Summary of the Judgment of 27 November 1950

Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

REQUESTFORINTERPRETATIONOT FHEJUDGMENT

OF20NOVEMBER 1950 IN THEASYLUMCASE

Judgmentof 27 November 1950

Thejudgment deals withthe requestforaninterpretation (c) or,onthecontrary,thatColombiaisboundtosurren-
oftheJudgmentwhichtheCourthaddeliveredonNovember dertherefugee?
20th,intheAsylumCase(Colombia-Peru).Thisrequesthad
been submittedto the Court in the name of the Colombian beensubmittedto itbythe Parties: theCourthadbeenasked
Governmenton the very daywhenthejudgmentto be inter- to decide only onnsubmission presentedby Colombia in
pretedwasdelivered. abstractandgeneralterms.

BytwelvevotestoonetheCourt, includingtwojudgesad tive, dealing with the surrenderof the refugee. This point
hoc, one designatedby the Colombian Governmentandthe alsohadnot beenincludedinthe submissionsof the Parties:
otherbythe PeruvianGovernment,heldthattherequestwas theCourtthereforecouldmakenodecisionuponit. Itwasfor
inadmissible. the Parties to present their respective claimson this point,
which theyabstainedfromdoing. WhenColombiaclaimsto
detect"gaps" inthe:Judgment, thesegapsinrealityconcern
newpointson whicihdecisioncannot be obtainedby means
of aninterpretation: this interpretationmay inno way go
beyondthelimitsoftheJudgment,asfixed inadvancebythe
In its Judgment, theCourt recalls that thefirstconditisubmissionsoftheF'arties.
which mustbe fulfilledto enableit to g;iinterpretation Finally, the condition requiredby the Statute that there
undertheprovisionsoftheStatute,isthatthereal purposeof should be a dispute is not satisfied:no dispute between the
the requestshouldbe to obtain interpretationofthe Judg- Partieshadbeenbrought to theattentionof theCourt, and it
ment.Thismeansthat itsobjectmustbe solelytoobtainclar- is shownbythe verydateof therequest foran interpretation
ification as to the meaning and scopof what had been thatsuchadisputeclouldnotpossibly haveariseninanyway
decidedbytheJudgmentwithbindingforce. Itisalsoneces- whatever.
sarythat there should bea disputebetweenthe Partiesas to For these reasons, the Court declared thatthe requestfor
the meaningandscopeofthatJudgment. aninterpretationpresentedbyColombiawasinadmissible.
The Court then notes that thevernme:ntof Colombia
asked it to reply to threequestions: Is the Judgment of
November 20th, 1950,tobeconstruedasmeaning:

(a) that legaleffects areto be attributedto thequalifica-
offenceimputedtoM. Haya delaTorre?dor atLima of the M. Caicedo Castilla, Judge ad hoc designated by the
ColombianGovernment,declaredthathe wasunabletojoin
(b) that Peru is not entitledto demandsurrenderof the in the Judgment. Hiisdeclaration is appended to theJudg-
refugee,andthatColombiaisnot boundto s~lrrendehim? ment.