Order of 29 November 2001

Document Number
116-20011129-ORD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Incidental Proceedings
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DES ACTIVITÉS ARMÉES

SUR LE TERRITOIRE DU CONGO

(RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO c. OUGANDA)

ORDONNANCE DU 29 NOVEMBRE2001

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES

ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO

(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO YUGANDA)

ORDER OF 29 NOVEMBER 2001 Mode officiede citation:
Activités arméessur le territoire du Congo
(Républiquedéfiîocr-atiquedu Congo c. Ouganda),
ord)nnancedu 229noilen~hte2001,I.J. Recueil2001, p. 660

Official citation :
Arm~lriActivities on the Terrofothe Congo
(Detnormtic Rcprbli(fthe Congo v. Ugundc,)
Orderoj 29 Novevllher2001,C.J. Rrpotts 2001, p. 660

N0dC?VeIltC?:833 1
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number
ISBN 92-1-070935-7 29 NOVEMBRE 2001

ORDONNANCE

ACTIVITÉS ARMÉES
SUR LE TERRITOIRE DU CONGO

ARMED ACTIVITIES
ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO

(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v.UGANDA)

29 NOVEMBER 2001

ORDER INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2001 2001
29 November
General List
29 November2001 No. 116

CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES

ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO

(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v. UGANDA)

ORDER

Present: President GUILLAUMEV ; ice-Presiilent SHI; Juclges RANJEVA,

HEKCZEGHF,LEISCHHAII~K R, ROMAV , ERESHCHETIHNI,GGINS,
E'ARRA-ARANGUREN K,OOIJMANS,REZEK, AL-KHASAWNEH,
BUERGENTHE ALA,RABY;Judges ad hoc VERHOEVEN K,ATEKA;
Rrgi.rtrirrCOUVREUR.

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberatiori,
Having regard to Article 48 of theStatute of the Court and to

Articles1,44, 45and 80 of the Rules of Court,
Mukes thefollotving Order

1. Whereas on 23 June 1999the Government of the Democratic Repub-
lic.of the Congo (hereinafter "the Congfiled in the Registry of the
Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Government of

the Republic of Uganda (hereinafter "Ugandain respect of a dispute
concerning "acts of trrtnedaggression perpetrated by Uganda on the ter-
ritory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in flagrant violation of
the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organizaofon
African Unity"; whereas in its Application the Congo founds the- ARMED ACTlVlTlES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 66 1

diction of the Court on the declarations made by the two States under

Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute; and whereas the Congo concludes
its Application with the following submissions:

"Consequently, and whilst reserving the right to supplement and
amplify the present request in the course of the proceedings, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo requests the Court to:

Adjud,qe ancl clvclare thut:
(LI) llganda is guilty of an act of aggression within the meaning of

Article 1 of resolution 3314 of the General Assembly of the
United Nations of 14December 1974 and of the jurisprudence
of the International Court of Justice, contrary to Article2,para-
graph 4, of the United Nations Charter;
(h) further, Uganda is committing repeated violations of the

Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of
1977, in flagrant disregard of the elementary rules of interna-
tional humanitarian law in conflict zones, and is also guilty of
massive human rights violations in defiance of the most basic
customary law ;

(c) nîore specifically, by taking forcible possession of the Inga
hydroelectric dam, and deliberately and regularly causing mas-
sive electrical power cuts, in violation of the provisions of
Article 56 of the Additional Protocol of 1977, Uganda has
rendered itself responsible for very heavy losses of life among

the 5 million inhabitants of the city of Kinshasa and the sur-
rounding area;
(cl) by shooting down, on 9 October 1998 at Kindu, a Boeing 727
the property of Congo Airlines, thereby causing the death of 40
civilians, Uganda has also violated the Convention on Interna-

tional Civil Aviation signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944,
the Hague Convention of 16 December 1970 for the Suppres-
sion of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the Montreal Conven-
tion of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

Cotz.requent&, cznd purmunt to the aforrmentioncd internurional
/egczl oh/ig(ltio~~toLIC/~UC/~unci c/oc/are that

(1) al1 Ugandan armed forces participating in acts of aggression
shall forthwith vacate the territory of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo;

(2) Uganda slîall secure the immediate and unconditional with-
drawal from Congolese territory of its nationals, both natural
and legal persons;
(3) the Democratic Republic of the Congo is entitled to compensa-
tion from Uganda in respect of al1acts of looting, destruction,

removal of property and persons and other unlawful acts attri- butable to Uganda, in respect of which the Democratic Republic
of the Congo reserves the right to determine at a later date the

precise amount of the damage suffered, in addition to its claim
for the restitution of al1property removed";

2. Whereas on 19 June 2000 the Congo submitted to the Court a
request for the indication of provisional measures pursuant to Article 41
of the Statute; and whereas, by Order of 1 July 2000. the Court indicated

certain provisional measures;
3. Whereas on 19 July 2000, within the time-limit fixed for that pur-
pose by the Order of the Court dated 21 October 1999, the Congo filed
its Memorial, at the conclusion of which it made the following submis-

sions :

"The Democratic Republic of the Congo, while reserving the right
to supplement or modify the present submissions and to provide the
Court with fresh evidence and pertinent new legal arguments in the
context of the present dispute, requests the Court to adjudge and

declare :
1. That the Republic of Uganda, by engaging in military and

paramilitary activities against theDemocraticRepublic of the Congo,
by occupying its territory and by actively extending military, logistic,
economic and financial support to irregular forces operating there,
has violated the following principles of conventional and customary

law:
- the principle of non-use of force in international relations, includ-

ing the prohibition of aggression :
- the obligation to settle international disputes exclusively by
peaceful means soas to ensure that international peace and secu-
rity, as well as justice, are not placed in jeopardy;

- respect for the sovereignty of States and the rights of peoples to
self-determination, and hence to choose their own political and
economic system freely and without outside interference;
- the principle of non-interference in matters within the domestic

jurisdiction of States, which includes refraining froin extending
any assistance to the parties to a civil war operating on the ter-
ritory of another State;

2. That the Republic of Uganda, by engaging in the illegal exploi-
tation of Congolese natural resources and by pillaging its assets and
wealth, has violated the following principles of conventional and

customary law
- respect for the sovereignty of States, including over their natural

resources ;
- the duty to promote the realization of the principle of equality of
peoples and of their right of self-determination, and consequently to refrain from exposing peoples to foreign subjugation,domina-
tion or exploitation;
- the principle of non-interference in matters within the domestic

jurisdiction of States, including economic matters;

3. That the Republic of Uganda, by committing acts of oppres-
sion against the nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
by killing, injuring, abducting or despoiling those nationals, has vio-

lated the following priiiciples of conventional and customary law:
- the principle of conventional and customary law involving the

obligation to respect and ensure respect for fundamental human
rights, incliiding in times of armed conflict:
- the entitlenient of Congolese nationals to enjoy the most basic
rights, both civil and political, as well as economic, social and

cultural ;

4. That, in light of al1the violations set out above, the Republic
of Uganda shall, to the extent of and in accordance with, the par-
ticulars set out in Chapter VI of this Memorial, and in conformity
with customary international law :

cease forthwith any continuing internationally wrongful act. in
particular its occupation of Congolese territory, its support for

irregular forces operating in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, its unlawful detention of Congolese nationals and its
exploitatiori of Congolese wealth and natural resources;

make reparation for al1 types of damage caused by al1 types of
wrongful act attributable to it, no matter how remote the causal
link between the acts and the damage concerned;

accordingly make reparation in kind where this is still physically
possible, in particular restitution of any Congolese resources,
assets or wealth still in its possession;

- failing this, furnish a sum covering the whole of the damage suf-
fered, including. in particular, the examples mentioned in para-
graph 6.65 of this Memorial;
- further, in any event, render satisfaction for the insults inflicted
by it upon the Deinocratic Republic of the Congo, in the form

of officia1 apologies, the payinent of damages reflecting the
gravity of the infringements and the prosecution of al1 those
responsible ;
- provide specific guarantees and assurances that it will never

again in the future commit any of the above-mentioned vio-
lations against the Democratic Republic of the Congo"; ARMED ACTlVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 664

4. Whereas on 20 April 2001, within the time-limit fixed for that pur-

pose by the Order of the Court dated 21 October 1999, Uganda filed its
Counter-Memorial; whereas in Chapter XVlII of its Counter-Memorial
the Ugandan Government contended that "[tlhe Republic of Uganda has
for more than seven years been the victim of the military operations and
other destabilizing activities of hostile armed groups either sponsored or

tolerated by successive Congolese governments"; and whereas it added:
"[Nlow that the DRC has introduced proceedings, Uganda ~nust take
appropriate steps to ensure that justice is done, and that the responsibil-
ity generated by Congolese policies is recognized"; whereas, in the
section entitled "C. The Counter-Claims" in the same chapter of its

Counter-Memorial, the Ugandan Government stated the following:

"In the first place, the Government of Uganda relies upon various
principles of customary or general international law. Thus the Court
is asked to adjudge and declare that the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is responsible for the following breaches of its obligations

under customary or general international law.

(a) The ohligat ion not tousr force uguinst Ugundu

............................
(b) Tlie obligalion not to intervene in the internuluj'jùirof Uguntlu

(c) Tlie ohligution not to provide lrz.ssi.stunto urmed groups car-,-
ing out military or paranliiitury uctivitie;, in urîd uguinst Ugunciu
hj' truinrng, urnling, eyirippirrg, financirîurzd supplying suc11
ur~~îe~gl'roups

In the second place, the Government of Uganda relies upon
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter ...
[That provision] is relied upon to support, in the alternative, the
above";
three obligations of customary law invoked ...
whereas that chapter of the Counter-Mernorial also includes sections

entitled"D. Specific Examples of Congolese Aggression", "E. The Attack
on the Ugandan Embassy and the Inhumane Treatment of Ugandan
Diplomatic Personnel and Other Ugandan Nationals", and "F. The
DRC's Violations of Its Obligations under the Lusaka Agreement"; and
whereas the Ugandan Government concludes its Counter-Memorial with
the following submissions :

"Reserving its right to supplement or amend its requests, the
Republic of Uganda requests the Court:

(1) To adjudge and declare in accordance with international law ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 665

(C) That the Counter-claims presented in Chapter XVIII of the

present Counter-Memorial be upheld.
(2) To reserve the issue of reparation in relation to the Counter-
claims for a subsequent stage of the proceedings";

5. Whereas on 11 June 2001, at a meeting held by the President of the
Court with the Agents of the Parties, the Congo, invoking Article 80 of
the Rules of Court, raised certain objections to the admissibility of the
counter-claims made in the Counter-Memorial of Uganda; whereas dur-

ing that meeting the two Agents agreed that their respective Govern-
ments would file written observations on the question of the admissibility
of the counter-claims; and whereas time-limits were agreed for this pur-
pose ;
6. Whereas on 28 June 2001 the Agent of the Congo filed in the

Registry the written observations of the Congolese Government on the
question of the admissibility of the Respondent's counter-claims; and
whereas, by letter dated 28 June 2001, the Registrar communicated a
copy of those observations to the Ugandan Government;
7. Whereas the Congo in its written observations maintains that
"Uganda's perfunctory and incomplete claims are incompatible with the

forma1 req~iirements [of] Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court":
whereas it contends that

"[tlhe assertions presented by Uganda as counter-claims cannot be
considered to 'appear' in the submissions in the Counter-Memorial
[and] neither what the Court is being requested to adjudge and
declare . . . nor, moreover, whether and to what extent Uganda is
assertiiîg a claim for reparation . . . can be determined from the
Counter-Mernorial" ;

whereas it states that "[tlhe initial difficulty is quite simply to identify,
even broadly, what those 'claims' are"; whereas it adds that "[ilt is un-

thinkable that the issue of reparation could be settled - with respect to
the actual principle of the right to reparation, not the modalities of that
reparation - at 'a aubsequent stage of the proceedings' ", that "having
once filed its Counter-Memorial, Uganda would no longer be entitled to
formulate one or more counter-claims by presenting demands for repara-
tion" and that "[alccordingly, it is necessary either to presume a claim not

appearing in the submissions or to dismiss those submissions as defec-
tive"; and whereas it concludes that there is nothing to "prevent . . . the
Court from declaring Uganda's 'claims' to be incompatible with the
requirements of Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules";

8. Whereas the Congo states, 'hot only in the alternative but also on a
hypothetical basis", the following: "The Democratic Republic of the Congo will assume for purposes
of its argument that the [counter-Iclaims relate to the entire (un-

defined) set of facts recounted in Chapter XVIII [of Uganda's
Counter-Memorial], although they cannot be extended to repara-
tions, which are not sought therein. In this connection it will distin-
guish the following four categories of allegations:

- the claim relating to alleged aggression by the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo as far as it concerns the period beginning in
1998 ;
-- the claim relating to alleged aggression by the Democratic Repub-

lie of the Congo as far as it concerns the period prior to the cre-
ation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
- the claims relating to alleged attacks on Ugandan diplomatie
premises and personnel in Kinshasa;
- the claims relating to aileged violations by the Democratic Repub-

lic of the Congo of the Lusaka Agreements.
The term 'claim' is used for convenience hereinafter, even though it
is decidedly inappropriate . . . as a designation for Uganda's conten-
tions. The Democratic Republic of the Congo will show in any event

that none of those claims, other than the first one, meets the require-
ment of a 'direct connection' imposed by Article 80, paragraph 1, of
the Rules of Court";

9. Whereas the Congo first points out that "Uganda . . .justifies its
occupation of Congolese territory by claiming circumstances of 'lawful
self-defence' [and that, alccording to the Respondent, this self-defence

came in response to earlier aggression by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, of which it claims to have been the victim"; whereas the Congo
adds :

"That aggression allegedly began in 1994, when the Congolese
State was known by another name (Zaire) and was governed by
another Head of State within the context of another political régime.
It is said to have temporarily ceased from May 1997until May 1998,

when it allegedly resumed. Uganda does not however claim to be
reacting to attacks said to have been carried out against it during al1
those periods. The Respondent argues that three .. . periods must be
carefully distinguished in order to identify the 'acts of aggression'
motivating Uganda's acts of 'self-defence', the third and last period

identified being the only one relevant to the argument":

arid whereas it quotes in this connection from paragraphs 360 to 366 of
Uganda's Counter-Memorial, wherein Uganda refers, for purposes of the
application of Article 5 1of the United Nations Charter to the facts of the
case, to the following "three separate periods": "from early 1994 to ARMED ACTlVlTIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 667

approximately May 1997", "the period May 1997 onwards" and "the
period May to August 1998"; whereas the Congo states that:

"[alt this prelirninary stage of consideration of the admissibility of

the questions presented by way of counter-claims, it . . . stress[es] the
importance of focusing on the logic underlying the reasoning in
Uganda's Counter-Mernorial[, which ] . ..consists of invoking self-
defence as the justification for its occupation of Congolese territory
from August 1998, in response to aggression allegedly beginning
in May of that year";

and whereas it infers from this that "[a] contrario, Uganda does not rely

on events occurring during the first two periods mentioned as support for
its self-defence argument";
10. Whereas the Congo, referring to the requirement of a "direct con-
nection" laid down by Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court,
contends that

"in order for a counter-claim to be accepted as such, [the require-
ment of a 'direct connection'] presupposes, first, that the new claim

is connected in fact as well as in law with the claims originally for-
mulated by the [applicant] and, second, that the arguments advanced
by the counter-claimant must both support the counter-claim and
enable [it] to 1-efutesome or al1 of the principal claims originally
made against it";

whereas it states that "ltlhe existence of a factual connection has been
L 2
assessed by the Court on the basis of several factors, which overall may
be summarized as a requirement of unity of place, action and time", that
"[glenerally speaking, [a connection in law] presupposes that the legal
subject-matter of the two claims (principal claim and counter-claim) is
identical", and that "there is [such] a legal connection . .. only if a vio-

lation of the same legal instruinent(s) or the same legal rules is at issue in
both claims": and whereas the Congo adds that

"[tlhe practice shows that a direct coniiection between the counter-
claim and the principal claim requires, in addition to the demonstra-
tion of a relationship in fact and in law between them, that the
counter-claimant's arguments must both support the counter-claim
and be pertinent for purposes of rebutting the principal claim";

11. Whereas the Congo states, with respect to the period from May
to August 1998,that "Uganda's clairn . . . satisfies the requirement under
Article 80 of a direct connection in respect both of the existence of factual
and legal links and of the relationship between the claim and the defences
asserted to the principal claim" : ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 668

12. Whereas the Congo maintains that this is not so as regards "[tlhe
claim relating to alleged aggression by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo as far as it concerns the period prior to [its] creation"; whereas it
asserts that "the events relating to [these] claims [by Uganda] and those
concerned by the Congo's Application u'idrzottuke pluce during tllcsume
périod, far from it"; whereas it considers that "the Respondent has not

shown any relationship between [this] question [which] it presents by way
of counter-claim and any of its defences"; and whereas the Congo further
argues that Uganda

"will riot be entitled to Varyits arguments at a later stage in the pro-
ceedings by suddenly claiming that the military activities it has con-
ducted since 1998 on the territory of the Congo ultimately represent
a reaction to the various armed actions allegedly taken against it

since 1994 by the Congo";
whereas it adds that "[sluch a sudden and radical change in the argument
would breach the principle of good faith, which is manifested in pro-

cedural tel-ms by inter (11ilthe doctrine of estoppel"; and whereas it
explains that, given the increased co-operation which took place between
the Ugandan authorities and the new Congolese authorities upon the
creation of the Deinocratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda "must be
deemed to have waived a claim for reparation or the right to draw

any legal inferences from events occurring before the social and political
revolution of 1997";
13. Whereas, in respect of the "claims relating to alleged attacks on
Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa", the Congo
maintains that they "do not meet the requirement of a 'direct connec-
tion"', as "those events are devoid of any connection whatsoever, whether

legal or factual. with the subject-matter of the claims initially asserted"
by the Congo; whereas it states that "[these incidents] indisputably
occurred during the same period as that in question in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo's main claims", but that the

"attacks on Ugandan premises, property and diplomatic personnel
in Kinshasa, on the one hand, and the aggression suffered by the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the continuing occupation of

part of its territory, the unlawful exploitation of its natural resources
and the massive violation of fundamental rights of part of its popu-
lation, on the other",
do not constitute "facts of the same nature . . ."; whereas it further

states:
"While Ugarida argues that there have been violations of the rules
goveriiing treatment of foreign nationals or of those concerning indi-

vidual rights, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Application is
based on violations of the principles of non-use of force, non-inter- vention, sovereignty of States (includingovertheir natural resources),
and of the rules governing the protection of fundamental human
rights, including during times of armed conflict";

and it concludes in this regard that the Parties cannot be considered as
"pursu[ing] . . . the same legal aim";

14. Whereas the Congo also maintains that Uganda's claims "relating
to alleged violations of the Lusaka Agreements by the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo do not meet the requirement of a 'direct connection'";
whereas it argues that,

"[wlhile it is conceivable . . . that the Respondent might focus the
debate on alleged prior acts of aggression which it suffered at the
hands of the Applicant . . ., it would appear strange at the very least
to broaden the debate to cover the issue of the Congolese national
dialogue, which involves participants, and raises questions, specific

to the Democratic Republic of the Congo's internal political régime
and its functioning . . . [and to] the vicissitudes and temporary
difficulties having marked the relations between the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and MONUC . ..";

whereas the Congo accordingly concludes that

"[elven though it is always possible to establish some links between
those specific issues and the problem of aggression against, and the
occupation of, the Democratic Republic of the Congo . . . it is more
than doubtful that what we find there are, in the words appearing
consistently in the Court's jurisprudence, facts 'of the same nature'" ;

whereas it further observes "that al1 the categories of events mentioned
above relate to legal rules which are . . .radically different from those
underlying the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Application";

whereas in this regard it contends the following:
"[The Congo's Application] is based essentially on the major

treaty-based and customary principles of the prohibition on the use
of force, non-intervention in internal affairs, respect for the perma-
nent sovereignty of States and their peoples over their natural
resources and the general obligation to respect and enforce human
rights. This part of Uganda's claims on the other hand is based
exclusively on one particular, specific instrument, referred to as the
Lusaka Agreement, which represents, in the terms used by Uganda,

a 'comprehensive system of public order' . . .";

and whereas the Congo then goes on to point out that "Article 80 of the
Rules of Court indicates by its very terms that the connection must be
with the subject-nzatter of the principal claim" and that "it is not only wrong in terms of fact but also logically impossible to
argue that the subject-matter of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo's claim could include. even indirectly and remotely, a factual
and legal context which did not even exist at the time it was filed";

whereas the Congo adds that "this part of [the] counter-claims . . . is not
at the same time a crucial defence argument, as required by Article 80,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, as those requirements have been
clarified in the Court's jurisprudence"; and whereas it concludes as fol-

lows:
"The Democratic Republic of the Congo does not deny Uganda

the right to refer a dispute to the Court concerning any violation of
the Lusaka Agreements, or the Court's right to adjudicate upon that
violation. That dispute should, however, be referred to the Court in
the normal way, not by the exceptional process of the counter-claims
procedure" ;

15. Whereas the Congo maintains finally, "[iln the further alternative",
and even assuming, "in any event", that "al1the Ugandan counter-claims

satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 80". that those
counter-claims "should not al1 be joined to the main proceedings pur-
suant to Article 80, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court"; whereas, in the
Congo's view, so to join the claims would be contrary to the "require-
ments of the sound administration of justice"; and whereas the Congo
considers that in the present case such joinder "would oblige both the

Court and the Parties to treat as an overall entity issues which are fun-
damentally distinct and separate, are governed by quite different legal
rules and refer to i'acts having occurred during periods which were in
some cases quite remote from one another";
16. Whereas at the close of its Written Observations the Congo

"requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the claims put
forward by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial are inadmissible as
counter-claims :

because they do not satisfy the formal conditions laid down by
Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court;
in the alternative, as regards the claims concerning respectively

the aggression alleged to have been committed by the Congolese
State before May 1997, the alleged attacks on Ugandan diplo-
matic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and the alleged
breaches of the Lusaka Agreements, because they do not satisfy
the condition of "direct connection" laid down by Article 80,
paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court;

in the further alternative, and in any event, because it would not be
appropriate, on the basis of considerations of expediency deriving
from the requirements of the sound administration of justice. to join the Ugandan claims to the proceedings on the merits pursuant
to Article 80, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court";

17. Whereas on 15 August 2001 the Agent of Uganda filed in the

Registry the observations of his Government on the admissibility of
the counter-claims made in its Counter-Memorial, taking into account
the observations submitted by the Congo; and whereas, by letter dated
15 August 2001, the First Secretary of the Court, Acting Registrar, com-
municated a copy of the Ugandan Goverilment's observations to the
Congolese Government ;

18. Whereas Uganda claims in its Written Observations that "[ilt is
not the case that Article 80, paragraph 2, contains 'formal require-
ments"' ; whereas it asserts that "the counter-claims are set out in the
Cotrnter-Mernorial in appropriate sequence"; whereas it observes that
sections C, D, E, and F of Chapter XVIlI of the Counter-Memorial show
the structure and sequence of the statement of Uganda's counter-claims

and focus upon the bases of those claims, and that it is difficult to see
what further precision could be required; and whereas, in respect of the
Congo's complaint that "it is not possible to determine if and to what
extent Uganda presents a claim for reparation", Uganda invokes the
Court's practice arid asserts that "[tlhe Submissions in the Counter-
Memorial state the position of Uganda with complete clarity";

19. Whereas, in respect of the admissibility of its counter-claims,
Uganda sets out "The Criteria for the Application of the Provisions of
Article 80" of the Rules of Court: whereas it states that the Court "has
. . . set forth a number of ancillary criteria to assist in the application of

the test of directonnection"; whereas it claims that "there is at least one
respect in which [the Congo] departs substantially from the generally rec-
ognized principles concerning the application of Article 80"; whereas it
states that "[tlhis departure takes the form of a[n] . . . exposition which
seeks to establish that a condition of admissibility is that the counter-
claim must have a close connection with the means of defence"; and

whereas it adds:
"This argument is baseless in principle and, indeed, . . . the Appli-

cant State accepts that there is no necessary coincidence between a
defence and a counter-claim. In any case, there is no support in
either the doctrine or the jurisprudence for this invention";

20. Whereas Uganda notes that, in the Congo's view, "the counter-
claim relating to the use of force in the period May to August 1998 is
admissible" and "Uganda is content to acknowledge this concession";

whereas it states "[h]owever, [that] the [Applicant's] Observutions are
silent as to the admissibility of the counter-claim insofar as it relates to
events subsequent to August 1998"; whereas it adds that "Uganda's ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 672

counter-claim describes the continuous and uninterrupted use of force
against Uganda for which the Congolese State bears responsibility from
1994 to the present"; and whereas it concludes on this point that "[tlhere
is no basis for limiting the scope of the counter-claim solely to the

period May-August 1998" ;

21. Whereas, in regard to the period prior to May 1998, Uganda con-
siders that its claini "satisfies the requirement of a 'direct connection'
imposed by Article 80, paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court"; whereas it

contends iri this connection that, "[bly conceding the admissibility of the
counter-claim for the period from May through August 1998, the DRC
has effectively conceded its admissibility for the eiitire period from 1994
to the present"; wliereas it argues that "the counter-claim describes a
c~ontinuou.\pattern of behaviour by the DRC, involving the illegal use of
force against . . . Upanda ri,itlzoutintrrruptiot~from 1994to the present";
whereas it adds that "the heads of the Congolese State have changed, and

the State itself has been renamed, but the illegal activities and the main
actors ideiatified in the counter-claiin have continued without interrup-
tion since 1994" and that,

"[iln particular, the six armed groups . . ., whose presence in the
DRC was formally acknowledged by the Congolese government
in July 1999, are the same armed groups that carried out regular

attacks against Uganda from Congolese territory in the period
1994- 1998" :

and whereas Uganda concludes from this
"The unlawful actibities conducted or supported by the Congolese

State prior to May 1998 are plainly part of the 'same complex of
facts' as those that took place subsequent to that date, and they are
part of the 'same complex of facts' as those upon which the DRC's
own 'illegal use of force' claim is based.hus, the facts upon which
Ugantla's counter-claim is based are directly coiinected to the sub-
ject matter of the DRC's claim";

whereas Uganda further maintains that "[tlhere is also a direct legal con-
nection between Uganda's counter-claim, including that part of it cover-
ing the years 1994-1998, and the original claim presented by the DRC";
and whereas it states to that effect that "Uganda's counter-claim is based,
like the DRC's clain~,on the same legal prohibition on the use of force in
international relations, and the same prohibition on providing military

support to irregular armed forces" and that "[tlhe counter-claim alleges,as does the original claim, a violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the
United Nations Charter";

22. Whereas in the section of its Written Observations entitled "The
Counter-Claim Relating to the Attack on the Ugandan Embassy and
the Inhumane Treatment of Ugandan Diplomatic Personnel and Other
Ugandan Nationals" Uganda contends that "[this] counter-claim satis-
fies Article 80, parzigraph 1"; whereas it points out in this connection

that :
"All of the criteria this Court has established for determining
compliance with the 'directly connected' standard have been met:

the facts at issue are of the same nature [as] many of the facts upon
which the DRCs claims are based. they are al1part of the same fac-
tua1 complex, and Uganda is pursuing inany of the same legal aims
as the Congo".

and whereas it adds that "the goal '. ~rocedural economv would be
served by allowing Uganda's counter-claim [to] be heard together with
Congo's claim"; whereas in support of its assertions Uganda refers in
particular to the following passage from the Congo's Application : "The
Democratic Republic of the Congo founds its case on the urmed uggres-

sion [emphasis in the original] which it has suffered since the invasion of
its territory on2 Aiigust 1998, together with al1of the . ..acts resulturzt
tl~erejrom[emphasis added by Uganda] . ..";whereas it infers from this
that "by Congo's own admission. this case is founded, at least in part, on
al1of the acts resultant from the purported invasion of its territory on or
around 2 August 1998": whereas it states that

"[slince the attacks on the Ugandan Embassy and Ugandan nation-
als began just clays later on 11August and were a direct outgrowth
of the hostilities on Congolese territory, Congo's own logic shows

that the Embassy attacks are directly connected to the DRC's
claims" ;

whereas in order to demonstrate that "[the] facts at the root of this por-
tion of [its] counter-claims are also of the same nature as many of the
so-called facts underpinning Congo's claim", it further makes the follow-
ing specific points:

"the DRC accuses Uganda of 'arbitrary detentions' and 'inhuman and
degrading treatment'. Application, p. 9. In a similar vein, Uganda's
counter-claim attacks the DRC's unlawful detention and inhumane
treatment of Ugandan diplomatie personnel and other nationals.

Countrr-Me~nolicrl, paras. 397, 399. Moreover, the DRC accuses Uganda of 'looting of public and private institutions' and 'theft of
property of the civilian population'. Application, p. 9. Uganda, for
its part, targets Congo's confiscation of . . . property belonging to
the Government of Uganda and Ugandan diplomatic personnel.

Counter-Mernoriul, para. 397. Finally, and not least significantly, al1
the acts in question were allegedly committed by the armies of the
two States that are parties to this proceeding. Just as DRC troops
were responsible for the attacks on the Ugandan Embassy and
Ugandan nationals, . . . Congo claims that Ugandan troops com-
mitted similar offences";

wliereas it further States that "[tlhe events in dispute . . . took place at the
same time and on the same territory (i.e., the territory of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo)"; and, in support of its contentions concerning a
legal connection, U,ganda adds the following:

"At page 17 of its Application, for example, Congo asserts that
Uganda is guiliy of 'human rights violations in defiance of the most
basic customary law'. Elsewhere, the DRC contends that it is
entitled to 'compensation from Uganda' for al1 acts of looting

and theft. Application, p.19. In a parallel fashion, Uganda's counter-
claim on this score is based on the DRC's 'breaches of the standard
of general international law based upon universally recognized stan-
dards of human rights', Counter-MernoriuI, para. 407, and demands
compensation for the unlawful expropriation of Ugandan property.
Counter-Mernorial, para. 408" ;

23. Whereas, in respect of its "Counter-Claim Relating to the DRC's
Violations of Its Obligations under the Lusaka Agreement", Uganda

asserts that

"[tlhe Lusaka Agreement . . . addresses the same issues as those

addressed by the DRC in its Application and Mernorial: armed con-
flict between Uganda and the DRC; the presence of Ugandan armed
forces on Congolese territory; the timing and conditions for the
withdrawal of :iuch forces; the harbouring of armed groups seeking
to destabilize neighbouring countries; the support of irregular forces
operating agaiilst neighbouring countries; the obligation to refrain

from harbouririg or supporting such forces; and the commitment to
disarm and dernobilize them" :

and that that Agreement "establishes a comprehensive system of public order whose purpose
is to end the armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the very same armed conflict that is the subject matter of the

DRC's Applic;ition, and to bring peace and stability to the DRC,
Uganda and neighbouring countries" ;

whereas Uganda also denies the Congo's argument that, "[as] the Lusaka
Agreement was signed on 10 July 1999, which [was] subsequent to the
filing of the Application on 23 June 1999", that claim "refers to a period
of time different from that referred to in the claim of the Democratic

Republic of the Congo"; whereas it States in this regard that "[iln fact,
the DRC's Mernoritzl complains of Uganda's alleged occupation of Con-
golese territory right up to the time of its filin- 19 July 2000 - which
is approximately one year after the Lusaka Agreement became effective" ;
and whereas it notes that the Congo in its Memorial "accuse[s] Uganda
of specific acts of armed aggression between August 1999 and March

2000 . .. [and] of violating the Lusaka Agreement by virtue of armed
activities on Congolese territory between 14 and 16 August 1999";
whereas Uganda concludes from the foregoing that:

"[its] counter-claim relating to the DRC's violations of the Lusaka
Agreement is admissible under Article 80 of the Rules of Court, and

the DRC's challenge must be rejected";

24. Whereas at the close of its Written Observations Uganda requests
the Court:

"First, to decide that the counter-claims presented in the Counter-
Mernorial satisfy the provisions of Article 80 of the Rules of Court;
and

Second, to reject al1the requests prescribed in the 0h.servations of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo dated 25 June 2001";

25. Whereas, by letter dated 5 September 2001, the Congo submitted
comments on Uganda's written observations, and whereas it further
stated in that letter that it "holds itself fully at the Court's disposa1 to
amplify its argumentsfurther at such oral hearings as the Court may con-

sider it appropriate to hold"; and whereas. by letter dated 8 October
2001, Uganda notecl that "[these] further comments offered on behalf of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo were not . . . requested by the
Court and were presented without authorization", that "[iln the circum-
stances, the letter signed by the Agent of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo cannot forni part of the pleadings in the case" and that "[tlhe ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 676

Republic of Uganda accordingly refrains from commenting upon the
substance of the issues raised in the letter signed by the Agent of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and reserves its position on the

matters raised therein" ;
26. Whereas, having received full and detailed written observations
from each of the Parties, the Court is sufficiently well informed of
the positions they hold with regard to the admissibility of the claims
presented as couriter-claims by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial;
and whereas, accordingly, it does not appear necessary to hear the

Parties further on the subject;

27. Whereas Article 80 of the Rules of Court in the version applicable
to the present proceedings provides:

"1. A counter-claim may be presented provided that it is directly
connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party and
that itcomes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. A counter-claim shall be made in the Counter-Memorial of the
party presenting it, and shall appear as part of the submissions of

that party.
3. In the event of doubt as to the connection between the question
presented by way of counter-claim and the subject-matter of the
claim of the other party the Court shall, after hearing the parties,
decide whether or not the question thus presented shall be joined to
the original proceedings";

28. Whereas it is necessary for the Court to consider whether the
Ugandan claims iri question constitute "counter-claims" and, if so,
whether they fulfil the conditions set out in Article 80 of the Rules of
Court;

29. Whereas, in its Order of 17 December 1997 in the case concerning
Applicutiorl oJ the Convention on tlle Prevention und Punishnîent of the
Crinle of Genoc.ido,the Court stated that :

"a counter-claim has a dual character in relation to the claim of the
other party ;whereas a counter-claim is independent of the principal
claim in so far as it constitutes a separate 'claim', that is to say an
autonomous legal act the object of which is to submit a new claim to
the Court, and, whereas at the same time, it is linked to the principal
claim, in so far as, formulated as a 'counter' claim, it reacts to it;

whereas the thrust of a counter-claim is thus to widen the original
subject-matter of the dispute by pursuing objectives other than the
mere dismissal of the claim of the Applicant in the main proceedings
- for example, that a findiiîg be made against the Applicant; and,
whereas in this respect, the counter-claim is distinguishable from a
defence on the merits" (I.C.J. Reports 1997. p. 256, para. 27);and whereas in the present case the claims presented as counter-claims by
Uganda in its Couiiter-Memorial seek. over and above the dismissal of

the claims made by the Congo, a ruling establishing the Congo's respon-
sibility and awarding reparations on that account; and whereas such
claims constitute "counter-claims";
30. Whereas the Congo does not deny that Uganda's claims fulfil the
"jurisdictional" condition laid down in paragraph 1of Article 80 of the
Rules of Court; whereas it contends, however, that those claims are
inadmissible as counter-claims because they do not fulfil the other con-

ditions set out in that provision;

31. Whereas the Congo asserts as its principal argument that "the
claims put forward by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial are inadmis-
sible as counter-claims" on the ground that they "do not satisfy the

formal conditions laid down by Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules
of Court";
32. Whereas Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court provides
that "[a] counter-claim shall be made in the Counter-Memorial of the
party presenting it. and shall appear as part of the submissions of that
party"; whereas the counter-claims of Uganda were set out in various
sections of Chapter XVlII of its Counter-Memorial entitled "The State

Responsibility of the DRC and the Counter-Claims of the Republic of
Uganda"; whereas those claims refer to acts by which the Congo is said
to have violated a number of international obligations in regard to
Uganda; and whei-eas Uganda. in the submissions in its Counter-
Memorial, requests the Court

"(1) To adjudge and declare in accordance with international law
...........................

(C) That the Counter-claims presented in Chapter XVIII of
the present Cotrnter-Memoriul be upheld.
(2) To reserve the issue of reparation in relation to the Counter-
claims for a subsequent stage of the proceedings";

33. Whereas Uganda's counter-claims could have been presented in a
clearer manner; whereas, however, their presentation does not deviate

from the requirements of Article 80. paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court
to such an extent that they should be held inadmissible on that basis;
whereas, moreover, it was permissible for Uganda to refer to a request
for reparation without the modalities thereof being stated at this stage;
and whereas the Congo's principal submission must therefore be denied: 34. Whereas the Congo contends in the alternative that

"the claims concerning respectively the aggression alleged to have
been committed by the Congolese State before May 1997,the alleged
attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa

and the alleged breaches of the Lusaka Agreements . . . do not
satisfy the condition of 'direct connection' laid down by Article 80,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court",

and that Uganda's counter-claims in this respect are therefore inadmis-
sible as such:

35. Whereas the Court has in its jurisprudence already had occasion to
state in the followirig terms the reasons why the admissibility of a coun-

ter-claim as such is contingent on the condition of a "direct connection"
set out in Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court: "whereas the
Respondent cannot use [the counter-claim procedure] . . . to impose on
the Applicant any daim it chooses, at the risk of infringing the Appli-
cant's 1-ightsand of compromising the proper administration of justice"
(Applic~rtion of' rllc Cotîvention oiî the Pr~vcntion crritPunis/ir?~erî tf'tl1~1

C,riilzco?' Getzocicke (Bosniu ertzclH~~rxgovin~r V. Yugoslirvitr), COL~teIIr-
Cltri1?7.s.rcic>orf'17 Dcc.cr?zhr1r997, 1.C.J. Rc1porr.s1997, p. 257, para. 3 1;
Oil P1~rtfO~rzî .Is.sIcit~i.epzrhlic of'Ira11v. Utzitrd St~rtes of'Anlericil),
Countcr-Clerir~~O , r(1erqf'IO Mtrrch 1998, I.C.J. R<~portslYY8, p. 203,
para. 33);

36. Whereas the Rules of Court do not however define what is meant
by "directly connected"; whereas it is for the Court to assess whether the
counter-claini is sufficiently connected to the principal claim, taking
account of the particular aspects of each case; and whereas, as a general
rule, whether there is the necessary direct connection between the claims

must be assessed both in fact and in law:
37. Whereas it if; appropriate in this case for the Court to consider
Uganda's counter-claims under separate heads, according to whether
they refer to: (1) acts of aggression allegedly committed by the Congo
against Uganda; (2) attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and per-

sonnel in Kinshasa and on Ugandan nationals for which the Congo is
alleged to be responsible: and (3) alleged violations by the Congo of the
Lusaka Agreement ;

38. Whereas, in respect of Uganda's first counter-claim (acts of
aggression allegedly committed by the Congo against Uganda), the 41. Whereas the Court considers that the second counter-claim sub-

mitted by Uganda is therefore directly connected with the subject-matter
of the Congo's claims;

42. Whereas, in respect of Uganda's third counter-claim (alleged vio-
lations by the Congo of the Lusaka Agreement), it is to be observed from
the Parties' submissions that Uganda's claim concerns quite specific
facts; whereas that claim refers to the Congolese national dialogue, to the
deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Demo-
cratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and to the disarmament and

demobilization of armed groups; whereas these questions, which relate to
nietlio(l.sjOsolving tlze conjiiicntthe region agreed at multilateral level
in a ceasefire accord having received the "strong support" of the United
Nations Security Council (resolutions 1291(2000) and 1304(2000)), con-
Cern facts of a different nature from those relied on in the Congo's

claims, which relate: to acts for which Uganda was allegedly responsible
(luring tllut conflict; whereas the Parties' respective claims do not there-
fore form part of the same factual complex; and whereas the Congo seeks
to establish Uganda's responsibility based on the violation of the rules
mentioned in paragraph 38 above, whilst Uganda seeks to establish the
Congo's responsibility based on the violation of specific provisions of the

Lusaka Agreement:, whercas thc Parties are thus ~iotpursuing the same
legal aims:

43. Whereas the Court considers that the third counter-claim sub-
mitted by Uganda is therefore not directly connected with the subject-

matter of the Congo's claims;

44. Whereas, at the conclusion of its Written Observations, the Congo

submitted in the further alternative that: "it would not be appropriate,
on the basis of considerations of expediency deriving from the require-
ments of the sound administration of justice, to join the Ugandan claims
to the proceedings on the merits pursuant to Article 80, paragraph 3, of
the Rules of Court"; and whereas the Court, having found that the first
and second counter-claims submitted by Uganda are directly connected

with the subject-matter of the Congo's claims, takes the view that, on the
contrary, the sountl administration of justice and the interests of pro-
cedural economy cal1 for the simultaneous consideration of those
counter-claims and the principal claims; 45. Whereas, in light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the
first and second counter-claims submitted by Uganda are admissible as

such and form part of the present proceedings; and whereas the Court
considers, conversely, that such is not the case with respect to Uganda's
third counter-claim ;

46. Whereas a decision given on the admissibility of a counter-claim
taking account of the requirements of Article 80 of the Rules of Court in
no way prejudges any question with which the Court would have to deal
during the remainder of the proceedings;
47. Whereas, in order to protect the rights which third States entitled

to appear before the Court derive from the Statute, the Court instructs
the Registrar to transmit a copy of this Order to them;

48. Whereas when, in accordance with the provisions of its Rules, the
Court decides, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to

rule on the respective claims of the Parties in a single set of proceedings,
it must not, for al1that, lose sight of the interest of the Applicant to have
its claims decided within a reasonable time-period;

49. Whereas, during the meeting which the President of the Court held
on II June 2001 with the Agents of the Parties (see paragraph 5 above),

each of the Parties indicated that it wished to be able to file a further
written pleading on the merits; whereas the two Agents were invited to
express their views as to suitable time-limits to be fixed for the filing of
these further pleadings in the event that the Court decided that their sub-
mission was necessary; whereas each Party responded that, in that event,
it would wish to have a time-limit of six months to prepare its pleading;

whereas such a time-limit appears reasonable in this case;

50. Whereas, taking into account the conclusions it has reached
above regarding the admissibility of the Ugandan counter-claims, the
Court considers it necessary for the Congo to file a Reply and

Uganda a Rejoinder, addressiiig the claims of both Parties in the
curreilt proceedings; and whereas. as the Court has already decided
in other cases (see Apldicution of'tlze Convention on the Prrventiorz
cirîtPiini.sl~mentof tli~ Crinze of'Gctzocidc~(Bosniu LIII~Hc~rz~govi~z u.
Yugo.sl~ii.iu), Courlter-Cluin~s, Order oj' 17 Becenzher 1997, I.C.J.
Rel7ortx 1997, p. 260, para. 42; Oil Pl(rtfi,vrns (IsI(inîic R~puhlic- of'

I~LIIV. Unite(/ St~lre.sof'Anzc~rictrj,Courzter-Cluinî, Orciel.oJ IO Mtrrcll
I!J98, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 206, para. 45; Land unr/ M~~riti~ne
Bount/l~rj% hetii9er1zCunzcroorz (irzd Nigeria, Ortler qf' 30 Junc. 1999,
LCJ. Rel7ort.s 1999, p. 986), it is also necessary, in order to ensure
strict equality between the Parties, to reserve the right of the Congo

to present its views in writing a second time on the Ugandan counter-claims, in an additional pleading which may be the subject of a subse-
quent Order;

51. For these reasons,

(A) (1) Unanimously,

Findr that the first counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda
in its Counter-Memorial is admissible as such and forms part of the cur-
rent proceedings ;

(2) By fifteen votes to one,

Fincl.\ that the second counter-claim submitted by the Republic of
Uganda in its Counter-Memorial is admissible as such and forn-ispart of
the current proceedings;

IN F~VOIIR: Pre.si~/t>ztuillaume; Vice-Pre.c.i~/etzSthi; Judgc.r Railjeva.
Herczegh. Flei,schhauer, Korori-ia. Vereshchetin, Higgins. Parra-
Arang~iren. Kooijmans. Rezek. Al-Kl-iasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby:
JzrsIcad hoc Kateka ;

,\C~~ZINSTJLI(/~~d hoc Verhoeven ;

(3) Unanimously,
Fir1c1tsat the third counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda

in its Counter-Memorial is inadmissible as such and does not form part
of the current proceedings;

(B) Unanimously,

Dirrcts the Democratic Republic of the Congo to submit a Reply and
the Republic of Uganda to submit a Rejoinder relating to the claims of
both Parties in the current proceedings and ,fi.rec the following dates as
time-limits for the filing of those pleadings:

For the Reply of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 29 May

2002:
For the Rejoinder of the Republic of Uganda, 29 November 2002:
and

Rr.\eri~c~the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-ninth day of November, two
thousand and one, in three copies, one of which will be placed in thearchives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government
of'the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Government of the

Republic of Uganda, respectively.

(Sig~zed) Gilbert GUILLAIIME.
President.

(Signcd) Philippe COUVREUR.

Registrar.

Judge atl hoc VERHOEVEa Nppends a declaration to the Order of the
Court.

(Initiullc~/) G.G.

(lrzitiulked) Ph.C.

Bilingual Content

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DES ACTIVITÉS ARMÉES

SUR LE TERRITOIRE DU CONGO

(RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO c. OUGANDA)

ORDONNANCE DU 29 NOVEMBRE2001

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES

ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO

(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO YUGANDA)

ORDER OF 29 NOVEMBER 2001 Mode officiede citation:
Activités arméessur le territoire du Congo
(Républiquedéfiîocr-atiquedu Congo c. Ouganda),
ord)nnancedu 229noilen~hte2001,I.J. Recueil2001, p. 660

Official citation :
Arm~lriActivities on the Terrofothe Congo
(Detnormtic Rcprbli(fthe Congo v. Ugundc,)
Orderoj 29 Novevllher2001,C.J. Rrpotts 2001, p. 660

N0dC?VeIltC?:833 1
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number
ISBN 92-1-070935-7 29 NOVEMBRE 2001

ORDONNANCE

ACTIVITÉS ARMÉES
SUR LE TERRITOIRE DU CONGO

ARMED ACTIVITIES
ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO

(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v.UGANDA)

29 NOVEMBER 2001

ORDER COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

ANNÉE 2001
29 novembre
Rôle général
n"116 29 novembre2001

AFFAIRE DES ACTIVITÉS ARMÉES

SUR LE TERRITOIRE DU CONGO

(REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO c. OUGANDA)

ORDONNANCE

Présents:M. GUILLAUMp Er,ésident; M. SHI,vicr-président; MM. RAN-
JEVA,HERCZEGH,FLEISCHHAUER K,OROMA,VERESHCHETIN,
Mln" HIGGINSM, M. PARRA-ARANGURE KN,OIJMANS R,EZEK,
AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAE L, ARABYju,gesMM. VER-

HOEVEN K,ATEKA , ges ad hoc; M. COUVREURg,qffier.

La Cour internationale de Justice,

Ainsi composée,
Après délibéen chambre du conseil,

Vu l'article 48 du Statut de la Cour et les article80de son 45 et
Règlement,

Rend l'ordonnance suivante:

1.Considérant que, le 23 ju1999,le Gouvernement de la Répu-
blique démocratique du Congo (dénomméeci-après lego ») a déposé
au Greffe de la Cour une requête introductive d'instance contre le Gou-
vernement de la République de l'Ouganda (dénomméeci-après l'«Ou-
ganda)))ausujet d'un différend relatif à «des actes d'ugre.ssion urmée
perpétréspar l'Ouganda sur le territoire de la République démocratique
du Congo en violation flagrante de la Charte des Nations Unies et de la

Charte de l'Organisation de l'unité africaine)); que, dans sa requête,le INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 2001 2001
29 November
General List
29 November2001 No. 116

CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES

ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO

(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO v. UGANDA)

ORDER

Present: President GUILLAUMEV ; ice-Presiilent SHI; Juclges RANJEVA,

HEKCZEGHF,LEISCHHAII~K R, ROMAV , ERESHCHETIHNI,GGINS,
E'ARRA-ARANGUREN K,OOIJMANS,REZEK, AL-KHASAWNEH,
BUERGENTHE ALA,RABY;Judges ad hoc VERHOEVEN K,ATEKA;
Rrgi.rtrirrCOUVREUR.

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberatiori,
Having regard to Article 48 of theStatute of the Court and to

Articles1,44, 45and 80 of the Rules of Court,
Mukes thefollotving Order

1. Whereas on 23 June 1999the Government of the Democratic Repub-
lic.of the Congo (hereinafter "the Congfiled in the Registry of the
Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Government of

the Republic of Uganda (hereinafter "Ugandain respect of a dispute
concerning "acts of trrtnedaggression perpetrated by Uganda on the ter-
ritory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in flagrant violation of
the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organizaofon
African Unity"; whereas in its Application the Congo founds the-Congo a invoqué comme base de compétence les déclarations faites par
les deux Etats en application du paragraphe 2 de l'article 36 du Statut; et

que, au terme de sa requête,il a formulé les demandes ci-après:
((En conséquence,tout en se réservantle droit de compléteret pré-
ciser la présente demande en cours d'instance, la République démo-

cratique du Congo prie la Cour de:
Dire et juger que:

CI) l'Ouganda s'est rendu coupable d'un acte d'agression au sens de
I'article1 de la résolution 3314 de l'Assemblée générale des
Nations Unies du 14 décembre 1974et de la jurisprudence de la
Cour internationale de Justice, en violation de I'article 2, para-
graphe 4, de la Charte des Nations Unies;

h) de même,l'Ouganda viole continuellement les conventions de
Genèvede 1949et leurs protocolesadditionnels de 1977,bafouant
ainsi les règles élémentairesdu droit international humanitaire
dans les zones de conflits, se rendant égalementcoupable de vio-
lations massives des droits de l'homme au méprisdu droit cou-
tumier le plus élémentaire;

c) plus spécifiquement, en s'emparant par la force du barrage
hydroélectrique d'Inga, et en provoquant volontairement des
coupures électriques régulières et importantes, au mépris du
prescrit de l'article 56 du protocole additionnel de 1977,
l'Ouganda s'est rendu responsable de très lourdes pertes hu-
maines dans la ville de Kinshasa forte de 5 millions d'habitants

et alentour;
d) en abattant a Kindu, le 9 octobre 1998,un Boeing 727, propriété
de la compagnie Congo Airlines, et en provoquant ainsi la mort
de quarante personnes civiles, l'Ouganda a également violé la
convention relative a l'aviation civile internationale du 7 dé-
cembre 1944 signéeà Chicago, la convention de La Haye du

16décembre 1970pour la répressionde la capture illicite d'aéro-
nefs et la convention de Montréal du 23 septembre 1971pour la
répression d'actes illicites dirigéscontre la sécuritéde I'aviation
civile.

En cons6qttc.rîcct~,conjormkt~zentLIUXoh1igatioiijr4rirliquesinter-
nutionales ~u.srnentionnke.s,ire c.tjuger que:
1) toute force armée ougandaise participant .i l'agression doit quit-

ter sans délai le territoire de la République démocratique du
Congo ;
2) l'Ouganda a l'obligation de faire en sorte que ses ressortissants,
tant personnes physiques que morales, se retirent immédiatement
et sans condition du territoire congolais;
3) la République démocratique du Congo a droit a obtenir de

l'Ouganda le dédommagement de tous les pillages, destructions,
déportations de biens et des personnes et autres méfaitsqui sont ARMED ACTlVlTlES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 66 1

diction of the Court on the declarations made by the two States under

Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute; and whereas the Congo concludes
its Application with the following submissions:

"Consequently, and whilst reserving the right to supplement and
amplify the present request in the course of the proceedings, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo requests the Court to:

Adjud,qe ancl clvclare thut:
(LI) llganda is guilty of an act of aggression within the meaning of

Article 1 of resolution 3314 of the General Assembly of the
United Nations of 14December 1974 and of the jurisprudence
of the International Court of Justice, contrary to Article2,para-
graph 4, of the United Nations Charter;
(h) further, Uganda is committing repeated violations of the

Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of
1977, in flagrant disregard of the elementary rules of interna-
tional humanitarian law in conflict zones, and is also guilty of
massive human rights violations in defiance of the most basic
customary law ;

(c) nîore specifically, by taking forcible possession of the Inga
hydroelectric dam, and deliberately and regularly causing mas-
sive electrical power cuts, in violation of the provisions of
Article 56 of the Additional Protocol of 1977, Uganda has
rendered itself responsible for very heavy losses of life among

the 5 million inhabitants of the city of Kinshasa and the sur-
rounding area;
(cl) by shooting down, on 9 October 1998 at Kindu, a Boeing 727
the property of Congo Airlines, thereby causing the death of 40
civilians, Uganda has also violated the Convention on Interna-

tional Civil Aviation signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944,
the Hague Convention of 16 December 1970 for the Suppres-
sion of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the Montreal Conven-
tion of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful
Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

Cotz.requent&, cznd purmunt to the aforrmentioncd internurional
/egczl oh/ig(ltio~~toLIC/~UC/~unci c/oc/are that

(1) al1 Ugandan armed forces participating in acts of aggression
shall forthwith vacate the territory of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo;

(2) Uganda slîall secure the immediate and unconditional with-
drawal from Congolese territory of its nationals, both natural
and legal persons;
(3) the Democratic Republic of the Congo is entitled to compensa-
tion from Uganda in respect of al1acts of looting, destruction,

removal of property and persons and other unlawful acts attri- imputables à l'Ouganda et pour lesquels la République démocra-
tique du Congo se réserve le droit de fixer ultérieurement une
évaluation précise des préjudices, outre la restitution des biens
emportés »;

2. Considérant que, le 19juin 2000, le Congo a présentéà la Cour une
demande en indication de mesures conservatoires en vertu de l'article 41
du Statut; et que, par ordonnance du 1" juillet 2000, la Cour a indiqué
certaines mesures conservatoires;
3. Considérant que, le 19juillet 2000, dans le délaifixéà cet effet par

l'ordonnance de la Cour en date du 21 octobre 1999, le Congo a déposé
son mémoire, au terme duquel il a présentéles conclusions ci-après:

«La République démocratique du Congo, tout en se réservant le
droit de compléter ou de modifier les présentes conclusions, et de

fournir à la Cour de nouvelles preuves et de nouveaux arguments
juridiques pertinents dans le cadre du présent différend. priela Cour
de dire et juger:

1) Que la République de l'Ouganda, en se livrant S des actions
militaires et paramilitaires à l'encontre de la République démocra-
tique du Congo, en occupant son territoire, et en soutenant active-
ment, sur les plans militaire, logistique, économique et financier des

forces irrégulièresqui y opèrent, a violéles principes conventionnels
et coutumiers suivants:

- le principe du non-recours à la force dans les relations inter-
nationales, y compris l'interdiction de l'agression;
- l'obligation de réglerles différendsinternationaux exclusivement
par des moyens pacifiques de telle manière que la paix et la sécu-
rité internationales ainsi que la justice ne soient pas mises en

danger ;
- le respect de la souveraineté des Etats et du droit des peuples à
disposer d'eux-mêmeset donc de choisir librement et sans ingé-
rence extérieure leur régimepolitique et économique;

- le principe de non-intervention dans les affaires qui relèventde la
compétence nationale des Etats, y compris en s'abstenant de
toute assistance aux parties à une guerre civile opérant sur le ter-
ritoire d'un autre Etat;

2) Que la République de l'Ouganda, en se livrant à une exploita-
tion illégaledes ressources naturelles congolaises, et en spoliant ses
biens et ses richesses, a violé lesprincipes conventionnels et coutu-

miers suivants :
- le respect de la souveraineté des Etats, y compris sur ses res-

sources naturelles;
- le devoir de favoriser la réalisation du principe de l'égalitédes
peuples et de leur droit à disposer d'eux-mêmes,et par consé- butable to Uganda, in respect of which the Democratic Republic
of the Congo reserves the right to determine at a later date the

precise amount of the damage suffered, in addition to its claim
for the restitution of al1property removed";

2. Whereas on 19 June 2000 the Congo submitted to the Court a
request for the indication of provisional measures pursuant to Article 41
of the Statute; and whereas, by Order of 1 July 2000. the Court indicated

certain provisional measures;
3. Whereas on 19 July 2000, within the time-limit fixed for that pur-
pose by the Order of the Court dated 21 October 1999, the Congo filed
its Memorial, at the conclusion of which it made the following submis-

sions :

"The Democratic Republic of the Congo, while reserving the right
to supplement or modify the present submissions and to provide the
Court with fresh evidence and pertinent new legal arguments in the
context of the present dispute, requests the Court to adjudge and

declare :
1. That the Republic of Uganda, by engaging in military and

paramilitary activities against theDemocraticRepublic of the Congo,
by occupying its territory and by actively extending military, logistic,
economic and financial support to irregular forces operating there,
has violated the following principles of conventional and customary

law:
- the principle of non-use of force in international relations, includ-

ing the prohibition of aggression :
- the obligation to settle international disputes exclusively by
peaceful means soas to ensure that international peace and secu-
rity, as well as justice, are not placed in jeopardy;

- respect for the sovereignty of States and the rights of peoples to
self-determination, and hence to choose their own political and
economic system freely and without outside interference;
- the principle of non-interference in matters within the domestic

jurisdiction of States, which includes refraining froin extending
any assistance to the parties to a civil war operating on the ter-
ritory of another State;

2. That the Republic of Uganda, by engaging in the illegal exploi-
tation of Congolese natural resources and by pillaging its assets and
wealth, has violated the following principles of conventional and

customary law
- respect for the sovereignty of States, including over their natural

resources ;
- the duty to promote the realization of the principle of equality of
peoples and of their right of self-determination, and consequently quent de ne pas soumettre des peuples a la subjugation, à la
domination ou a l'exploitation étrangères;

le principe de non-intervention dans les affaires qui relèventde la
compétence nationale des Etats, y compris dans le domaine éco-
nomique ;

3) Que la République de l'Ouganda, en se livrant a des exactions
à l'encontre des ressortissants de la République démocratique du
Congo, en tuant, blessant, enlevant ou spoliant ces ressortissants, a
violéles principes conventionnels et coutumiers suivants:

- le principe conventionnel et coutumier de l'obligation de respec-
ter et faire respecter les droits fondamentaux de la personne, y
compris en période de conflit armé;

- les droits des ressortissants congolais a bénéficierdes droits les
plus élémentairesen matière civile et politique, comme en matière
économique, sociale et culturelle;

4) Que, du fait de toutes les violations énoncées ci-dessus,la
République de l'Ouganda est tenue, dans la mesure et selon les
modalitéspréciséesau chapitre VI du présent mémoire,et conformé-
ment au droit international coutumier:

de cesser immédiatement tout fait internationalement illicite qui
se poursuit de façon continue, et en particulier son occupation
du territoire congolais, son soutien aux forces irrégulièresopé-

rant en République démocratique du Congo, sa détention illé-
gale de ressortissants congolais et son exploitation des ressources
naturelles et des richesses congolaises;
de réparer tous les types de dommages causéspar tous les types
d'actes illicites qui lui sont imputables, et ce quelle que soit la

longueur du lien de causalité existant entre ces actes et ces dom-
mages ;
par conséquent, d'effectuer une réparation en nature lorsque cela
s'avére encore matériellement possible, en particulier en ce qui
concerne les ressources, les biens et les richesses congolais qui
seraient encore en sa possession;

à défaut, de fournir une somme couvrant l'intégralitédes dom-
mages subis, et qui couvre notamment les exemples mentionnés
au paragraphe 6.65 du présent mémoire;
par ailleurs. et en tout état de cause, d'accorder satisfaction pour
les outrages infligésa la République démocratique du Congo, a
la fois sous la forme d'excuses officielles,de l'octroi de dom-

mages-intérêtscorrespondant à la gravité des violations, et de
poursuites dirigéescontre tous les individus responsables;
de fournir des garanties et assurances spécifiquestendant à ce
qu'elle n'adopte plus à l'avenir l'une quelconque des violations
mentionnées ci-dessus à l'encontre de la République démocra-

tique du Congo)); to refrain from exposing peoples to foreign subjugation,domina-
tion or exploitation;
- the principle of non-interference in matters within the domestic

jurisdiction of States, including economic matters;

3. That the Republic of Uganda, by committing acts of oppres-
sion against the nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
by killing, injuring, abducting or despoiling those nationals, has vio-

lated the following priiiciples of conventional and customary law:
- the principle of conventional and customary law involving the

obligation to respect and ensure respect for fundamental human
rights, incliiding in times of armed conflict:
- the entitlenient of Congolese nationals to enjoy the most basic
rights, both civil and political, as well as economic, social and

cultural ;

4. That, in light of al1the violations set out above, the Republic
of Uganda shall, to the extent of and in accordance with, the par-
ticulars set out in Chapter VI of this Memorial, and in conformity
with customary international law :

cease forthwith any continuing internationally wrongful act. in
particular its occupation of Congolese territory, its support for

irregular forces operating in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, its unlawful detention of Congolese nationals and its
exploitatiori of Congolese wealth and natural resources;

make reparation for al1 types of damage caused by al1 types of
wrongful act attributable to it, no matter how remote the causal
link between the acts and the damage concerned;

accordingly make reparation in kind where this is still physically
possible, in particular restitution of any Congolese resources,
assets or wealth still in its possession;

- failing this, furnish a sum covering the whole of the damage suf-
fered, including. in particular, the examples mentioned in para-
graph 6.65 of this Memorial;
- further, in any event, render satisfaction for the insults inflicted
by it upon the Deinocratic Republic of the Congo, in the form

of officia1 apologies, the payinent of damages reflecting the
gravity of the infringements and the prosecution of al1 those
responsible ;
- provide specific guarantees and assurances that it will never

again in the future commit any of the above-mentioned vio-
lations against the Democratic Republic of the Congo"; 4. Considérant que, le 20 avril 2001, dans le délaifixé cet effet par
l'ordonnance de la Cour en date du 21 octobre 1999,l'Ouganda a déposé
son contre-mémoire; que, au chapitre XVlll de son contre-mémoire, le

Gouvernement ougandais a exposéque: (([plendant plus de sept ans, la
Républiquede l'Ouganda a été victime des opérations militaires et d'autres
activitésde groupes armés qui lui sont hostiles visanti la déstabiliser,qui
étaientsoit parrainées, soit toléréespar les Gouvernements congolais suc-
cessifs)); et qu'il a ajouté: (([Mlaintenant que la République démocra-
tique du Congo a introduit une instance, l'Ouganda doit prendre les
mesures qui garantiront que justice soit faite et que la responsabilité en-

gendrée par les politiques congolaises soit reconnue)); considérant que,
dans le mêmechapitre de son contre-mémoire, dans une section intitulée
<<C. Les demandes reconventionnelles», le Gouvernement ougandais a
indiquéce qui suit:

((Premièrement, le Gouvernement ougandais invoque divers prin-
cipes du droit international coutumier ou général.Aussi la Cour est-
elle priéede dire et juger que la République démocratique du Congo
est responsable de la violation des obligations qui sont les siennes en
vertu du droit international coutumier ou général.Ces obligations

sont les suivantes:
a) Itztertlictiotz(lu recouuslu,force contre I'Ougurzdtz

............................
c) Ii?terdictiorz(lefoztnzir une uide airsgroupe.carn?éstncnut~t (ks
opc;rutiorzsrnilituireotrpartiinilituire,~en Oztgundu et contrecrt
Etat, c>nentrclîl?unt,urnlcmt, Pquipcrnt,fitîunçcrnt et ruvitur/l(~rzt

1esdit.sgroup~.~~irtnt;.~

Deuxièmement, le Gouvernement ougandais invoque le para-
graphe 4 de l'articl2 de la Charte des Nations Unies...

[Cette disposition] est invoqué[e]pour corroborer subsidiairement
les trois obligations de droit coutumier citées... ci-dessus));

que ledit chapitre du contre-mémoire comprend également des sections
intitulées«D. Exemples concrets de l'agression congolaise)), «E. Attaque
de l'ambassade de l'Ouganda et traitement inhumain du personnel diplo-
matique ougandais ainsi que d'autres ressortissants ougandais)) et
NF. Violation de l'accord de Lusaka par la République démocratique du
Congo)); et considérant que, au terme de son contre-mémoire, le Gou-
vernement ougandais a présentéles conclusions ci-après:

«Tout en se réservant le droit de compléter ou de modifier ses
demandes, la République de l'Ouganda prie la Cour:

1) De dire et juger, conformément au droit international, ARMED ACTlVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 664

4. Whereas on 20 April 2001, within the time-limit fixed for that pur-

pose by the Order of the Court dated 21 October 1999, Uganda filed its
Counter-Memorial; whereas in Chapter XVlII of its Counter-Memorial
the Ugandan Government contended that "[tlhe Republic of Uganda has
for more than seven years been the victim of the military operations and
other destabilizing activities of hostile armed groups either sponsored or

tolerated by successive Congolese governments"; and whereas it added:
"[Nlow that the DRC has introduced proceedings, Uganda ~nust take
appropriate steps to ensure that justice is done, and that the responsibil-
ity generated by Congolese policies is recognized"; whereas, in the
section entitled "C. The Counter-Claims" in the same chapter of its

Counter-Memorial, the Ugandan Government stated the following:

"In the first place, the Government of Uganda relies upon various
principles of customary or general international law. Thus the Court
is asked to adjudge and declare that the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is responsible for the following breaches of its obligations

under customary or general international law.

(a) The ohligat ion not tousr force uguinst Ugundu

............................
(b) Tlie obligalion not to intervene in the internuluj'jùirof Uguntlu

(c) Tlie ohligution not to provide lrz.ssi.stunto urmed groups car-,-
ing out military or paranliiitury uctivitie;, in urîd uguinst Ugunciu
hj' truinrng, urnling, eyirippirrg, financirîurzd supplying suc11
ur~~îe~gl'roups

In the second place, the Government of Uganda relies upon
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter ...
[That provision] is relied upon to support, in the alternative, the
above";
three obligations of customary law invoked ...
whereas that chapter of the Counter-Mernorial also includes sections

entitled"D. Specific Examples of Congolese Aggression", "E. The Attack
on the Ugandan Embassy and the Inhumane Treatment of Ugandan
Diplomatic Personnel and Other Ugandan Nationals", and "F. The
DRC's Violations of Its Obligations under the Lusaka Agreement"; and
whereas the Ugandan Government concludes its Counter-Memorial with
the following submissions :

"Reserving its right to supplement or amend its requests, the
Republic of Uganda requests the Court:

(1) To adjudge and declare in accordance with international law C) que les demandes reconventionnelles présentées au cha-
pitre XVIII du présentcontre-mémoire doivent êtreretenues.

2) De réserver la question de la réparation due au titre des
demandes reconventionnelles pour un stade ultérieur de la
procédure» ;

5. Considérant que, le 11juin 2001, lors d'une réunionque le président
de la Cour a tenue avec les agents des Parties, le Congo, invoquant I'ar-

ticle 80 du Règlement, a soulevé certaines objections à la recevabilité
des demandes reconventionnelles formulées dans le contre-mémoire de
l'Ouganda; considérant que, au cours de la mêmeréunion, les deux
agents ont acceptéque leurs gouvernements respectifs déposentdes obser-
vations écritessur la question de la recevabilité desdemandes reconven-
tionnelles; et que des délais ont été convenusà cet effet;
6. Considérant que, le 28 juin 2001, l'agent du Congo a déposéau

Greffe les observations écritesdu Gouvernement congolais sur la ques-
tion de la recevabilitédes demandes reconventionnelles du défendeur; et
considérant que, par lettre en date du 28 juin 2001, le greffier a commu-
niqué copie desdites observations au Gouvernement ougandais;
7. Considérant que, dans ses observations écrites,le Congo soutient
que «le caractère sommaire et lacunaire des prétentions ougandaises est

incompatible avec les prescriptions formelles [de] l'article 80, para-
graphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour)); qu'il expose que
cc[o]nne peut pas considérer que les prétentions présentéescomme
des demandes reconventionnelles par l'Ouganda ((figurent» dans les

conclusions du contre-mémoire [et] qu'on ne peut déterminer, à par-
tir du contre-mémoire, ni ce que la Cour est invitéeà dire et juger...
ni, par ailleurs, si et dans quelle mesure l'Ouganda formule une
demande en réparation »;

qu'il précise qu'c<[u]nepremière difficulté consiste tout simplement à
identifier, même grossièrement,quelles sont les «demandes» dont il est
question)); qu'il ajoute qu'<<[ilest ... inconcevable que la question de la
réparation soit tranchée dans son principe même,et non dans ses moda-
lités,à un «stade ultérieur de la procédure)), que «[l]'Ouganda ne pour-
rait ... plus, après que son contre-mémoire [eut] été déposé, prétendre

formuler une ou plusieurs demandes reconventionnelles, en présentant
des réclamations en matière de réparation)) et que, «[d]ans ces condi-
tions, on est amenésoit à présumer une demande qui ne figure pas dans
les conclusions, soit à écarter ces dernières comme irrégulières));et qu'il
conclut que rien ne devrait ((empêcherla Cour de déclarer les «de-
mandes» ougandaises incompatibles avec les prescriptions de l'article 80,

paragraphe 2. du Règlement));
8. Considérant que le Congo, <<àtitre subsidiaire. mais aussi hypothé-
tique», expose ce qui suit: ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 665

(C) That the Counter-claims presented in Chapter XVIII of the

present Counter-Memorial be upheld.
(2) To reserve the issue of reparation in relation to the Counter-
claims for a subsequent stage of the proceedings";

5. Whereas on 11 June 2001, at a meeting held by the President of the
Court with the Agents of the Parties, the Congo, invoking Article 80 of
the Rules of Court, raised certain objections to the admissibility of the
counter-claims made in the Counter-Memorial of Uganda; whereas dur-

ing that meeting the two Agents agreed that their respective Govern-
ments would file written observations on the question of the admissibility
of the counter-claims; and whereas time-limits were agreed for this pur-
pose ;
6. Whereas on 28 June 2001 the Agent of the Congo filed in the

Registry the written observations of the Congolese Government on the
question of the admissibility of the Respondent's counter-claims; and
whereas, by letter dated 28 June 2001, the Registrar communicated a
copy of those observations to the Ugandan Government;
7. Whereas the Congo in its written observations maintains that
"Uganda's perfunctory and incomplete claims are incompatible with the

forma1 req~iirements [of] Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court":
whereas it contends that

"[tlhe assertions presented by Uganda as counter-claims cannot be
considered to 'appear' in the submissions in the Counter-Memorial
[and] neither what the Court is being requested to adjudge and
declare . . . nor, moreover, whether and to what extent Uganda is
assertiiîg a claim for reparation . . . can be determined from the
Counter-Mernorial" ;

whereas it states that "[tlhe initial difficulty is quite simply to identify,
even broadly, what those 'claims' are"; whereas it adds that "[ilt is un-

thinkable that the issue of reparation could be settled - with respect to
the actual principle of the right to reparation, not the modalities of that
reparation - at 'a aubsequent stage of the proceedings' ", that "having
once filed its Counter-Memorial, Uganda would no longer be entitled to
formulate one or more counter-claims by presenting demands for repara-
tion" and that "[alccordingly, it is necessary either to presume a claim not

appearing in the submissions or to dismiss those submissions as defec-
tive"; and whereas it concludes that there is nothing to "prevent . . . the
Court from declaring Uganda's 'claims' to be incompatible with the
requirements of Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules";

8. Whereas the Congo states, 'hot only in the alternative but also on a
hypothetical basis", the following: «La République démocratique présumera, aux fins de la démon-
stration, que les demandes [reconventionnelles] portent sur I'en-
semble (indéterminé)des faits qui sont relatésdans le chapitre XVIII

[du contre-mémoire de l'Ouganda], sans toutefois qu'on puisse les
étendre à des réparations qui n'y sont pas sollicitées. Elle distin-
guera à cet effet les quatre catégories d'allégations suivantes:
la demande relative à la prétendue agression de la République

démocratique du Congo, en ce qu'elle concerne la période com-
mençant en 1998;
la demande relative A la prétendue agression de la République
démocratique du Congo. en ce qu'elle concerne la période anté-
rieure à la création de la République démocratique du Congo;
les demandes relatives aux prétendues attaques des bâtiments et

du personnel diplomatiques ougandais à Kinshasa;
les demandes relatives aux prétendues violations des accords de
Lusaka par la République démocratique du Congo.
Le terme de «demande» est utilisépar facilitédans la suite des pré-

sentes observations même[s'il] ne convient certainement pas pour
désigner les prétentions ougandaises. La République démocratique
du Congo démontrera en tout état de cause que, A l'exception de la
première d'entre elles, aucune de ces demandes ne satisfait à la
condition de ((connexité directe)) requise par l'article 80, para-
graphe 1, du Règlement de la Cour));

9. Considérant que le Congo fait tout d'abord observer que l'«Ou-
ganda justifie son occupation d'une partie du territoire congolais en se
prévalant d'une situation de ((légitimedéfense))[et que, slelon le défen-

deur, cette légitime défenserépondrait à une agression préalable dont il
aurait été victimede la part de la République démocratique du Congo));
que le Congo ajoute ce qui suit:

((Cette prétendue agression aurait commencé en 1994, à une
époque où 1'Etat congolais connaissait une autre dénomination (le
Zaïre), et étaitgouvernépar un autre chef d'Etat, dans le cadre d'un
autre régimepolitique; elle aurait connu une interruption entre mai
1997 et mai 1998, et aurait repris ensuite. L'Ouganda ne prétend
cependant pas réagir aux attaques qui auraient été perpétrées A son

encontre durant toutes ces périodes ... selon l'argumentation du
défendeur, il convient en effet de distinguer soigneusement trois
périodes ... aux fins de déterminer les ((actes d'agression)) qui
auraient motivé l'action ougandaise en ((légitimedéfense)),seule la
troisième et dernière période identifiéeétant pertinente pour justifier
l'argument »;

et qu'il cite à cet égard les paragraphes 360 à 366 du contre-mémoire de
l'Ouganda dans lesquels ce dernier fait état, aux fins de l'application de
l'article 51 de la Charte des Nations Unies aux faits de la cause, des
((trois périodes distinctes))suivantes: «du début de 1994au mois de mai "The Democratic Republic of the Congo will assume for purposes
of its argument that the [counter-Iclaims relate to the entire (un-

defined) set of facts recounted in Chapter XVIII [of Uganda's
Counter-Memorial], although they cannot be extended to repara-
tions, which are not sought therein. In this connection it will distin-
guish the following four categories of allegations:

- the claim relating to alleged aggression by the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo as far as it concerns the period beginning in
1998 ;
-- the claim relating to alleged aggression by the Democratic Repub-

lie of the Congo as far as it concerns the period prior to the cre-
ation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
- the claims relating to alleged attacks on Ugandan diplomatie
premises and personnel in Kinshasa;
- the claims relating to aileged violations by the Democratic Repub-

lic of the Congo of the Lusaka Agreements.
The term 'claim' is used for convenience hereinafter, even though it
is decidedly inappropriate . . . as a designation for Uganda's conten-
tions. The Democratic Republic of the Congo will show in any event

that none of those claims, other than the first one, meets the require-
ment of a 'direct connection' imposed by Article 80, paragraph 1, of
the Rules of Court";

9. Whereas the Congo first points out that "Uganda . . .justifies its
occupation of Congolese territory by claiming circumstances of 'lawful
self-defence' [and that, alccording to the Respondent, this self-defence

came in response to earlier aggression by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, of which it claims to have been the victim"; whereas the Congo
adds :

"That aggression allegedly began in 1994, when the Congolese
State was known by another name (Zaire) and was governed by
another Head of State within the context of another political régime.
It is said to have temporarily ceased from May 1997until May 1998,

when it allegedly resumed. Uganda does not however claim to be
reacting to attacks said to have been carried out against it during al1
those periods. The Respondent argues that three .. . periods must be
carefully distinguished in order to identify the 'acts of aggression'
motivating Uganda's acts of 'self-defence', the third and last period

identified being the only one relevant to the argument":

arid whereas it quotes in this connection from paragraphs 360 to 366 of
Uganda's Counter-Memorial, wherein Uganda refers, for purposes of the
application of Article 5 1of the United Nations Charter to the facts of the
case, to the following "three separate periods": "from early 1994 to1997environ », «a partir du mois de mai 1997» et «de mai a août 1998»;
considérant que le Congo déclare que:

«[a]u stade préliminaire de l'examen de la recevabilité desdemandes
présentéescomme reconventionnelles, [il] tient ... à insister sur la
logique du raisonnement exposédans le contre-mémoire ougandais

qui ... consiste a invoquer la Iégitimedéfensepour justifier son occu-
pation du territoire congolais à partir du mois d'août 1998, et cecien
réactionà une prétendue agression qui aurait commencéen mai de la
mêmeannée »;

et qu'il en infèreque, <<[a/contrario, l'Ouganda ne se fonde pas sur les
faits intervenus pendant les deux premières périodes qu'il mentionne
pour appuyer son argument de légitimedéfense));
10. Considérant que le Congo, se référantà la condition de ((connexité

directe)) prévue au paragraphe 1 de l'article 80 du Règlement, soutient
que

«pour qu'une demande reconventionnelle puisse êtreacceptée en
tant que telle, [l'exigence de ((connexité directe))] suppose, d'une
part, que cette demande nouvelle présente une connexité tant fac-
tuelle que juridique avec les prétentions initialement formuléespar le
[demandeur] et, d'autre part. que les arguments avancés par le

demandeur sur reconvention [à la fois fondent] la demande recon-
ventionnelle et [lui] permettent ...de repousser tout ou partie des
demandes principales initialement dirigéescontre lui));

qu'il préciseque «[l]a connexité factuelle a étéappréciéepar la Cour sur
la base de plusieurs éléments,qui peuvent globalement être synthétisés
dans l'exigence d'une unitéde lieu, d'action et de temps)), que la «notion
de connexitéjuridique ...suppose, de façon générale,que l'objet juridique
des deux demandes (reconventionnelle et principale) soit identique)) et

qu'une telle connexitéjuridique «n'est présenteque lorsque c'est laviola-
tion duou des même(s)instrument(s) juridique(s) ou des mêmesrèglesde
droit qui est mise en cause dans l'une et l'autre de ces demandes)); et que
le Congo ajoute que,

«[o]utre l'établissement d'une relation factuelle et juridique entre
les demandes, la pratique montre que la connexité directe entre de-
mandes reconventionnelle et principale doit également résulterdu

fait que les arguments avancés par le demandeur sur reconvention
doivent à la fois fonder la demande reconventionnelle et êtreperti-
nents pour réfuter la demande principale)):

11. Considérant que, pour la période s'étendant demai à août 1998,le
Congo indique que «la demande ougandaise remplit la condition de
connexité requise par l'article 80, et ce pour ce qui concerne tant I'exis-
tence de liens factuels etjuridiques que l'articulation de la demande avec
les moyens de défensedéveloppésà titre principal)); ARMED ACTlVlTIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 667

approximately May 1997", "the period May 1997 onwards" and "the
period May to August 1998"; whereas the Congo states that:

"[alt this prelirninary stage of consideration of the admissibility of

the questions presented by way of counter-claims, it . . . stress[es] the
importance of focusing on the logic underlying the reasoning in
Uganda's Counter-Mernorial[, which ] . ..consists of invoking self-
defence as the justification for its occupation of Congolese territory
from August 1998, in response to aggression allegedly beginning
in May of that year";

and whereas it infers from this that "[a] contrario, Uganda does not rely

on events occurring during the first two periods mentioned as support for
its self-defence argument";
10. Whereas the Congo, referring to the requirement of a "direct con-
nection" laid down by Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court,
contends that

"in order for a counter-claim to be accepted as such, [the require-
ment of a 'direct connection'] presupposes, first, that the new claim

is connected in fact as well as in law with the claims originally for-
mulated by the [applicant] and, second, that the arguments advanced
by the counter-claimant must both support the counter-claim and
enable [it] to 1-efutesome or al1 of the principal claims originally
made against it";

whereas it states that "ltlhe existence of a factual connection has been
L 2
assessed by the Court on the basis of several factors, which overall may
be summarized as a requirement of unity of place, action and time", that
"[glenerally speaking, [a connection in law] presupposes that the legal
subject-matter of the two claims (principal claim and counter-claim) is
identical", and that "there is [such] a legal connection . .. only if a vio-

lation of the same legal instruinent(s) or the same legal rules is at issue in
both claims": and whereas the Congo adds that

"[tlhe practice shows that a direct coniiection between the counter-
claim and the principal claim requires, in addition to the demonstra-
tion of a relationship in fact and in law between them, that the
counter-claimant's arguments must both support the counter-claim
and be pertinent for purposes of rebutting the principal claim";

11. Whereas the Congo states, with respect to the period from May
to August 1998,that "Uganda's clairn . . . satisfies the requirement under
Article 80 of a direct connection in respect both of the existence of factual
and legal links and of the relationship between the claim and the defences
asserted to the principal claim" : 12. Considérant que le Congo soutient qu'il n'en estpas de mêmepour
ce qui est de «[l]a demande relative à la prétendue agression de la Répu-
blique démocratique du Congo, en ce qu'elle concerne la période anté-

rieure à [s]a création)); qu'il affirme que «les événementsqui concernent
respectivement [clesprétentions ougandaises et la requêtedu Congo nese
sont pus d6roul6s pen~lunt lu mêmepPrio~ie,loin s'en faut»; qu'il estime
qu'«aucune articulation n'a été établiepar le défendeur entre [cette]
demande qu'il présente comme reconventionnelle et l'un quelconque de
ses moyens de défense));et considérant que le Congo prétend en outre

que l'Ouganda
«ne pourrait plus, à un stade ultérieurde la procédure, modifier son
argumentation en prétendant soudain que les activités militaires

qu'il a poursuivies depuis 1998 sur le territoire du Congo constitue-
raient finalement une réaction à l'ensemble des prétendues actions
arméesque le Congo aurait menéesà son encontre depuis 1994));

qu'il ajoute qu'une telle ((modification soudaine et radicale de I'argumen-
tation se heurterait ... au principe de bonne foi qui, sur le plan procédu-
ral, se traduit notamment par l'institution de la forclusion)); et qu'il
explique que, compte tenu de la collaboration accrue qui s'est manifestée
entre les autorités ougandaises et les nouvelles autorités congolaises au

moment de la création de la République démocratique du Congo,
l'Ouganda ((doit êtreconsidérécomme ayant renoncé à demander répa-
ration ou à tirer de quelconques conséquencesjuridiques des événements
antérieurs à la révolution sociale et politique de 1997));
13. Considérant que, pour ce qui a trait aux ((demandes relatives aux
prétendues attaques des bâtiments et du personnel diplomatique ougan-

dais à Kinshasa)), le Congo soutient que lesdites demandes «ne satisfont
pas à la condition de ((connexité directe)), étant donné que «ces événe-
ments sont dépourvus de tout rapport de connexité, tant juridique que
factuelle, avec l'objet des prétentions initialement formulées)) par le
Congo; qu'il expose que «[ces incidents] s'inscrivent indubitablement
dans la même périodeque celle concernéepar les demandes principales de

la République démocratique du Congo)), mais que
«les atteintes aux locaux, aux biens et au personnel diplomatique
ougandais à Kinshasa, d'une part, et l'agression subie par la Répu-

blique démocratique du Congo, l'occupation continue d'une partie
de son territoire, l'exploitation illégalede ses ressources naturelles et
la violation massive des droits fondamentaux d'une partie de sa
population, d'autre part D,

ne constituent pas des ((faits de mêmenature)); qu'il explique en outre ce
qui suit :

«Alors que ce sont des violations des règlesrelatives au traitement
des étrangers ou aux droits individuels qui sont avancées par
l'Ouganda, la requêtede la République démocratique du Congo se
fonde quant à elle sur des manquements aux principes du non- ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 668

12. Whereas the Congo maintains that this is not so as regards "[tlhe
claim relating to alleged aggression by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo as far as it concerns the period prior to [its] creation"; whereas it
asserts that "the events relating to [these] claims [by Uganda] and those
concerned by the Congo's Application u'idrzottuke pluce during tllcsume
périod, far from it"; whereas it considers that "the Respondent has not

shown any relationship between [this] question [which] it presents by way
of counter-claim and any of its defences"; and whereas the Congo further
argues that Uganda

"will riot be entitled to Varyits arguments at a later stage in the pro-
ceedings by suddenly claiming that the military activities it has con-
ducted since 1998 on the territory of the Congo ultimately represent
a reaction to the various armed actions allegedly taken against it

since 1994 by the Congo";
whereas it adds that "[sluch a sudden and radical change in the argument
would breach the principle of good faith, which is manifested in pro-

cedural tel-ms by inter (11ilthe doctrine of estoppel"; and whereas it
explains that, given the increased co-operation which took place between
the Ugandan authorities and the new Congolese authorities upon the
creation of the Deinocratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda "must be
deemed to have waived a claim for reparation or the right to draw

any legal inferences from events occurring before the social and political
revolution of 1997";
13. Whereas, in respect of the "claims relating to alleged attacks on
Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa", the Congo
maintains that they "do not meet the requirement of a 'direct connec-
tion"', as "those events are devoid of any connection whatsoever, whether

legal or factual. with the subject-matter of the claims initially asserted"
by the Congo; whereas it states that "[these incidents] indisputably
occurred during the same period as that in question in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo's main claims", but that the

"attacks on Ugandan premises, property and diplomatic personnel
in Kinshasa, on the one hand, and the aggression suffered by the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the continuing occupation of

part of its territory, the unlawful exploitation of its natural resources
and the massive violation of fundamental rights of part of its popu-
lation, on the other",
do not constitute "facts of the same nature . . ."; whereas it further

states:
"While Ugarida argues that there have been violations of the rules
goveriiing treatment of foreign nationals or of those concerning indi-

vidual rights, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Application is
based on violations of the principles of non-use of force, non-inter- recours à la force, de non-intervention, de souveraineté des Etats, y
compris sur leurs ressources naturelles et aux règles relatives à la
protection des droits fondamentaux de la personne, y compris en

période de conflit armé»;
et qu'il conclut a cet égard que les Parties ne sauraient être considérées

comme «poursuiv[a]nt le mêmebut juridique));
14. Considérant que le Congo soutient égalementque les demandes de
l'Ouganda ((relatives aux prétendues violations des accords de Lusaka
par la Républiquedémocratique du Congo ne satisfont pas à la condition
de ((connexitédirecte)); qu'il explique que

<<[s]i'on peut concevoir ... que le défendeur centre le débat sur de
prétendus actes d'agression dont il aurait préalablement étéla vic-
time de la part de I'Etat demandeur ..., il paraît pour le moins
curieux d'élargir le débat ... [au] problème du dialogue national
congolais, qui implique des acteurs et qui met en jeu des questions

propres au régimepolitique interne de la République démocratique
du Congo et a son fonctionnement ... [, ainsi qu'aux] péripétieset
[aux] difficultés provisoires qui ont émailléles relations entre la
République démocratique du Congo et la MONUC ... n;

qu'il en déduit que

«[m]êmesi I'on peut toujours ... établircertains liens entre ces ques-
tions particulières et le problème de l'agression et de l'occupation de
la République démocratique du Congo, il est plus que douteux que
I'on se trouve là, pour reprendre l'expression qui ressort de façon
constante de lajurisprudence de la Cour, devant des faits <<demême
nature »;

qu'il observe en outre «que les catégories d'événementsprécitées ren-
voient toutes à des règlesjuridiques qui ..sont radicalement différentes

de celles qui sonta la base de la requêtede la République démocratique
du Congo»; qu'il soutient à cet égardce qui suit:

«[La requêtedu Congo] se fonde essentiellement sur les grands
principes conventionnels et coutumiers que constituent l'interdiction
du recours à la force, la non-intervention dans les affaires inté-
rieures, le respect de la souveraineté permanente des Etats et des
peuples sur leurs ressources naturelles, et l'obligation généralede res-
pecter et de faire respecter les droits de la personne. Cette partie
des prétentions ougandaises s'appuie en revanche exclusivement sur

un instrument spécifique et particulier, désignécomme l'accord
de Lusaka, qui constitue selon les termes mêmes utilisés par
l'Ouganda un «comprehensive system of public order »...»;

et qu'il fait valoir ensuite que «les termes mêmesde l'article 80 du Règle-
ment de la Cour indiquent que la connexitédoit s'entendre par rapport à
l'objet de la demande principale)) et que vention, sovereignty of States (includingovertheir natural resources),
and of the rules governing the protection of fundamental human
rights, including during times of armed conflict";

and it concludes in this regard that the Parties cannot be considered as
"pursu[ing] . . . the same legal aim";

14. Whereas the Congo also maintains that Uganda's claims "relating
to alleged violations of the Lusaka Agreements by the Democratic Repub-
lic of the Congo do not meet the requirement of a 'direct connection'";
whereas it argues that,

"[wlhile it is conceivable . . . that the Respondent might focus the
debate on alleged prior acts of aggression which it suffered at the
hands of the Applicant . . ., it would appear strange at the very least
to broaden the debate to cover the issue of the Congolese national
dialogue, which involves participants, and raises questions, specific

to the Democratic Republic of the Congo's internal political régime
and its functioning . . . [and to] the vicissitudes and temporary
difficulties having marked the relations between the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and MONUC . ..";

whereas the Congo accordingly concludes that

"[elven though it is always possible to establish some links between
those specific issues and the problem of aggression against, and the
occupation of, the Democratic Republic of the Congo . . . it is more
than doubtful that what we find there are, in the words appearing
consistently in the Court's jurisprudence, facts 'of the same nature'" ;

whereas it further observes "that al1 the categories of events mentioned
above relate to legal rules which are . . .radically different from those
underlying the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Application";

whereas in this regard it contends the following:
"[The Congo's Application] is based essentially on the major

treaty-based and customary principles of the prohibition on the use
of force, non-intervention in internal affairs, respect for the perma-
nent sovereignty of States and their peoples over their natural
resources and the general obligation to respect and enforce human
rights. This part of Uganda's claims on the other hand is based
exclusively on one particular, specific instrument, referred to as the
Lusaka Agreement, which represents, in the terms used by Uganda,

a 'comprehensive system of public order' . . .";

and whereas the Congo then goes on to point out that "Article 80 of the
Rules of Court indicates by its very terms that the connection must be
with the subject-nzatter of the principal claim" and that «il s'avère non seulement factuellement erroné mais aussi logique-

ment impossible de prétendre que l'objet de la demande de la Répu-
blique démocratique du Congo pouvait s'étendre, mêmede manière
indirecte et lointaine, ë un contexte factuel et juridique qui n'existait
mêmepas au moment de son dépôt));

considérant que le Congo ajoute que «cette partie des demandes recon-
ventionnelles ... ne constituepas en mêmetemps un argument essentiel de

défense, conformément aux exigences de l'article 80. paragraphe 1, du
Règlement telles que préciséespar lajurisprudence de la Cour)); et consi-
dérant qu'il conclut ainsi :

<La Républiquedémocratique du Congo ne déniepas à l'Ouganda
le droit de porter devant la Cour un différend portant sur la viola-
tion éventuelle desaccords de Lusaka, ni celui de la Cour de se pro-
noncer sur cette violation. Ce différend devrait toutefois être porté

devant la Cour par la voie habituelle, et non par le biais exceptionnel
de la procédure en demande reconventionnelle ... »:

15. Considérant que le Congo, (([à] titre très subsidiaire)),et à suppo-
ser,((en tout étatde cause)). que «toutes les demandes reconventionnelles
ougandaises répondent aux prescriptions des paragraphes 1 et 2 de I'ar-
ticle 80», soutient enfin qu'<<iln'y a pas lieu de ... joindre toutes [ces

demandes] à l'instance principale en application de I'article 80, para-
graphe 3, du Règlement));qu'une tellejonction, selon lui. serait contraire
aux ((exigences d'une bonne administration de la justice)); et que le
Congo estime qu'en l'espèceladite ((jonctionamènerait la Cour cornme
les Parties itenvisager sous un même ensembledes questions radicale-

ment distinctes, mettant en jeu des règlesjuridiques très différentes, et
renvo[yant] à des faits qui sont survenus durant des périodes parfois éloi-
gnéesles unes des autres));
16. Considérant qu'au terme de ses observations écritesle Congo

«prie la Cour de dire et juger que les prétentions avancées par
l'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire sont irrecevables e11tant que
demandes reconventionnelles :

- parce qu'elles ne remplissent pas les conditions de forme requises
par l'article 80, paragraphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour;

- subsidiairement, pour les prétentions concernant respectivement
la prétendue agression perpétréepar 1'Etat congolais avant mai
1997, les prétendues attaques à l'encontre des bâtiments et du
personneldiplomatiques ougandais a Kinshasa, et les prétendues
violations des accords de Lusaka, parce qu'elles ne remplissent
pas la condition de ((connexité directe)) requise par l'article 80,

paragraphe 1, du Règlement de la Cour;
très subsidiairement, et en tout état de cause, qu'il n'y a pas lieu
d'opérerlajonction au fond de l'ensemble des prétentions ougan-
daises en application de I'article 80.paragraphe 3,du Règlement "it is not only wrong in terms of fact but also logically impossible to
argue that the subject-matter of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo's claim could include. even indirectly and remotely, a factual
and legal context which did not even exist at the time it was filed";

whereas the Congo adds that "this part of [the] counter-claims . . . is not
at the same time a crucial defence argument, as required by Article 80,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, as those requirements have been
clarified in the Court's jurisprudence"; and whereas it concludes as fol-

lows:
"The Democratic Republic of the Congo does not deny Uganda

the right to refer a dispute to the Court concerning any violation of
the Lusaka Agreements, or the Court's right to adjudicate upon that
violation. That dispute should, however, be referred to the Court in
the normal way, not by the exceptional process of the counter-claims
procedure" ;

15. Whereas the Congo maintains finally, "[iln the further alternative",
and even assuming, "in any event", that "al1the Ugandan counter-claims

satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 80". that those
counter-claims "should not al1 be joined to the main proceedings pur-
suant to Article 80, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court"; whereas, in the
Congo's view, so to join the claims would be contrary to the "require-
ments of the sound administration of justice"; and whereas the Congo
considers that in the present case such joinder "would oblige both the

Court and the Parties to treat as an overall entity issues which are fun-
damentally distinct and separate, are governed by quite different legal
rules and refer to i'acts having occurred during periods which were in
some cases quite remote from one another";
16. Whereas at the close of its Written Observations the Congo

"requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the claims put
forward by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial are inadmissible as
counter-claims :

because they do not satisfy the formal conditions laid down by
Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court;
in the alternative, as regards the claims concerning respectively

the aggression alleged to have been committed by the Congolese
State before May 1997, the alleged attacks on Ugandan diplo-
matic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and the alleged
breaches of the Lusaka Agreements, because they do not satisfy
the condition of "direct connection" laid down by Article 80,
paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court;

in the further alternative, and in any event, because it would not be
appropriate, on the basis of considerations of expediency deriving
from the requirements of the sound administration of justice. to de la Cour, en raison de considérations d'opportunité liéesaux
impératifs d'une bonne administration de la justice));

17. Considérant que, le 15 août 2001, l'agent de I'Ouganda a déposé
au Greffe les observations de son gouvernement sur la recevabilité des
demandes reconventionnelles formulées dans son contre-mémoire, compte

tenu des observations présentéespar le Congo; et considérant que, par
lettre en date du 15août 2001, le premier secrétaire de la Cour, greffier en
exercice, a communiqué copie des observations du Gouvernement ougan-
dais au Gouvernement congolais;
18. Considérant que, dans ses observations écrites, I'Ouganda allègue
qu'«[il1n'est pas exact que le paragraphe 2 de l'article 80 contienne des
((exigences formelles)); qu'il affirme que «les demandes reconvention-

nelles sont exposéesdans le contre-~nktnoiredans l'ordre qui convient));
qu'il observe que les sections C,D, E et F du chapitre XVIII du contre-
mémoire révèlent lastructure et l'ordre dans lequel les demandes recon-
ventionnelles de I'Ouganda ont été présentées em t ettent en lumière les
fondements de ces demandes et qu'il est dès lors difficile de déter-
miner quelles autres précisions seraient nécessaires; et considérant que,
s'agissant du grief du Congo selon lequel «on ne [pourrait] déterminer

si et dans quelle mesure I'Ouganda formule une demande en répa-
ration», l'Ouganda invoque la pratique de la Cour et indique que «[l]es
conclusions formulées dans le contre-mémoire exposent très clairement
la position de l'Ouganda»;
19. Considérant que, s'agissant de la recevabilité de ses demandes
reconventionnelles, I'Ouganda se réfèreaux ((critères correspondant à
l'application des dispositions de l'article 80)) du Règlement; qu'il expose

que la Cour <<adéfini plusieurs critères auxiliaires destinés à faciliter
l'application du critère de la connexité directe)); qu'il allèguequ'«en une
occasion au moins, [le Congo] s'écarte, de façon importante, des prin-
cipes généralementadmis pour l'application de l'article 80)); qu'il indique
que (([clette exception prend la forme d'un exposé... vis[ant] à érigeren
condition de recevabilité l'obligation d'une étroite connexité entre la

demande reconventionnelle et les moyens de défense)); et qu'il ajoute ce
qui suit :

«Cet argument est en principe non fondé et d'ailleurs ...1'Etat
demandeur admet qu'il ne doit pas y avoir nécessairement de coïn-
cidence entre un moyen de défenseet une demande reconvention-
nelle. Quoi qu'il en soit, ni la doctrine ni la jurisprudence n'étayent
cette invention »;

20. Considérant que l'Ouganda rappelle que, selon le Congo, ((la
demande reconventionnelle relative a l'emploi de la force au cours de la
période de mai à août 1998 est recevable)) et «prend acte, avec satisfac-

tion, de cette concession»; qu'il expose que, (([nléanmoins, les observa-
tions [de 1'Etat demandeur] restent muettes sur la recevabilité de la
demande reconventionnelle pour ce qui concerne les événementposté- join the Ugandan claims to the proceedings on the merits pursuant
to Article 80, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court";

17. Whereas on 15 August 2001 the Agent of Uganda filed in the

Registry the observations of his Government on the admissibility of
the counter-claims made in its Counter-Memorial, taking into account
the observations submitted by the Congo; and whereas, by letter dated
15 August 2001, the First Secretary of the Court, Acting Registrar, com-
municated a copy of the Ugandan Goverilment's observations to the
Congolese Government ;

18. Whereas Uganda claims in its Written Observations that "[ilt is
not the case that Article 80, paragraph 2, contains 'formal require-
ments"' ; whereas it asserts that "the counter-claims are set out in the
Cotrnter-Mernorial in appropriate sequence"; whereas it observes that
sections C, D, E, and F of Chapter XVIlI of the Counter-Memorial show
the structure and sequence of the statement of Uganda's counter-claims

and focus upon the bases of those claims, and that it is difficult to see
what further precision could be required; and whereas, in respect of the
Congo's complaint that "it is not possible to determine if and to what
extent Uganda presents a claim for reparation", Uganda invokes the
Court's practice arid asserts that "[tlhe Submissions in the Counter-
Memorial state the position of Uganda with complete clarity";

19. Whereas, in respect of the admissibility of its counter-claims,
Uganda sets out "The Criteria for the Application of the Provisions of
Article 80" of the Rules of Court: whereas it states that the Court "has
. . . set forth a number of ancillary criteria to assist in the application of

the test of directonnection"; whereas it claims that "there is at least one
respect in which [the Congo] departs substantially from the generally rec-
ognized principles concerning the application of Article 80"; whereas it
states that "[tlhis departure takes the form of a[n] . . . exposition which
seeks to establish that a condition of admissibility is that the counter-
claim must have a close connection with the means of defence"; and

whereas it adds:
"This argument is baseless in principle and, indeed, . . . the Appli-

cant State accepts that there is no necessary coincidence between a
defence and a counter-claim. In any case, there is no support in
either the doctrine or the jurisprudence for this invention";

20. Whereas Uganda notes that, in the Congo's view, "the counter-
claim relating to the use of force in the period May to August 1998 is
admissible" and "Uganda is content to acknowledge this concession";

whereas it states "[h]owever, [that] the [Applicant's] Observutions are
silent as to the admissibility of the counter-claim insofar as it relates to
events subsequent to August 1998"; whereas it adds that "Uganda'srieurs à août 1998)); qu'il ajoute que <<lademande reconventionnelle
dénonce l'emploi continu et ininterrompu de la force contre l'Ouganda
dont I'Etat congolais s'est rendu responsable de 1994 iiaujourd'hui));et

qu'il conclut sur ce point qu'~[il1n'y a aucune raison de limiter la portée
de la demande reconventionnelle uniquement à la période comprise
entre mai et août 1998));
21. Considérant que, s'agissant de la période antérieure à mai 1998,
l'Ouganda estime que sa demande ((satisfait ... à la condition de
((connexité directe)) requise par l'article 80, paragraphe 1, du Règle-
ment)); qu'à cet égard ilfait valoir qu'«[e]n admettant la recevabilitéde

la demande reconventionnelle pour la période de mai à août 1998, la
République démocratique du Congo a en fait reconnu que cette demande
reconventionnelle était recevable pour l'ensemble de la périodede 1994 a
aujourd'hui)); qu'il expose que «la demande reconventionnelle décritun
comportement contirîu de la République démocratique du Congo, qui
s'est traduit par l'emploi illicite de la force contre l'Ougan~~a7.inter-
ruption de 1994 à aujourd'hui»; qu'il ajoute que «les chefs de 1'Etat

congolais ont changéet que 1'Etatlui-mêmea étérebaptisé, mais [que] les
activités illicites ont continué [, que] les principaux acteurs citésdans le
contre-mémoire ont poursuivi leurs opérations sans interruption depuis
1994))et que,

«[e]n particulier, les six groupes armés ..., dont la présence sur le
territoire de la République déinocratique du Congo a été officielle-
ment confirmée par le gouvernement de cet Etat en juillet 1999,
sont ceux qui ont menédes attaques régulièrescontre l'Ouganda à
partir du territoire congolais au cours de la période de 1994 à

1998 »;
et que l'Ouganda en déduit ce qui suit

«Les activités illicites antérieurismai 1998, menées par 1'Etat
congolais ou bénéficiantde l'aide de cet Etat, font manifestement
partie du «mêmeensemble factuel complexe)) que celles qui ont été
menées après cette date et elles font partie du ((mêmeensemble

factuel complexe» que celles sur lesquelles la demande de la Répu-
blique démocratique du Congo relative à ((l'emploi illicite de la
force)) s'appuie. Par conséquent, les faits sur lesquels la demande
reconventionnelle de l'Ouganda est basée sont en connexité directe
avec l'objet de la demande de la République démocratique du
Congo » ;

considérant que l'Ouganda soutient en outre qu'«[il1y a égalemententre
la demande reconventionnelle de l'Ouganda, y compris la partie qui
couvre la période de 1994 à 1998, d'une part, et la demande initiale de
la République démocratique du Congo, d'autre part, une connexitéjuri-

dique directe)); et qu'il exposicet effet que, «[t]out comme la demande
de la République démocratique du Congo, la demande reconventionnelle
de l'Ouganda est baséesur l'interdiction juridique de recourir à la force ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 672

counter-claim describes the continuous and uninterrupted use of force
against Uganda for which the Congolese State bears responsibility from
1994 to the present"; and whereas it concludes on this point that "[tlhere
is no basis for limiting the scope of the counter-claim solely to the

period May-August 1998" ;

21. Whereas, in regard to the period prior to May 1998, Uganda con-
siders that its claini "satisfies the requirement of a 'direct connection'
imposed by Article 80, paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court"; whereas it

contends iri this connection that, "[bly conceding the admissibility of the
counter-claim for the period from May through August 1998, the DRC
has effectively conceded its admissibility for the eiitire period from 1994
to the present"; wliereas it argues that "the counter-claim describes a
c~ontinuou.\pattern of behaviour by the DRC, involving the illegal use of
force against . . . Upanda ri,itlzoutintrrruptiot~from 1994to the present";
whereas it adds that "the heads of the Congolese State have changed, and

the State itself has been renamed, but the illegal activities and the main
actors ideiatified in the counter-claiin have continued without interrup-
tion since 1994" and that,

"[iln particular, the six armed groups . . ., whose presence in the
DRC was formally acknowledged by the Congolese government
in July 1999, are the same armed groups that carried out regular

attacks against Uganda from Congolese territory in the period
1994- 1998" :

and whereas Uganda concludes from this
"The unlawful actibities conducted or supported by the Congolese

State prior to May 1998 are plainly part of the 'same complex of
facts' as those that took place subsequent to that date, and they are
part of the 'same complex of facts' as those upon which the DRC's
own 'illegal use of force' claim is based.hus, the facts upon which
Ugantla's counter-claim is based are directly coiinected to the sub-
ject matter of the DRC's claim";

whereas Uganda further maintains that "[tlhere is also a direct legal con-
nection between Uganda's counter-claim, including that part of it cover-
ing the years 1994-1998, and the original claim presented by the DRC";
and whereas it states to that effect that "Uganda's counter-claim is based,
like the DRC's clain~,on the same legal prohibition on the use of force in
international relations, and the same prohibition on providing military

support to irregular armed forces" and that "[tlhe counter-claim alleges,dans les relations internationales et sur l'interdiction de fournir une aide
militairea des forces armées irréguliéres))et que, «[c]omme le fait la de-
mande initiale, la demande reconventionnelle dénonce une violation du
paragraphe 4 de l'article2 de la Charte des Nations Unies));

22. Considérant que, dans la section de ses observations écrites inti-
tulée «La demande reconventionnelle relative à l'attaque de l'ambassade
de l'Ouganda et au traitement inhumain du personnel diplomatique
ougandais ainsi que d'autres ressortissants ougandais)), l'Ouganda sou-
tient que (([ladite] demande reconventionnelle ...satisfait aux conditions

du paragraphe 1 de l'article 80)); qu'il fait observer a cet égard que:
«Tous les critères déterminant le respect de la condition de
connexité directe qui ont été établispar la Cour sont satisfaits: les
faits considéréssont de mêmenature qu'un grand nombre de ceux

sur lesquels les prétentions de la Républiquedémocratique du Congo
s'appuient; ils font tous partie du mêmeensemble factuel complexe
et l'Ouganda poursuit des objectifs juridiques qui sont pour la plu-
part les mêmesque ceux poursuivis par le Congo));

et qu'il ajoute que ((l'examen conjoint de la demande reconventionnelle
de I'Ouganda et de la demande initiale du Congo permettrait d'atteindre
l'objectif de l'économiede procès)); considérant que, aux fins d'étayerses
affirmations, l'Ouganda se réfèrenotamment au passage suivant de la
requêtedu Congo: «La République démocratique du Congo base son

action sur I'ugreLssiorirnzi.r[lesitaliques sont dans l'original] dont elle est
victime depuis l'invasion de son territoire remontant au 2 août 1998ainsi
que toutes les esuctions qui s'el1sont SU~~~CS [les italiques sont de
l'Ouganda]...»; qu'il en infère que, «de l'aveu mêmedu Congo. cette
affaire est fondée, du moins en partie, sur toutes les exactions qui ont
suivi la prétendue invasion de son territoire à la date approximative du

2 août 1998»; qu'il expose que
«[é]tant donné que les attaques de l'ambassade de l'Ouganda ainsi
que des ressortissants ougandais n'ont commencéque quelques jours
plus tard, le 11 août plus exactement, et qu'elles étaient une consé-

quence directe des hostilités qui avaient éclatésur le territoire du
Congo, le raisonnement présentépar ce dernier Etat démontre que
les attaques de l'ambassade sont en connexité directe avec les pré-
tentions formulées par la République démocratique du Congo));

qu'à l'effet de démontrer que (([les]faits sur lesquels cette partie [de ses]
demandes reconventionnelles repose sont aussi de la mêmenature qu'un
grand nombre de ceux que le Congo allèguepour étayerses prétentions)),
il apporte par ailleurs les précisionssuivantes:

«la Républiquedémocratique du Congo accuse l'Ouganda de ((déten-
tions arbitraires)) et de ((traitements inhumains et dégradants))
(requête,p. 8). Dans le mêmeordre d'idée,la demande reconven-
tionnelle de l'Ouganda denonce la détention illicite et le traitement

inhumain par la République démocratique di1 Congo du personnelas does the original claim, a violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the
United Nations Charter";

22. Whereas in the section of its Written Observations entitled "The
Counter-Claim Relating to the Attack on the Ugandan Embassy and
the Inhumane Treatment of Ugandan Diplomatic Personnel and Other
Ugandan Nationals" Uganda contends that "[this] counter-claim satis-
fies Article 80, parzigraph 1"; whereas it points out in this connection

that :
"All of the criteria this Court has established for determining
compliance with the 'directly connected' standard have been met:

the facts at issue are of the same nature [as] many of the facts upon
which the DRCs claims are based. they are al1part of the same fac-
tua1 complex, and Uganda is pursuing inany of the same legal aims
as the Congo".

and whereas it adds that "the goal '. ~rocedural economv would be
served by allowing Uganda's counter-claim [to] be heard together with
Congo's claim"; whereas in support of its assertions Uganda refers in
particular to the following passage from the Congo's Application : "The
Democratic Republic of the Congo founds its case on the urmed uggres-

sion [emphasis in the original] which it has suffered since the invasion of
its territory on2 Aiigust 1998, together with al1of the . ..acts resulturzt
tl~erejrom[emphasis added by Uganda] . ..";whereas it infers from this
that "by Congo's own admission. this case is founded, at least in part, on
al1of the acts resultant from the purported invasion of its territory on or
around 2 August 1998": whereas it states that

"[slince the attacks on the Ugandan Embassy and Ugandan nation-
als began just clays later on 11August and were a direct outgrowth
of the hostilities on Congolese territory, Congo's own logic shows

that the Embassy attacks are directly connected to the DRC's
claims" ;

whereas in order to demonstrate that "[the] facts at the root of this por-
tion of [its] counter-claims are also of the same nature as many of the
so-called facts underpinning Congo's claim", it further makes the follow-
ing specific points:

"the DRC accuses Uganda of 'arbitrary detentions' and 'inhuman and
degrading treatment'. Application, p. 9. In a similar vein, Uganda's
counter-claim attacks the DRC's unlawful detention and inhumane
treatment of Ugandan diplomatie personnel and other nationals.

Countrr-Me~nolicrl, paras. 397, 399. Moreover, the DRC accuses diplomatique ougandais et d'autres ressortissants ougandais (contre-
ri14r?zoire,ar. 397-399). En outre, la République démocratique du
Congo accuse l'Ouganda de ((pillages systématiques des institutions
publiques et privées))et d'«expropriations des biens de la population

civile)) (requête.p.8). De son côté, l'Ouganda monte en épinglela
confiscation par le Congo de biens appartenant au Gouvernement de
l'Ouganda et au personnel diplomatique ougandais ... (contre-rîzk-
nloire, par. 397). Enfin, et de façon tout aussi significatilconvient
de constater que tous les actes considérésauraient été commispar les
armées des deux Etats parties 21la présente instance. Tandis que les

troupes de la République démocratique du Congo se sont rendues
responsables des attaques menéescontre l'ambassade de l'Ouganda
et des ressortissants ougandais, ..le Congo prétend que des troupes
ougandaises ont commis des exactions de mêmenature));

qu'il rappelle en outre que «les événementscontestés se sont produits
[non seulement] au mêmemoment [, mais aussi] sur le mêmeterritoire (à
savoir le territoire de la République démocratique du Congo))); et que. à
l'appui de ses allégations relatives à la connexité juridique, l'Ouganda
ajoute ce qui suit

«à la page 16 de la requête,le Congo prétend que l'Ouganda s'est
rendu coupable de c<violations ... des droits de l'homme au mépris
du droit coutumier le plus élémentaire)).Plus loin, la République
démocratique du Congo affirme qu'elle «a droit A obtenir de

l'Ouganda le dédommagement de tous les pillages et vols)) (requête,
p. 18). De la mêmefaçon, l'Ouganda fonde sa demande reconven-
tionnelle en l'espècesur la violation par la République démocratique
du Congo du ((principe du droit international général basésur les
principes universellement reconnus des droits de l'homme)) (contre-
~i~émoirep,ar. 407)et exige un dédommagement pour l'expropriation

illicite de biens ougandais (contre-ii~Pt)zoirc.p,ar. 408)));
23. Considérant que, s'agissant de sa «[d]emande reconventionnelle
relative aux violations par la République démocratique du Congo de

ses obligations découlant de l'accord de Lusaka)). l'Ouganda fait valoir
que
<<[l]'accordde Lusaka ... traite des mêmesquestions que celles que la
République démocratique du Congo examine dans sa requêteet son

nlénloire: conflit armé entre l'Ouganda et la République démocra-
tique du Congo; présence de forces arméesougandaises sur le terri-
toire congolais; calendrier et modalités du retrait desdites forces;
hébergement de groupes armés s'efforçant de déstabiliser les pays
voisins; soutien de forces irrégulièresmenant des opérations contre
les pays voisins; obligation de s'abstenir d'héberger lesdites forcesou

de leur apporter une aide; engagement pris de désarmer et démobi-
liser celles->);
et que ledit accord Uganda of 'looting of public and private institutions' and 'theft of
property of the civilian population'. Application, p. 9. Uganda, for
its part, targets Congo's confiscation of . . . property belonging to
the Government of Uganda and Ugandan diplomatic personnel.

Counter-Mernoriul, para. 397. Finally, and not least significantly, al1
the acts in question were allegedly committed by the armies of the
two States that are parties to this proceeding. Just as DRC troops
were responsible for the attacks on the Ugandan Embassy and
Ugandan nationals, . . . Congo claims that Ugandan troops com-
mitted similar offences";

wliereas it further States that "[tlhe events in dispute . . . took place at the
same time and on the same territory (i.e., the territory of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo)"; and, in support of its contentions concerning a
legal connection, U,ganda adds the following:

"At page 17 of its Application, for example, Congo asserts that
Uganda is guiliy of 'human rights violations in defiance of the most
basic customary law'. Elsewhere, the DRC contends that it is
entitled to 'compensation from Uganda' for al1 acts of looting

and theft. Application, p.19. In a parallel fashion, Uganda's counter-
claim on this score is based on the DRC's 'breaches of the standard
of general international law based upon universally recognized stan-
dards of human rights', Counter-MernoriuI, para. 407, and demands
compensation for the unlawful expropriation of Ugandan property.
Counter-Mernorial, para. 408" ;

23. Whereas, in respect of its "Counter-Claim Relating to the DRC's
Violations of Its Obligations under the Lusaka Agreement", Uganda

asserts that

"[tlhe Lusaka Agreement . . . addresses the same issues as those

addressed by the DRC in its Application and Mernorial: armed con-
flict between Uganda and the DRC; the presence of Ugandan armed
forces on Congolese territory; the timing and conditions for the
withdrawal of :iuch forces; the harbouring of armed groups seeking
to destabilize neighbouring countries; the support of irregular forces
operating agaiilst neighbouring countries; the obligation to refrain

from harbouririg or supporting such forces; and the commitment to
disarm and dernobilize them" :

and that that Agreement «met en place un mécanisme générad l'ordre public, dans le but de
mettre fin au conflit armé en République démocratique du Congo,
c'est-à-dire le conflit qui fait l'objet de la requête de laRépublique
démocratique du Congo, et d'apporter la paix et la stabilité en

République démocratique du Congo, en Ouganda et dans les pays
voisins» ;
considérant que l'Ouganda rejette également l'argument congolais selon

lequel, ((l'accord de Lusaka a[yant] étésignéle IO juillet 1999,c'est-à-dire
à une date postérieure à celle du dépôt de la requête[,]le 23 juin 1999»,
ladite demande «concerne[rait] une période distincte de celle qui est à la
base de la requête de la République démocratique du Congo)); qu'il
expose à cet égard qul«[e]n fait, la République démocratique du Congo
dénonce dans son mkr?~oirela prétendue occupation par l'Ouganda du

territoire congolaisjusqu'à la date du dépôt de cette pièce,c'est-à-dire le
19juillet 2000, soit environ un an après l'entrée en vigueurde l'accord de
Lusaka)); et qu'il relève que le Congo, dans son mémoire, «accus[e]
l'Ouganda d'actes d'agression armée qui se sont produits entre le mois
d'août 1999et le mois de mars 2000 ... et d'avoir violél'accord de Lusaka
en raison des activitésarméesdont le territoire congolais a été le théâtre

entre le 14 et le 16août 1999)); considérant que I'Ouganda conclut de ce
qui précèdeque

«[s]ademande reconventionnelle ... relative aux violations de l'accord
de Lusaka par la République démocratique du Congo est recevable
aux termes de l'article 80 du Règlement de la Cour et [que] sa remise
en cause par la République démocratique du Congo doit être
rejetée»;

24. Considérant qu'au terme de ses observations écrites l'Ouganda
prie la Cour:

((Premièrement, de dire que les demandes reconventionnelles for-
muléesdans le c.o~ztre-t?~~~r?~ sotefont aux conditions poséespar
l'article 80 du Règlement de la Cour; et

Deuxièmement, de rejeter toutes les demandes présentéesdans les
ohseriwtiorîs de la République démocratique du Congo en date du
25 juin 2001»;

25. Considérant que, par lettre en date du 5 septembre 2001, le Congo
a présenté certains commentaires sur les observations écrites de
l'Ouganda, et qu'il a par ailleurs indiquédans cette lettre qu'il se [tenait]
à l'entière disposition de la Cour pour développer son argumentation

plus avant lors de plaidoiries orales que la Cour estimerait opportun
d'organiser)); et considérant que, par lettre en date du 8 octobre 2001,
l'Ouganda a fait observer que «[clesnouveaux commentaires formulés au
nom de la République démocratique du Congo n'[avaient] ... pas été
demandés par la Cour et [avaient] étésoumis sans autorisation)), que,
«[d]ans ces circonstances, la lettre de l'agent de la République démocra- "establishes a comprehensive system of public order whose purpose
is to end the armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the very same armed conflict that is the subject matter of the

DRC's Applic;ition, and to bring peace and stability to the DRC,
Uganda and neighbouring countries" ;

whereas Uganda also denies the Congo's argument that, "[as] the Lusaka
Agreement was signed on 10 July 1999, which [was] subsequent to the
filing of the Application on 23 June 1999", that claim "refers to a period
of time different from that referred to in the claim of the Democratic

Republic of the Congo"; whereas it States in this regard that "[iln fact,
the DRC's Mernoritzl complains of Uganda's alleged occupation of Con-
golese territory right up to the time of its filin- 19 July 2000 - which
is approximately one year after the Lusaka Agreement became effective" ;
and whereas it notes that the Congo in its Memorial "accuse[s] Uganda
of specific acts of armed aggression between August 1999 and March

2000 . .. [and] of violating the Lusaka Agreement by virtue of armed
activities on Congolese territory between 14 and 16 August 1999";
whereas Uganda concludes from the foregoing that:

"[its] counter-claim relating to the DRC's violations of the Lusaka
Agreement is admissible under Article 80 of the Rules of Court, and

the DRC's challenge must be rejected";

24. Whereas at the close of its Written Observations Uganda requests
the Court:

"First, to decide that the counter-claims presented in the Counter-
Mernorial satisfy the provisions of Article 80 of the Rules of Court;
and

Second, to reject al1the requests prescribed in the 0h.servations of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo dated 25 June 2001";

25. Whereas, by letter dated 5 September 2001, the Congo submitted
comments on Uganda's written observations, and whereas it further
stated in that letter that it "holds itself fully at the Court's disposa1 to
amplify its argumentsfurther at such oral hearings as the Court may con-

sider it appropriate to hold"; and whereas. by letter dated 8 October
2001, Uganda notecl that "[these] further comments offered on behalf of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo were not . . . requested by the
Court and were presented without authorization", that "[iln the circum-
stances, the letter signed by the Agent of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo cannot forni part of the pleadings in the case" and that "[tlhetique du Congo ne [pouvait] êtreverséeau dossier de l'affaire)) et que,
«[p]ar conséquent, la République de l'Ouganda s'abst[enait] de commen-
ter le fond des questions soulevéesdans la lettre susmentionnée et réser-

v[ait] sa position a leur sujet»;
26. Considérant que, saisie d'observations écrites complètes et
détailléesde chacune des Parties, la Cour est suffisamment informée des
positions qu'elles défendent quant à la recevabilitédes demandes présen-
téesà titre reconventionnel par l'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire; et

qu'il n'apparaît en conséquence pas nécessaired'entendre plus avant les
Parties à ce sujet;

27. Considérant qu'aux termes de l'article 80 du Règlement de la Cour
dans sa version applicable en l'espèce:

(1. Une demande reconventionnelle peut êtreprésentéepourvu
qu'elle soit en connexité directe avec l'objet de la demande de la par-
tie adverse et qu'elle relèvede la compétence de la Cour.

2. La demande reconventionnelle est présentée dans le contre-
mémoire de la partie dont elle émane et figure parini ses conclu-
sions.
3. Si le rapport de connexité entre la demande présentéecomme
demande reconventionnelle et l'objet de la demande de la partie
adverse n'est pas apparent, la Cour, après avoir entendu les parties,

décide s'il y a lieu ou non de joindre cette demande à l'instance
initiale ;
28. Considérant qu'il échet à la Cour d'examiner si les demandes

ougandaises en question constituent des ((demandes reconventionnelles»
et, dans l'affirmative, si elles remplissent les conditions énoncéesà I'ar-
ticle 80 du Règlement;
29. Considérant que, dans l'ordonnance qu'elle a rendue le 17 dé-
cembre 1997 en l'affaire relative à I'Applic.utionde lu convention pour lrr

pri.ilention et lu répressiondu critne d~ggénocidel,a Cour a précisé:
«qu'une demande reconventionnelle présente, au regard de la
demande de la partie adverse, un double caractère; qu'elle en est

indépendante dans la mesure où elle constitue une «demande» dis-
tincte, c'est-à-dire un acte juridique autonome ayant pour objet de
soumettre une prétention nouvelle au juge, et, qu'en même temps,
elle s'y rattache, dans la mesure où, formuléeà titre ((reconvention-
nel)), elle riposte à la demande principale; que le propre d'une
demande reconventionnelle est ainsi d'élargir l'objet initial du litige

en poursuivant des avantages autres que le simple rejet de la préten-
tion du demandeur à l'action - par exemple, la condamnation de
celui-ci; et que, à ce titre, la demande reconventionnelle se distingue
d'un moyen de défense au fond)) (C.I. J. Recueil 1997, p. 256,
par. 27); ARMED ACTIVITIES (ORDER 29 XI 01) 676

Republic of Uganda accordingly refrains from commenting upon the
substance of the issues raised in the letter signed by the Agent of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and reserves its position on the

matters raised therein" ;
26. Whereas, having received full and detailed written observations
from each of the Parties, the Court is sufficiently well informed of
the positions they hold with regard to the admissibility of the claims
presented as couriter-claims by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial;
and whereas, accordingly, it does not appear necessary to hear the

Parties further on the subject;

27. Whereas Article 80 of the Rules of Court in the version applicable
to the present proceedings provides:

"1. A counter-claim may be presented provided that it is directly
connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party and
that itcomes within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. A counter-claim shall be made in the Counter-Memorial of the
party presenting it, and shall appear as part of the submissions of

that party.
3. In the event of doubt as to the connection between the question
presented by way of counter-claim and the subject-matter of the
claim of the other party the Court shall, after hearing the parties,
decide whether or not the question thus presented shall be joined to
the original proceedings";

28. Whereas it is necessary for the Court to consider whether the
Ugandan claims iri question constitute "counter-claims" and, if so,
whether they fulfil the conditions set out in Article 80 of the Rules of
Court;

29. Whereas, in its Order of 17 December 1997 in the case concerning
Applicutiorl oJ the Convention on tlle Prevention und Punishnîent of the
Crinle of Genoc.ido,the Court stated that :

"a counter-claim has a dual character in relation to the claim of the
other party ;whereas a counter-claim is independent of the principal
claim in so far as it constitutes a separate 'claim', that is to say an
autonomous legal act the object of which is to submit a new claim to
the Court, and, whereas at the same time, it is linked to the principal
claim, in so far as, formulated as a 'counter' claim, it reacts to it;

whereas the thrust of a counter-claim is thus to widen the original
subject-matter of the dispute by pursuing objectives other than the
mere dismissal of the claim of the Applicant in the main proceedings
- for example, that a findiiîg be made against the Applicant; and,
whereas in this respect, the counter-claim is distinguishable from a
defence on the merits" (I.C.J. Reports 1997. p. 256, para. 27);677 ACTJVIA TR~MSL~ ORDONNANC E 29 Xl OJ)

el considérant qu'en l'espèce les demandes présentéesù titre reconven­
tionnelpar l'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire cherchent ù obtenir, au­
delù du rejet des demandes formulées par le Congo, l'établissement de la

responsabilité de celui-ci et des réparations ù ce titre; et que de telles
demandes conslituen t des«demandes reconventionnelles));
30. Considérant que le Congo ne conteste pas que les demandes ougan­
daises satisfont la condition de «compétence)) poséeau paragraphe 1
de l'article du Règlement; qu'il allègue toutefois que lesdites demandes

sont irrecevables en tant que telles car elles ne remplissent pas les autres
condition!>énoncéespar cette disposition;

* *
31. Considérant que le Congo soutient ù titre principal que les «pré­
tentions avancées par l'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire sont irrece­

vable!>en tant que demandes reconventionnelleS)), au motif qu'elles ne
«remplissent pas les conditions de forme requises par l'article 80, para­
graphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour));
32. Considérant qu'aux termes du paragraphe 2 de l'article 80 du
Règlement «[l]a demande reconventionnelle est présentéedans le contre­

mémoire de la partie dont elle émane et figure parmi ses conclusions));
que les demandes reconventionnelles de l'Ouganda ont étéexposées
dans des sections différentes du chapitre XVIII de son contre-mémoire
intitulé «La responsabilité étatique de la République démocratique du
Congo et les demandes reconventionnelles de la République de

l'Ouganda)); que lesdites demandes font étal d'actes par lesquels le
Congo aurait violé un certain nombre- d'obligations internationales ù
l'égard de l'Ouganda; et que ce dernier, dans les conclusions de son
contre-mémoire, prie la Cour

« 1) De dire cl juger, conformément au droit international,

C) que les demandes reconventionnelles présentéesau chapitre
XVIII du présent contre-mémoire doivent êtreretenues.
2) De réserver la question de la réparation due au titre des
demandes reconventionnelles pour un stade ultérieur de la

procédure));
33. Considérant que les demandes reconventionnelles de l'Ouganda

auraient pu êtreprésentéesde manière plus claire; que toutefois leur pré­
sentation ne s'écartepasà ce point des prescriptions du paragraphe 2 de
l'article0 du Règlement que lesdites demandes devraient êtrejugéesirre­
cevables ù ce titre; qu'en outre l'Ouganda pouvait faire état d'une
demande en réparation sans que les modalites de celle-ci soient déjù
exposées ù ce stade; et considerant que la conclusion formulée à titre

principal par le Congo doit par suite etre écartée;

* *
21and whereas in the present case the claims presented as counter-claims by
Uganda in its Couiiter-Memorial seek. over and above the dismissal of

the claims made by the Congo, a ruling establishing the Congo's respon-
sibility and awarding reparations on that account; and whereas such
claims constitute "counter-claims";
30. Whereas the Congo does not deny that Uganda's claims fulfil the
"jurisdictional" condition laid down in paragraph 1of Article 80 of the
Rules of Court; whereas it contends, however, that those claims are
inadmissible as counter-claims because they do not fulfil the other con-

ditions set out in that provision;

31. Whereas the Congo asserts as its principal argument that "the
claims put forward by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial are inadmis-
sible as counter-claims" on the ground that they "do not satisfy the

formal conditions laid down by Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules
of Court";
32. Whereas Article 80, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court provides
that "[a] counter-claim shall be made in the Counter-Memorial of the
party presenting it. and shall appear as part of the submissions of that
party"; whereas the counter-claims of Uganda were set out in various
sections of Chapter XVlII of its Counter-Memorial entitled "The State

Responsibility of the DRC and the Counter-Claims of the Republic of
Uganda"; whereas those claims refer to acts by which the Congo is said
to have violated a number of international obligations in regard to
Uganda; and whei-eas Uganda. in the submissions in its Counter-
Memorial, requests the Court

"(1) To adjudge and declare in accordance with international law
...........................

(C) That the Counter-claims presented in Chapter XVIII of
the present Cotrnter-Memoriul be upheld.
(2) To reserve the issue of reparation in relation to the Counter-
claims for a subsequent stage of the proceedings";

33. Whereas Uganda's counter-claims could have been presented in a
clearer manner; whereas, however, their presentation does not deviate

from the requirements of Article 80. paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court
to such an extent that they should be held inadmissible on that basis;
whereas, moreover, it was permissible for Uganda to refer to a request
for reparation without the modalities thereof being stated at this stage;
and whereas the Congo's principal submission must therefore be denied: 34. Considérant que le Congo soutient à titre subsidiaire que

«les prétentions concernant respectivement la prétendue agression
perpétréepar 1'Etat congolais avant 1997, les prétendues attaques à
l'encontre des bâtiments et du personnel diplomatiques ougandais à
Kinshasa, et les prétendues violations des accords de Lusaka ...ne
remplissent pas la condition de ((connexité directe)) requise par
l'article 80, paragraphe 1, du Règlement de la Cour)),

et que les demandes reconventionnelles formulées à cet égard par
l'Ouganda sont partant irrecevables comme telles;

35. Considérant que, dans sa jurisprudence antérieure, la Cour a déjà

eu l'occasion d'exposer comme suit les motifs pour lesquels la recevabi-
litéd'une demande reconventionnelle en tant que telle est subordonnée à
la condition de ((connexitédirecte)) poséeau paragraphe 1 de l'article 80
du Règlement: (([considérant]que le défendeur ne saurait ..imposer par
[la]voie [reconventionnelle] au demandeur n'importe quelle demande, au
risque de porter atteinte aux droits de celui-ci et de compromettre la
bonne administration de la justice)) (Applicutiotz de lu cotzi7entionpour le1

prkvention et lu rkpression (lu cuirîle de gknocide (Bosnie-Herzkgovine
c. Yougoslcnlie), denwmde~'~ reconventionnellt~s, orclonnunce clu 17 dé-
ceiîzbre 1997, C.I.J. Recueil 1997, p. 257, par. 31; Plutes-Jonnes pktro-
lières (Rkpublique islurnique d'Iran c. Etats-Unis d'Arnkrique), dtvnunde
reconilentionizrlle, or~lonnunce dzr 10 tîzur;, 1998, C.I.J. Rrc,uc>il1998,
p. 203, par. 33);
36. Considérant que le Règlement ne définitcependant pas la notion

de ((connexité directe)); qu'il appartient à la Cour d'apprécier, compte
tenu des particularités de chaque espèce, si le lien qui doit rattacher la
demande reconventionnelle à la demande principale est suffisant; et que,
en règlegénérale, l'existencedu lien de connexité directe requis entre ces
demandes doit être appréciée aussibien en fait qu'en droit;
37. Considérant que, dans la présente espèce, il convient pour la

Cour d'examiner séparémentles demandes reconventionnelles présen-
tées par l'Ouganda, selon qu'elles invoquent: 1)des actes d'agression
que le Congo aurait commis à l'encontre de l'Ouganda; 2) des attaques
visant les locaux et le personnel diplomatiques ougandais A Kinshasa
ainsi que des ressortissants ougandais, dont le Congo se serait rendu
responsable; et 3) des violations alléguéesde l'accord de Lusaka par le
Congo ;

38. Considérant que, pour ce qui a trait à la première demande recon-
ventionnelle de l'Ouganda (actes d'agression que le Congo aurait commis 34. Whereas the Congo contends in the alternative that

"the claims concerning respectively the aggression alleged to have
been committed by the Congolese State before May 1997,the alleged
attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa

and the alleged breaches of the Lusaka Agreements . . . do not
satisfy the condition of 'direct connection' laid down by Article 80,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court",

and that Uganda's counter-claims in this respect are therefore inadmis-
sible as such:

35. Whereas the Court has in its jurisprudence already had occasion to
state in the followirig terms the reasons why the admissibility of a coun-

ter-claim as such is contingent on the condition of a "direct connection"
set out in Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court: "whereas the
Respondent cannot use [the counter-claim procedure] . . . to impose on
the Applicant any daim it chooses, at the risk of infringing the Appli-
cant's 1-ightsand of compromising the proper administration of justice"
(Applic~rtion of' rllc Cotîvention oiî the Pr~vcntion crritPunis/ir?~erî tf'tl1~1

C,riilzco?' Getzocicke (Bosniu ertzclH~~rxgovin~r V. Yugoslirvitr), COL~teIIr-
Cltri1?7.s.rcic>orf'17 Dcc.cr?zhr1r997, 1.C.J. Rc1porr.s1997, p. 257, para. 3 1;
Oil P1~rtfO~rzî .Is.sIcit~i.epzrhlic of'Ira11v. Utzitrd St~rtes of'Anlericil),
Countcr-Clerir~~O , r(1erqf'IO Mtrrch 1998, I.C.J. R<~portslYY8, p. 203,
para. 33);

36. Whereas the Rules of Court do not however define what is meant
by "directly connected"; whereas it is for the Court to assess whether the
counter-claini is sufficiently connected to the principal claim, taking
account of the particular aspects of each case; and whereas, as a general
rule, whether there is the necessary direct connection between the claims

must be assessed both in fact and in law:
37. Whereas it if; appropriate in this case for the Court to consider
Uganda's counter-claims under separate heads, according to whether
they refer to: (1) acts of aggression allegedly committed by the Congo
against Uganda; (2) attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and per-

sonnel in Kinshasa and on Ugandan nationals for which the Congo is
alleged to be responsible: and (3) alleged violations by the Congo of the
Lusaka Agreement ;

38. Whereas, in respect of Uganda's first counter-claim (acts of
aggression allegedly committed by the Congo against Uganda), theà l'encontre de l'Ouganda), le Congo soutient qu'elle ne remplit la condi-
tion de connexité directe requise par l'article 80 du Règlement que pour
la période s'étendant de mai à août 1998; considérant que, comme il a
déjà été rappelé ci-dessus (voir paragraphe 36), en règle générale,I'exis-

tence du lien de connexité directe entre la demande reconventionnelle et
la demande principale doit êtreappréciée aussibien en fait qu'en droit;
que l'établissement d'un tel lien de connexité n'est pas sujet, contraire-
ment à ce que soutient le Congo, à la condition que «les arguments
avancés par le demandeur sur reconvention doivent à la fois fonder la
demande reconventionnelle et être pertinents pour réfuter la demande

principale)); considérant qu'il ressort des conclusions des Parties que
leurs demandes respectives portent sur des faits de mêmenature, à savoir
l'emploi de la force et l'assistance qui aurait étéapportée à des groupes
armés; que, si la demande reconventionnelle de l'Ouganda porte sur une
période plus étendue que la demande principale du Congo, les deux
demandes n'en ont pas moins trait à un conflit existant entre les deux

Etats voisins sous des formes diverses et avec une intensité variable
depuis 1994; qu'elles s'inscrivent dans le cadre d'un mêmeensemble fac-
tuel complexe; et considérant que chacune des Parties cherche à établirla
responsabilité de I'autre en se fondant sur la violation du principe du
non-recours à la force tel qu'il figureau paragraphe 4 de l'article2 de la
Charte des Nations Unies et se retrouve dans le droit international cou-

tumier. ainsi que du principe de non-intervention dans les affaires rele-
vant de la compétence nationale des Etats; que les Parties poursuivent
ainsi les mêmesbuts juridiques;
39. Considérant que la Cour estime que la première demande recon-
ventionnelle présentéepar l'Ouganda est dès lors, pour l'ensemble de la
période couverte, en connexité directe avec l'objet des demandes du

Congo ;

40. Considérant que, s'agissant de la deuxièmedemande reconvention-
nelle de l'Ouganda (attaques visant les locaux et le personnel diploma-

tiques ougandais à Kinshasa ainsi que des ressortissants ougandais, dont
le Congo se serait rendu responsable), il ressort du dossier que les faits
dont l'Ouganda se prévaut se sont produits en août 1998, immédiatement
après l'invasion alléguéepar le Congo de son territoire; que chacune des
Parties accuseI'autre d'être responsable de diverses exactions qui auraient
accompagné un emploi illicite de la force; qu'il s'agit là de faits de même

nature et que les demandes des Parties s'inscrivent dans le cadre du même
ensemble factuel complexe mentionné au paragraphe 38 ci-dessus; et
considérant que chacune des Parties cherche à établirla responsabilité de
I'autre en invoquant, en relation avec l'emploi illicite de la force allégué,
certaines règles de droit international conventionnel ou coutumier rela-
tives à la protection des personnes et des biens; que les Parties poursui-
vent ainsi les mêmesbuts juridiques; 41. Considérant que la Cour estime que la deuxième demande recon-
ventionnelle présentéepar l'Ouganda est par suite en connexité directe
avec l'objet des demandes du Congo;

42. Considérant que, en ce qui concerne la troisième demande recon-
ventionnelle de I'Ouganda (violations alléguées de l'accordde Lusaka par
le Congo), iléchetde constater, à l'examen des conclusions des Parties,
que la demande de l'Ouganda concerne des faits d'une nature toute par-

ticulière; que ladite demande se réfère en effet au dialogue national
congolais, au déploiement de la Mission de l'organisation des Nations
Unies en République démocratique du Congo (MONUC) ainsi qu'au
désarmement et à la démobilisation de groupes armés; que ces questions,
afférentes ades modes de solution dzicotzfiidans la régionconvenus, sur
un plan plurilatéral, dans un accord de cessez-le-feu ayant reçu l'«appui
résolu))du Conseil de sécurité desNations Unies (résolutions 1291(2000)

et 1304 (2000)), concernent des faits de nature différente de ceux dont se
prévalentlesdemandes congolaises, qui ont trait aux actes dont I'Ouganda
se serait rendu responsable (rucours de ce conflit; que les demandes res-
pectives des Parties ne s'inscrivent dès lors pas dans le cadre d'un même
ensemble factuel complexe; et considérant que le Congo cherche a établir
la responsabilité de l'Ouganda en se fondant sur la violation des règles

mentionnées au paragraphe 38 ci-dessus, alors que I'Ouganda entend éta-
blir la responsabilité du Congo en se fondant sur la violation de disposi-
tions particulières de l'accord de Lusaka; que les Parties ne poursuivent
ainsi pas les mêmesbuts juridiques;
43. Considérant que la Cour estime que la troisième demande recon-
ventionnelle présentée par I'Ouganda n'est en conséquence pas en

connexité directe avec l'objet des demandes du Congo;

44. Considérant que le Congo, au terme de ses observations écrites,a
allégué a titre très subsidiaire ((qu'il n'y a[vait] pas lieu d'opérer la jonc-

tion au fond de l'ensemble des prétentions ougandaises en application de
l'article 80, paragraphe 3, du Règlement de la Cour, en raison de consi-
dérations d'opportunité liéesaux impératifs d'une bonne administration
de la justice)); et considérant que la Cour, ayant estiméque les premiére
et deuxième demandes reconventionnelles présentées par l'Ouganda
étaient en connexité directe avec l'objet des demandes du Congo, est
d'avis que, bien au contraire, une bonne administration de la justice et

un souci d'économie de procès appellent un examen simultané de ces de-
mandes reconventionnelles et des demandes au principal; 41. Whereas the Court considers that the second counter-claim sub-

mitted by Uganda is therefore directly connected with the subject-matter
of the Congo's claims;

42. Whereas, in respect of Uganda's third counter-claim (alleged vio-
lations by the Congo of the Lusaka Agreement), it is to be observed from
the Parties' submissions that Uganda's claim concerns quite specific
facts; whereas that claim refers to the Congolese national dialogue, to the
deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Demo-
cratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and to the disarmament and

demobilization of armed groups; whereas these questions, which relate to
nietlio(l.sjOsolving tlze conjiiicntthe region agreed at multilateral level
in a ceasefire accord having received the "strong support" of the United
Nations Security Council (resolutions 1291(2000) and 1304(2000)), con-
Cern facts of a different nature from those relied on in the Congo's

claims, which relate: to acts for which Uganda was allegedly responsible
(luring tllut conflict; whereas the Parties' respective claims do not there-
fore form part of the same factual complex; and whereas the Congo seeks
to establish Uganda's responsibility based on the violation of the rules
mentioned in paragraph 38 above, whilst Uganda seeks to establish the
Congo's responsibility based on the violation of specific provisions of the

Lusaka Agreement:, whercas thc Parties are thus ~iotpursuing the same
legal aims:

43. Whereas the Court considers that the third counter-claim sub-
mitted by Uganda is therefore not directly connected with the subject-

matter of the Congo's claims;

44. Whereas, at the conclusion of its Written Observations, the Congo

submitted in the further alternative that: "it would not be appropriate,
on the basis of considerations of expediency deriving from the require-
ments of the sound administration of justice, to join the Ugandan claims
to the proceedings on the merits pursuant to Article 80, paragraph 3, of
the Rules of Court"; and whereas the Court, having found that the first
and second counter-claims submitted by Uganda are directly connected

with the subject-matter of the Congo's claims, takes the view that, on the
contrary, the sountl administration of justice and the interests of pro-
cedural economy cal1 for the simultaneous consideration of those
counter-claims and the principal claims; 45. Considérant qu'au vu de ce qui précèdela Cour estime que les pre-
mièreet deuxième demandes reconventionnelles présentéespar l'Ouganda

sont recevables comme telles et font partie de l'instance en cours: et que
la Cour considère en revanche que tel n'est pas le cas de la troisième
demande reconventionnelle de l'Ouganda :

46. Considérant qu'une décision rendue sur la recevabilité d'une
demande reconveiitionnelle compte tenu des exigences formulées à l'ar-
ticle 80 du Règlement ne saurait préjuger aucune question dont la Cour
aurait à conniître dans la suite de la procédure:
47. Considérant que, aux fins de protéger les droits que les Etats
tiers admis à ester devant la Cour tirent du Statut, la Cour donne
instruction au greffier de leur transmettre copie de la présente ordon-

nance ;
48. Considérant que lorsque, conformément aux dispositions de son
Règlement, la Cour décide,dans l'intérêd t'une bonne administration de
la justice, de se prononcer en une seule et mêmeinstance sur les demandes
respectives des Parties, il importe qu'elle ne perde pas pour autant de vue
l'intérêdt u demandeur à ce qu'il soit statué sur ses prétentions dans un

délairaisonnable ;
49. Considérant que, au cours de la réunion que le président de la
Cour a tenue le 11 juin 2001 avec les agents des Parties (voir para-
graphe 5 ci-dessus), chacune de celles-ci a indiqué qu'elle souhaitait pou-
voir déposer une nouvelle pièce de procédure sur le fond; que les deux
agents ont étéinvitésà exprimer leurs vues sur les délais qu'il convien-

drait de fixer pour le dépôt de ces nouvelles piècesau cas où la Cour juge-
rait leur présentation nécessaire; que chacune des Parties a répondu
qu'elle désirerait en pareil cas pouvoir disposer d'un délai de six mois
pour la préparation de sa pièce; qu'un tel délaiparaît en l'espèceraison-
nable;
50. Considérant que, compte tenu des conclusions auxquelles elle est

parvenue ci-dessus quant a la recevabilité des demandes reconvention-
nelles ougandaises, la Cour estime que le dépôt d'une répliquedu Congo
et d'une duplique de l'Ouganda, portant sur les demandes des deux Par-
ties dans l'instance en cours, est nécessaire; et considérant que. ainsi
que la Cour en a déjà décidédans d'autres affaires (voir Applicution
de lu ~(~nventionpour lu prévention ct lu réprrs.sion t/z(.rirn~Oc'gétzocide

(Bosnie-Hrrzégovinec. Yougoslnvie), detîzund(~r ,secorzventionnclIc.,rclon-
nance (lu 17 décernbrc1997, C.I.J. Recueil 1997, p. 260. par. 42; Plutes-
j0rtne.y pétrolières (Rbpuhliytte islcrt?iiyuetl'lrcrn(,.Etrrts-Uni.7tl'Ar?~é-
rique), dc~tnutickreeconi)erztionncllc,oru'onncrnce(lu 10 n1tzr.s1998, C.1.J.
Recueil 1998, p. 206, par. 45; Frontifire terrestre et /naritirne entre le
C'Llt?irroutzt le Nigériu,ordotîtzrrnccc~30 juin 1999, C 1.J. Rcc~rcil1999,

p. 986), iléchet en outre, aux fins d'assurer une stricte égalitéentre les
Parties, de réserver le droit, pour le Congo, de s'exprimer une seconde 45. Whereas, in light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the
first and second counter-claims submitted by Uganda are admissible as

such and form part of the present proceedings; and whereas the Court
considers, conversely, that such is not the case with respect to Uganda's
third counter-claim ;

46. Whereas a decision given on the admissibility of a counter-claim
taking account of the requirements of Article 80 of the Rules of Court in
no way prejudges any question with which the Court would have to deal
during the remainder of the proceedings;
47. Whereas, in order to protect the rights which third States entitled

to appear before the Court derive from the Statute, the Court instructs
the Registrar to transmit a copy of this Order to them;

48. Whereas when, in accordance with the provisions of its Rules, the
Court decides, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to

rule on the respective claims of the Parties in a single set of proceedings,
it must not, for al1that, lose sight of the interest of the Applicant to have
its claims decided within a reasonable time-period;

49. Whereas, during the meeting which the President of the Court held
on II June 2001 with the Agents of the Parties (see paragraph 5 above),

each of the Parties indicated that it wished to be able to file a further
written pleading on the merits; whereas the two Agents were invited to
express their views as to suitable time-limits to be fixed for the filing of
these further pleadings in the event that the Court decided that their sub-
mission was necessary; whereas each Party responded that, in that event,
it would wish to have a time-limit of six months to prepare its pleading;

whereas such a time-limit appears reasonable in this case;

50. Whereas, taking into account the conclusions it has reached
above regarding the admissibility of the Ugandan counter-claims, the
Court considers it necessary for the Congo to file a Reply and

Uganda a Rejoinder, addressiiig the claims of both Parties in the
curreilt proceedings; and whereas. as the Court has already decided
in other cases (see Apldicution of'tlze Convention on the Prrventiorz
cirîtPiini.sl~mentof tli~ Crinze of'Gctzocidc~(Bosniu LIII~Hc~rz~govi~z u.
Yugo.sl~ii.iu), Courlter-Cluin~s, Order oj' 17 Becenzher 1997, I.C.J.
Rel7ortx 1997, p. 260, para. 42; Oil Pl(rtfi,vrns (IsI(inîic R~puhlic- of'

I~LIIV. Unite(/ St~lre.sof'Anzc~rictrj,Courzter-Cluinî, Orciel.oJ IO Mtrrcll
I!J98, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 206, para. 45; Land unr/ M~~riti~ne
Bount/l~rj% hetii9er1zCunzcroorz (irzd Nigeria, Ortler qf' 30 Junc. 1999,
LCJ. Rel7ort.s 1999, p. 986), it is also necessary, in order to ensure
strict equality between the Parties, to reserve the right of the Congo

to present its views in writing a second time on the Ugandan counter-fois par écritsur les demandes reconventionnelles de l'Ouganda, dans une
piéceadditionnelle dont la présentation pourrait faire l'objet d'une ordon-
nance ultérieure;

51. Par ces motifs,

A) 1)A l'unanimité,

Dit que la première demande reconventionnelle présentéepar la Répu-
blique de l'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire est recevable comme telle
et fait partie de I'instance en cours;

2) Par quinze voix contre une,

Dit que la deuxième demande reconventionnelle présentéepar la Répu-
blique de l'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire est recevable comme telle
et fait partie de I'instance en cours;

t>ou~: M. Guillaume, tir-c;.~irlett:. Shi. oicc-pri.sidetzr;MM. Railjeva.
Herczegh. Fleischhauer,Koroma, Vereshchetin,Mn" Higgiiis,MM. Parra-
Aranguren, Kooijinans, Rezek. Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal. Elaraby,
,juges; M. Kateka, juge ad hoc;
CONTRF : M. Verhoeven,juge ad hoc;

3) A l'unanimité,

Dit que la troisième demande reconventionnelle présentéepar la Répu-
blique de I'Ouganda dans son contre-mémoire est irrecevable comme telle
et ne fait pas partie de I'instance en cours;

B) A l'unanimité,

Prescrit la présentation d'une réplique de la République démocra-
tique du Congo et d'une duplique de la République de l'Ouganda por-
tant sur les demandes des deux Parties dans I'instance en cours et
fisc comme suit les dates d'expiration des délais pour le dépôt de ces
pièces de procédure :

Pour la réplique de la République démocratique du Congo, le 29 mai
2002 ;

Pour la duplique de la République de I'Ouganda, le 29 novembre
2002 ;

Rt..servr la suite de la procédure.

Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au Palais de
la Paix, à La Haye, le vingt-neuf novembre deux mille un, en trois exem-

plaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et les autresclaims, in an additional pleading which may be the subject of a subse-
quent Order;

51. For these reasons,

(A) (1) Unanimously,

Findr that the first counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda
in its Counter-Memorial is admissible as such and forms part of the cur-
rent proceedings ;

(2) By fifteen votes to one,

Fincl.\ that the second counter-claim submitted by the Republic of
Uganda in its Counter-Memorial is admissible as such and forn-ispart of
the current proceedings;

IN F~VOIIR: Pre.si~/t>ztuillaume; Vice-Pre.c.i~/etzSthi; Judgc.r Railjeva.
Herczegh. Flei,schhauer, Korori-ia. Vereshchetin, Higgins. Parra-
Arang~iren. Kooijmans. Rezek. Al-Kl-iasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby:
JzrsIcad hoc Kateka ;

,\C~~ZINSTJLI(/~~d hoc Verhoeven ;

(3) Unanimously,
Fir1c1tsat the third counter-claim submitted by the Republic of Uganda

in its Counter-Memorial is inadmissible as such and does not form part
of the current proceedings;

(B) Unanimously,

Dirrcts the Democratic Republic of the Congo to submit a Reply and
the Republic of Uganda to submit a Rejoinder relating to the claims of
both Parties in the current proceedings and ,fi.rec the following dates as
time-limits for the filing of those pleadings:

For the Reply of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 29 May

2002:
For the Rejoinder of the Republic of Uganda, 29 November 2002:
and

Rr.\eri~c~the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-ninth day of November, two
thousand and one, in three copies, one of which will be placed in theseront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement de la République
démocratique du Congo et au Gouvernement de la République de
l'Ouganda.

Le président,
(Sig~i.) Gilbert GUILLAUME.

Le greffier,

(Sigtîc?) Philippe COUVREUR.

M. VERHOEVEjN u, e adhoc.joint une déclaration a l'ordonnance.

(Prrruphi.) G.G.

(Pcrruplii.) Ph.C.archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government
of'the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Government of the

Republic of Uganda, respectively.

(Sig~zed) Gilbert GUILLAIIME.
President.

(Signcd) Philippe COUVREUR.

Registrar.

Judge atl hoc VERHOEVEa Nppends a declaration to the Order of the
Court.

(Initiullc~/) G.G.

(lrzitiulked) Ph.C.

ICJ document subtitle

Finding on Counter-claims; fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Order of 29 November 2001

Links