diallo, mentionnant que «le libellé de l ’article 64 laisse

entendre que certaines circonstances pourraient justifier qu ’elle adjuge des frais à l ’une ou l’autre

des parties» 149. Nous estimons que dans la présente affaire il existe des raisons sérieuses pour

imposer au Nicaragua le paiement au moins partiel des frais de procédure costa-riciens.

22. Nous vous prions en effet d’ordonner que le Nicaragua supporte les frais de la procédure

incidente de 2013 que motiva l ’indication des nouvelles mesures conservatoires. Nous savons que

jusqu’à présent votre Cour n’a jamais encore utilisé ce pouvoir qui vous est conféré. Toutefois, s’il

existe une circonstance exceptionnelle dans laquelle cette possibilité doit être employée, c’ est bien

dans cette affaire. Ceci ne déco ule pas seulement de la violation flagrante des premières mesures

conservatoires ; cela résulte également de la procédure que le Costa Rica s’ est vu forcé de suivre.

En effet, la première réaction du Nicaragua face aux protestations costa- riciennes a été d’attribuer

150
la construction des deux nouveaux caños à l’arrivée de la saison des pluies . Avant le début des

149
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (République de Guinée c. République démocratique du Congo), indemnisation, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2012 (I), p. 344, par. 60. Voir aussi Demande de réformation du jugement n 158 du Tribunal administratif
des Nations Unies, avis consultatif , C.I.J. Recueil 1973 , p. 212, par. 98 ; ibid., opinion dissidente du juge Ammoun,
p. 248-251 ; Jugement n° 2867 du Tribunal administratif de l ’Organisation internationale du Travail sur requête contre
le Fonds international de développement agricole, avis consultatif, déclaration du juge Greenwood,
C.I.J. Recueil 2012 (I), p. 96, par. 5.
150
Demande en indication de nouvelles mesures conservatoires du Costa Rica, 24 septembre 2013, a nnexe 5, note
diplomatique adressée à M. Enrique Castillo Barrantes, ministre des Affaires étrangères et des cultes du Costa Rica,
par M. Samuel López, ministre des Affaires étrangères du Nicaragua, 18septembre 2013, réf. MRE/DM/521/09/13, pièce
jointe PM-5. Voir aussi CR 2013/24, p. 18, par. 12 (Crawford). - 42 -

audiences, le Costa Rica a même proposé au Nicaragua d ’accepter que la Cour rende, avec le

consentement des deux Etats, une ordonnance indiquant les mesures sollicitées par le Costa Rica en

vue d’éviter le déroulement de la procédure incidente et de faire l ’économie du temps et des

151
ressources financières exigées par la tenue d’audiences .

Le Nicaragua a rejeté cette offre et a à son tour, le même jour, demandé des mesures conservatoires

152
dans l’affaire relative à la Construction d’une route . Le Nicaragua a finalement reconnu les faits

qui ont motivé l’indication de vos mesures conservatoires 153, et votre Cour a indiqué les mesures

154
demandées par le C osta Rica et même plus . De toute évidence, il s’agit d’une procédure qui

aurait dû et pu être évitée mais que le Nicaragua a sans justif ication aucune imposée au Costa Rica

et à votre Cour.

23. Pour ces raisons, il serait de toute justice et équité d’i mposer au Nicaragua le paiement

au moins des frais de la procédure incidente de 2013. J’ajouterai par ailleurs que cette demande du

Costa Rica ne surprendra pas la Partie défenderesse. Le Nicaragua a, en effet, demandé à votre

Cour d’imposer aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique les frais de toute la procédure introduite par lui contre

cet Etat, invoquant comme fondement les dommages moraux subis par l’action des Etat–Unis 155.

G. Les déclarations demandées par le Nicaragua doivent être rejetées

24. Avant de terminer, quelques mots, Monsieur le président, sur les conclusions du

Nicaragua. Je vais limiter mes commentaires à certains points des conclusions du

contre-mémoire 15.

25. Nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre ont de la suite dans les idées. En fait, les

déclarations que le Nicaragua vous demande de faire aux points iii) et iv) du petitum 2) sont

151
Lettre du Costa Rica au greffier du 11 octobre 2013. CR 2013/24, p. 11 (le président de la Cour).
152CR 2013/24, p. 11 (le président de la Cour) .

153CR 2013/27, p. 17, par. 39 (Reichler). Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua); Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa
Rica), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 22 novembre 2013, C.I.J . Recueil 2013, p. 364, par. 45.
154
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua);
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 22 novembre 2013, C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 369 -370, par. 59.
155
Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. E-Unis d’Amérique),
MN (réparation), 29 mars 1988, par. 489.
156Certaines activités, CMN, p. 455-456. - 43 -

pratiquement identiques à celles demandées dans l’affaire des Droits de navigation et droits

connexes. Il s’agit d’une déclaration affirmant que le Nicaragua a le droi t d’effectuer des travaux

en vue d’améliorer la navigation du San Juan, incluant le dragage du fleuve, ainsi que de restaurer

le débit du fleuve tel qu’il existait en 1858. A juste titre, vous avez déjà refusé d’inclure ces

demandes dans votre arrêt de 20 09 157. Les mêmes considérations que nous avons formulées à

l’époque, et auxquelles vous avez fait droit , s’imposent aujourd’hui. Peut -être serait-il utile de

rappeler au Nicaragua la valeur de la chose jugée ? Ces questions ont même déjà été réglées par l a

sentence Cleveland de 1888 15. Il n’en demeure pas moins que l’insistance du Nicaragua quant à

son prétendu droit de porter atteinte au débit du fleuve Colorado est tout à fait préoccupante.

26. Quant au point v) du petitum 2), à savoir que votre Cour déclar e que les seuls droits du

Costa Rica sur le fleuve San Juan sont ceux qui découlent du traité de 1858, tels qu’interprétés par

les sentences Cleveland et Alexander, il est à la fois erroné et irrecevable. En fait, il constitue une

nouvelle preuve du mépris que montre le Nicaragua à l’ég ard de votre arrêt du 9 juillet 2009. En

effet, vous avez explicitement reconnu un droit costa -ricien qui ne découle pas du t raité de 1858 et

des interprétations arbitrales : il s’agit du droit coutumier de pêche à des fins de subsistance 159. Les

interprétations judiciaires de 1916 de la Cour centraméricaine de justice et de votre propre Cour

de 2009 doivent aussi être également mentionnées, ce que le Nicaragua s’abstient de faire. Quoi

qu’il en soit, une telle déclarat ion, même formulée correctement, ne saurait être recevable, vu son

caractère totalement abstrait. Si la Cour estimait toutefois nécessaire de formuler une telle

déclaration relative aux droits des deux P arties, il faudrait bien entendu la formuler de mani ère

complète, de telle sorte que les droits et les interprétations que le Nicaragua a ignorés dans son

petitum y soient inclus.

Conclusions

27. Pour résumer, Monsieur le p résident, Mesdames et Messieurs les j uges, le Costa Rica

vous priera de dire et juge r que le Nicaragua a violé les obligations internationales découlant du

157
Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt, C.I.J.
Recueil 2009, p. 269, par. 155.
158Ibid.
159
Ibid., p. 266, par. 141. - 44 -

traité de 1858, de la Charte des Nations Unies et de celle de l’OEA et du droit international

coutumier, quant au respect de la souveraineté et l’i ntégrité territoriales du Costa Rica, des droits

de libre navigation et autres, ainsi que vos ordonnances en indication de mesures conservatoires.

Le demandeur vous priera également d’établir l’obligation de réparer les préjudices matériels et

moraux subis par le Costa Rica, sous la forme d’une réparation pécuniaire, d’une restitution sous la

forme de l’abrogation des dispositions réglementaires nicaraguayennes contraires aux droits de

navigation et de la satisfaction pour les préjudices mo raux, sous des formes allant au -delà de la

simple constatation et que votre Cour jugera les plus appropriées.

28. Monsieur le président, le Costa Rica est prêt pour répondre à la question posée hier par le

juge Greenwood. Si vous le voulez bien, je vous prie de donner la parole à mon collègue

M e Wordsworth.

Le PRESIDENT : Bien, je donne la parole à M.Wordsworth.

Mr. WORDSWORTH: Thank you, Mr. President. In view of my reference yesterday to

Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Judge Greenwood referred to the Fourth

Geneva Convention and asked whether Costa Rica alleges that there is  or at some relevant time

has been  a state of armed conflict between itself and Nicaragua. The question is naturally

understood as confined solely to the current case, and specifically to Nicaragua’s military action of

October 2010 through January 2011, on which I made submissions yesterday  the complete

wording of the question is at page 72 of yesterday’s transcript.

Costa Rica considers that Nicaragua’s acts in that period are correctly regarded as contrary to

the prohibition relating to use of force, found in Article 2 (4) of the Unite d Nations Charter and

Article 22 of the OAS Charter, and also as milit ary occupation. However, Costa Rica does not

consider that the acts resulted in an armed conflict betw een itself and Nicaragua, as Costa Rica

carefully avoided engaging in any armed confrontation.

The reference made yesterday to Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventi ons was in the

context of Costa Rica’s position that Nica ragua’s action violated Articl e 21 of the OAS Charter,

which provides, inter alia, that the territory of a State “ may not be the object, even temporarily, of - 45 -

military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on

any grounds whatever”.

Costa Rica has made reference to Common Article 2 to support the position that, as a matter

of characterization, Nicaragua’s armed incursion and presence in Isla Portillos qualifies as military

occupation, recalling from Common Article 2 that there is no re quirement that an occupation be

met by armed resistance. The reference is to paragra ph 2 of Article 2, which of course provides

that the Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a

High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

The 1958 Pictet Commentary on the paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva

Convention, at pages 21 to 22 contains some relevant comment as to the possibility of there being

occupation without hostilities. And I would refer the Court to that. But it is to be emphasized that

Costa Rica has not put forward a case that is dependent on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva

Convention per se.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Wordsworth. Je vais maintenant donner la parole à M.le

juge Bennouna qui souhaite poser une question au Costa Rica.

M. le juge BENNOUNA : Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président.

Monsieur le président, ma question s’adresse au Costa Rica à l a suite de la plaidoirie de

Mme Catherine Del Mar intitulée « Violations of Costa Rica’s navigational Rights» [Violations du

droit de navigation du Costa Rica].

Ma question est la suivante : est-ce que le Costa Rica attend de la Cour qu’elle se prononce

sur la compatibilité avec l’arrêt de la Cour de 2009 sur le droit de navigation des réglementations

édictées par le Nicaragua pour la mise en Œuvre de cet arrêt ? Et si c’était le cas, le Costa Rica

peut-il préciser le lien de cette question avec l’objet du différend ? Je vous remercie, Monsieur le

président.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le juge Bennouna. Le Costa Rica est prié de répondre à

la question lors de son second tour de plaidoiries en la présente affaire. - 46 -

La Cour se réunira de nouveau demai n après-midi de 16 h 30 à 18 heures pour entendre le

début du premier tour de plaidoiries du Nicaragua.

Je vous remercie. L’audience est levée.

L’audience est levée à 11 h 30.

___________