Memorial of the Republic of Rwanda

1

1
1
1 International Court of Justice

1
1

:1
1 CASE CONCERNING ARM:EDACTIVITIES
ON THE .TERRITORY OF THE CONGO
1 (DEMOCRATie REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
1 vTHE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA)

1
il
MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
1
1

1
,l 21 April 2000
1
1
1

:1
1 1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1~

1
1

11

1

1 CONTENTS

1
page
1 1 The Proceedings against Rn'anda

1 n The Court Jacks Jurisdiction ov5r the Application
A The Princip/es of Jurisdic5ion
1
B ByCongounds for Jurisdiction advanced
6
1 c The Absence of Jurisdiction under the
Montreal Convention 8
1 1 The requirement of a dispute concerning
the interpretation or application of the
1 Convention 9
2 The dispute must be one which cannat
1 be settled by negotiati16

1 3 The arbitration require18nt

D The lnadmissibility of the 20plication
1
Ill Concluding Submissions 25
1 List of Alllnexes
27
1

1

1

1

1

11
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1 1

1
PARTI
1
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RWANDA

1
1.1 On 23 June 1999 the Democratie Republic ofthe Congo (hereinafter referred to as
1 "Congo") filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of

1 Rwanda ("RwanAccording to the Application, the Govenunent of Congo
instituted the proceedings "on accowlt of acts of armed aggression perpetrated by
1· Rwanda on the territory of the Democratie Republic of the Congo, in flagrant
violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of
Afhcan Unity."
1
1.2 The Application then accuses Rwanda of violations of the law relating to the use
1
-· of force and non-intervention, the law of arrned conflict and the law of human
rights. Congo filed Applications in virtually identical terms against Uganda and
1 Burundi on the same day.

1 1.3 At the meeting held between the Presidentthe representatives of
the Parties on 19 October 1999, the Agent of Rwanda indicated that the
1 Governrnentwanda did not accept that the Court had jurisdiction in respect of

1 Congo's Application. Accordingly, by an Order dated 21 October 1999, the Court
decided that the written proceedings should first be addressed to the questions of
the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Application and toits admissibility. lt
1 fixed April 2000 as the time-Jimit for Rwanda to file a Memorial dealing

'1 exclusively with those questions.
1.4 In accordance with that Order, the present Memorial
1
questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. Except where they bear upon these
~1 questions, Rwanda has not entered into any discussionions

1 Application, p. 4 (French text), p. 5 (Eng!ish tex!) (emphasis in the original).

1

1 1

1
set forth in the AppRwanda merely places on record that it does not
accept the truth allegations made by Congo. 1

1.5 Rwanda submits that the issues before the Coustagtf~the,resent
1
proceedings are very simple and can be dealt with quite shortly. Rwanda contends
that the Court Jacks jurisdiction under anyof jurisdiction advaneed
1
in Part II of the Application.

1.6 In the casetwo of these grounds of jurisdiction - the invitation by Congo to

Rwanda to accept the jurisdiction for the purpose of the case 1nd the previsions of
Article 30(1) of the United Nations Convention against Terture and OtheF Cruel,.

InhumanOF DegradinTreatmentorPunishment1984 f'tfu1i'0Füme: 1
Convention"the Jack of jurisdiction is manifest. Rwanda does not accept the
jurisdictionhe Court for the purposes of the pTheTartUFe..
1
Convention is not a treaty in force between Congo and Rwanda.

1.7 The third ground on which Congo seeks to rely is the provisions

of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Act1 against Civil
Aviation, 1971he Montreal ConventThe Montreal Convention is a

treaty in force between Congo anArticlea.1), however, confers 1
jurisdiction only in respects concerning the interpretation or application

of the Montreal Convention and only if certain essential proce1ural steps have
first been taken. This Memorial will demonstrate that the dispute characterized by
Congo as the subjectproceedings is not one conceming the interpretation or
1
applicatof the Montreal ConventMoreoverthe indivifactual
allegations madeongo, for the most part, have nothing whatever to do with

theonventi whc~cannat, therefore, fumish a basis for jurisdiction in respect
of them. The Memorial will also show thanyspecifie allegation ·1

1
Annex 2.
1
Annex I.

1
2

1 1

1
1 satisfied the preconditionslaid dawn in Article 14(1).ntion (if any), Congo bas not

1 1.8Altematively, Rwanda contends that, even if the Montreal Convention confers
·jurisin respect of any part of ise Application, the Application
1 inadmissible.

1
1

1

1
1

1

1
1

1

1
1

1

1
1
3
1 1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
4 1

11

1

PART Il
1
THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
OVER THE APPLICATION
1

1 A. The Princip/es of Jurisdiction

2.1 It is weil established in the juof the Court that "one of the
1
fundamental principles Statute is that it cannot decide a dispute berween
States without the consent of those States to its jurisdiction" (Case concerning
1 4
East TimorThat principle was recently applied by the Court in its Orders on
the request for Provisional Measures in the Cases [/sofrning Legality of
1
Force.

1 2.2 Moreover, when that consent bas been g1ven, the jurisdiction of the Court is

1 limited to matters falling within the scope of the provision in which that consent is

expressedIt is for that reason that when the Court has found that it has
1 jurisdiction only on the basis of a treaty provision, such as Article 14(1) of the

Montreal Convention or Article IXnocide Convention, it bas held that it
1 lac:ks jurisdiction over any allegation contained in the Application which tàlls
6
outside the scopet treAs Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht put it,
1
The Court can only act in a caseparties, both applicant and
respondent, have conferred jurisdiction uponoluntary act of
1 consent. ... Whatever form the consent may take, the range of matters that

1 4
Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) ICJ Reports, 1995, p. 90, at para. 26.
51 See, e.g., Yugoslavia v. Spain, Order of 2 June 1999, para. 19.
1
61 See, e.g., Case concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 197I Monrreal
Cr[mventionarising from the Aerial Incident al LvUnited Kingdom) Arab Jamahiriya
1 (~reliminmytions), lCJ Reports, 1998, p. 8 at para. 36 and Joint Declaration of Judges Guillaume
offthe Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofv.Federal Republicand Herzegovinae Application
of:Yugosfm,ia) (FurthMeasurIC,Reports, 1993, p. 325, at para. 26 (Article IX of the
1 G~no covdtn).

1 5

1 1

1
the Court can then deal with is limited to the matters covered by that
consent.
1
In accordance with that principle, the Court has held (most recently in the Oil
PlatforandLockerbicases) that when an applicant asserts that1jurisdiction
is based upon a dispute settlement provision in a treaty dealing with a specifie

subject-matter, the Court must examine the application and the treaty provision in
question at the stagerninary objections, in order to determine whether the
dispute, as pleaded by the applicant, falls within the scope of the jurisdictional­

provision ofthe treaty.
1

B. The Grounds of Jurisdiction advanced by Congo 1

2.3 In Part II of its Application, Congo advances three grounds 1-r the jurisdiction of
the CourtFirst, Congo refers to its declaration accepting the compulsory

jurisdictione Court under Article 36(2) of the Statute. Whil1 acknowledging
that Rwanda has not made such a declaration,tes Rwanda, in
accordance with Article 38(5) of the Rules of Court, to accept the jurisdiction of
1
the Court for the purpose of the present case. Rwanda has already made clear that
it does notnd to accept this Rwanda repeats noidoes not 1
accept the jurisdiction of the Court on this basis byd that nothing said or done

Rwanda is to be taken as implying such acceptance. It follows that, as Article

1
Case concerning the Application of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
1993, p. 325, at p. 4l2.v. Federal Republic ofYugoslavia) (Further Provisionai Measures), lCJ Reports,
1
Objections), !Cl Re'03, at para. 16..United States of America){Pre!iminary
1
9 Case concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention
Objections), ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 8; Case concerning Questions of1Interpretation and Application of the
1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v.
United States of America) {Preliminary Objections), ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 114.
10 See the Court's Order of21 October 1999. 1

6 1

1

1 .-'
1
.·r.,,"',•..
1
38(5) of the Rules of Court recognizes, there is manifestly no jurisdiction under

1 this ground.

1 2.4 Secondly, Congo refers to the Torture Convention, 1984, Article 30(1) of which
containsprovision for the reference to the Court of disputes concerning ·the
11
1 interpretation or application of Rwanda is not a party to this
Convention. Accordingly, the Torture Convention manifestly cannat provide a
basis for the jurisdictiont.
1
2.5 Thirdly, Congo invokes Article 14(1) of the MontwhichConvention,
1
provides:

1 Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concerning the
interpretation or application of this Convention which cannat be settled
1 through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to
arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the
arbitration, any onese Parties may refer the dispute to the
1 International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of
the Court.
1

13
1 2.6 The Montreal Conventionteaty in force between ConTheand Rwanda.
Convention is, therefore, capableing a basis for the jurisdiction of the
1 Court in proceedings between Congo and Rwanda. It can do so, however, only in

respect of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Montreal
1 Convention and, even then, only provided that the procedural conditions laid
dovm in the Article have been met.

1

1
ll
1 Annex 2.
Annex 1.
Il
1 1987.Congo became a party to Ju!1977. Rwanda became a party on 3 November

1 7

1 1

1
2.7 Congo has not, however, characterized the dispute which it seeks to bring before
the Court as one regarding the interpretation or application of the Montreal
Convention. is manifest that most of the Application in the present case has

nothing whatever toh that ConAs the opening paragraph of the
Application states, the prgceedings concern "aThe of armed aggression".
"Statement of Facts" in Part I of the Application makes no mention of any
conduct which couldgarded as falling within the scope of the Montreal
1
Convention. Allegations of violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, Articles
3 et seq. of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the
Additionaltocols of 1977 cannet be brought within any jurisdiction which
1
might be conferred by ArtiThey are nothing to do with the
interpretation or applicationeal CoThere is, therefore,1a
manifest absencerisdiction in respect of these allegations, which constitute
by far the greater part of the Application.
1
2.8 Only that part of the Application which alleges a violation of the Montreal
1
Convention might fall within the jurisdictionrtheless, for the
reasons given in 2(C), below, the conditions for the es1ablishment of
jurisdiction under Article 14(l) of the Montreal Convention have not, in fact, been
met in the present case.
1

1
C The Absence of Jurisdiction under the .Hontreal Convention
1
2.9 Article1)of the Montreal Convention lays dawn a series of requirements, each
of which must be met before that provision can confer jurisdiction upon the
1
Court:-
1
(1) there must be a dispute between the parties concerning the
interpretation or applicationeal Convention; 1

8 1

1

1~···

1
(2) the dispute must be one which cannat be settled by negotiation;
1
(3) one of the parties must have requested that bee dispute
submitted to arbitration and the parties must have been unable to
1
agree upon the organizationrbitration; and

1 (4) six months must have elapsed from the datequest for

1 1 arbitration.

(1) There must be a dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation
1 or applicationhe Montreal Convention

1 2.10 Whether there is, indeed, a dispute between Congo and Rwanda conceming the
interpretation or application of the Montreal Conventiforis a question
objective determinaAs the Court held in the Oil Plit is notase,
1
enough that the applicant State asserts that a dispute exists under a treaty such as
the Montreal Convention, while the respondent State dThees that it does.
1
Court must ascertain whether the violations of the Convention pleaded by the
1 applicant State do, or do not, faU within the provisions of the Convention and

whether, as a consequence, the dispute is one which the Court has jurisdiction
1 ratione materiae to entertain. The burden is on the applicant State to demonstrate

rhat there is a dispute falling within the title which that State has
1 chosen to rely.

2.11 The point was expressed in the following way by the Permanent Court in the
1 16
A1avrommatis Palestine ConcessioThere the Permanent Court had to
1 consider Article 26 of the Mandate for Palestine which provided for jurisdiction

1 l~ See, e.g., the Advisory Opinion of the Court on the Applicabilïty of the Obligation to Arbitrate
ap.27.Secrion the United Nations Headquar!ers Agreement ofp12June 1947, ICJ Reports, 1988,

15 Case concerning Oit Platforms (Iv.United States of Americaj(Pre!iminary
Objections), TCJReports, 1996, p. 803, at para. 16.
1 16 ( 1924) PCIJ Series A. No.2.

1 9

1 1

1
aver any dispute "relating ta the interpretation or the application of the provisions

of the MandaThe Court indicated that bearing in mind that it1 jurisdiction
was limited and based ineeded to satisfy itself that "the suit before it,
in the forrn in which it bas been submitted and on the basis of the facts hitherto
17
established, falls ta be decided by application of the clauses of the Mandate".
More recently, in the Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and
againsNicaragu(PreliminObjections)thiCourtexpressethe
19 1
requirement in terms of the existence of "a between theconnection"
treaty and the daims submitted ta the Court.
1
2.12 These requirements are reinforced and strengthened where they are associated
1
with specifie procedural requirements such as those contained in Article 14 of the
Montreal Convention. Article 14 clearly implies that a particular allegation will
be identified with sorne precision in diplomatie exchanges between the parties,

that a request will have been made that the dispute thereby generated be submitted
ta arbitration under the Convention, and that, after 6 months, the parties must
have been unable ta agree on the arrangementThis Court isitration.
1
not the primary forum for the resolution of disputes under the Convention: that
forum is arbitrThe Court's rote is as a guarantor in the event that the
provisiofor arbitration fail for anThe combinatiof the 1

jurisdictand procedural provisions of the Montreclearlyentio1
implies that awilhave been characterized by the parties, or at least one of
them, as one concerning the Montreal Convention, and that attempts to arbitrate
1
the dispute, in that character, will have failed. Having regard to Article 14, it is
not open to a Claimant, as incidentally, ta put in issue the1Montreal
Convention in the course of proceedings raising ·a wider dispute or set of

allegations. Yet that is what Congo has done here. lt charac1erizes the dispute as

17 Ibid., p.16. 1
IS
ICJ Reports 1984, p.392.
19 Ibid., p. 427 (para. 81). 1

1
10

1 1

1
one conceming "acts of armed aggression" and its "Statement of Facts" as pleaded

1 reveals no allegation which, even could raise a question under· the
Convention. Whatever the position may be in cases where this Court has primary
1 jurisdktion under a treaty, it is not open to a party incidentally and indirectly to

raise issues under the Montreal Convention in this way.
1
2.13 The scope of the Montreal Convention is clearly and Tha1isely defined.
1 Convention concems the suppression of unlawful acts. against the safety of civil
aviation. As its Preamble 1make clear, the Convention establishes a

1 mechanism for combatting terrorist offences agaiArticleil aircraft.
provides that:
"1
1. Any persan commits an offence ifhe unlawfully and interrtionally:

1 (a) aircraft in flight ifthat act is likely to endanger the safety of
that aircraft; or
1
(b) destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an
aircraft which renders it incapable of flight or which is
1 likely to endanger its safety in flight; or
(c) places or causes to be placed on an aircraft in service,
::1 any means whatsoever, a deviee or substance which is
likely to destroy that aircraft, orto cause damage toit which
Il rendeiincapable of flight, orto cause damage to it which
is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or

1 (d) with their operation, if any such act is Iikely to endanger the
safety aircraft in flight; or

1 (e) communicates information which he knows to be false,
thereby endangering the safetyraft in flight.
1 2. Any person also commits an offence if he:

(a) atternpts to commit anye offences mentiined
1 paragra1ofthis Article; or
(b) is an accomplice person who commits or attempts to
1 commit any such offence.

'1
Il
1
1 Il1

•i
2.14 Article 2 and Article 4 prescribe sorne of the circumstances m which the
Convention applies. Article 4(1) provides that it "shall not apply to aircraft used

in military, customs or police Article 3 provides that each Contracting
State undertakes to make the offences mentioned in Article 1 punishable by severe
penalties. Articles7 and 8 make prothe~establ ndhmerie
"1
of criminal jurisdiction over persans accused of offences under Article 1. Article
7 lays dawn the praut dedere, aut pArticle 9 deals wîth joint air
1
transport operating organizations. Article 1hat "Contracting States
shall, in accordance with international and national law, endeavour to take ail
practicable measures for the purpose of preventing the offences mentioned in

Article 1." Articles 10(2), 11 and 12 deal with various aspects of inter-State
assistaninrespect of offenArti 13 dals with reporting to the 1

International Civil Aviation Organization.
Il
2.15 It follows that the range of disputes over which the Court can derive jurisdiction
from Article1)of the Montreal Convention is strictly confined. l'

2.16 It is for Congo, as the applicant State which seeks to found the jurisdiction of the
Court on Article 14(1) Montreal Convention, to establish that there is a
dispute between itself and Rwanda which falls within the scope 1

As the Court has held, in theA/rcases,
1
... is not sufficient for one party to a contentious case to assert that a
dispute exists with the other party.rtion is not sufficienIlta
prove the existence dispute any more than a mere deniai of the
existence a dispute proves its non-existence. Nor is it adequate to show
that the interests of the two parties to suchltm20te are in1conflict.
be shawn that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other.

1
2.17 The only attempt Congo has made to satisfy this requirement is the allegation in

the Application that on 9r 199"a Boeing 727 belonging to Congo 1

20 1
ICJ Reports, 1962, p. 319, at p. 328.

12 1

1

1 -----~~--:;-~~c---

1

1
Airlines was shot dawn while tak:ingoff from Kindu airport by rebels supported
1 by Rwanda troops causing the deathsnen and children, and of the crew
21
mernbers."
1
2.18 No details are given, either in the Application or in the "Livre Blanc" which
Congo has subrnitted to theIt is not suggested that Rwandan forces
1
themselves shot down the plane but that it-was done by rebels "supported by
Rwanda troopsCongo does not explaiialleges to be the relationship
1 between Rwanda and the rebel forces in question. inwhich

1 respects the rebets wererted" by Rwandan trIt makes not the
slightest attempt to show that there was a relationship sufficiently close to satisfy

1 the requirements identified by theCdse concerning Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and agafor holding a State responsible
23
1 for the acts rebel movement in anotYet unless such a relationship
exists, there could be no dispute between Congo and Rwanda regarding the
1 Montreal Convention, whatever disputes Congo might have with any other entity.

1 2.19 Moreover, Rwanda notes that Congo bas made identical allegations in respect of
the same incident against bath Burundi and Uganda in its separate applications
against those two States. In its application against Burundi, Congo alleges that on
1
9 October 1998 "a Boeing 727 belonging to Congo Airlines was shot do\\11while
1 taking off from Kindu airport by rebelBurunditroops causing
2
the deaths of 37 women and children, and of the c,.wIn itsrs."
1 application against Uganda, Congo alleges that on 9 October 1998 "a Boeing 727

belonging ta Congo Airlines was shot down while taking off from Kindu airport
1
21 Application, p. !8 (French text), p. !9 (English text).
1
22 Livre Blanc, vol. I, para. 67 mentions the alleged incident but does not give any details beyond
whaisin the Application.
1 23 ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 3 at pp. 64-5.

24 Application in Case concerning Armed Aclivities on the Territory of Congo (Democratie Republic
1 ofCongo v. Burundi), p. 16 (French text), p. 17 (English text) (emphasis added).

1 13

1 1

1
by rebels supported by Ugandan troops causing the deaths of 37 women and
children, and of the crew rnernbers." 1

2.20 The action of making identical - and, in the absence of a case that tbe tFo0ps of
1
ali three States were jointly involved in this operation, mutually ineonsistent -
allegations is an abuseocess of Having regard to the speeil­ie
requirements of Article 14 of the Montreal Convention, it is not open to a State to

broadcast the sarne allegation, severally against differenI States, in respect of
conduct which might (or might not) constitute a breach of the Convention, in the­
course of an application bringing sorne wider dispute befo1e the Court. Such a
proceeding falls quite outside the careful and limited provisions of the Montreal

Convention. 1

2.21 It may be noted that, when Congo complained to ICAO about 1he alleged shooting
dawn ofthe aircraftiaccused only Rwanda and Uganda and made no
mentionf any involvement by BurAlthough this complaint was
1
discussed by the !CAO Council, Congo's representations to the Council do
nothing to clarify its allegations. It is also noticeable 1hat the Declaration adopted
by the Council of ICAO on 10contains no specifie reference to the

incident at all, let alone any suggestion that there might have been any violation
the Montreal Convention by Rwanda, or even any dispute between Congo and
Rwanda conceming the interpretation or application of the Convention.

2.22 Although the Council stated that there was an obligation u1der Article 3 bis of the
Chicago Convention to refrain from the use of weapons against civil aircraft in

1
Application in Case concerning Armed Activities on the TerriiDlY ofCongo (Democratie Republic
of Congo v. Uganda) p. 16 (French text), p. 17(English text) (e1phasis added).
26 The Court impliedly acknowledged the existence of a concept of abuse of process in its decision in
paragraphs 37-38, although it found that there had been no abuse ofprocess on the facts ofthat case. at
1
2i See Annexes 3 and 4.
28 Annex 7 (declaration); Annexes 5 and 6 (minutes ofiCAO Council meetings).

14 1

1

11

1
flight, the on!y mentionntreal Convention is the statement in paragraphs

1 5 and 6:

1 has been enhanby the TokyConventi(1963)theHague of unlawful interference
Conventi(1970), the Montreal Co(1971and the1988
Protocol Supplementary ta the Montreal Convention of 1971, as weil as by
1 Annex 17 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

1 Convention International Civil Aviation and the aviation securityder the
conventita be guided by the princip/es, ru/es, standards and
recommended practices laid dawn in theand in theions
1 Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

1 (emphasis added)
A statement at this leve! of generality (a) does not involve any endorsement
1 whatever of the Congolese allegation; (b) does not involve any condernnation

whatever of any specifie State, and (c) lends no support to the daim that there
1 exists a dispute regarding the interpretationof the Montreal
Convention.
1
2.23Indeed, the Council's statement does not appear to address Congo's allegation at

1 ali. Whatever the Rwandese troops might (or might not) have done ta support the
anonymous Congolese rebels who allegedly shotin the Congo,
1 those troops were not exercising aunder the Conveonion

International Civil Aviation and the aviatiThe Council conventions".
1 adclressed its resolution (using the terms "urges"Itnd "guided") to ali States.
may be inferred that it was embarrassed by the complete lack of specificity of the
1 Congolese complaint and wished sirnply to reaffirm existing aviation standards

for ali States, sa that the matter couThe Council 'took nod.
1 further action of anlts conduct here comarkedlwith its
consideration of cases where aState was credibly alleged to have been involved in
1
aggression against civilian aircraft and a real dispute did exist.
1

1 15

1 1

1

2.24 This is not, therefore, a case m which "the daim of one party is positively
opposed by theer".Despite the opportunity of the ICAO debate and the
specifie requirements of Article 14 of the Montreal Convention, Congo has not set
1
out its claim with sufficient particularity for Rwanda to be able to oppose it. It bas
accordingly not satisfied the requirements for.establishing the jurisdiction
Court under Article 14(1)ntreal Convention. l'

1

(2) The dispute must be one which ci:mnotbe settled by negoti1tion

2.25 Even if there existed between Congo and Rwanda a dispute regarding the
interpretaor application of the Montreal Congo must still 1
establish that the procedural requirements of Article 14(l) of the Convention have
1
been met.

2.26 The first such requirement is that the dispute is one whichy 1
negotiatiCongo bas failed to show that that is the case. In the Application,
1
Congo makes the following comments:-

It would also appear that tISone which cannat be settled 1
through negotiation.
Thus, the various diplomatie efforts undertaken by the Democratie
Republic of the Congo with a view to settling haveconflict
systematically failed.
1

.:>9 South West Africa case, note 20, above.
1
30 No doubt Congo might in its Observations on these Prelimînary Objections seek to specîfY and
one thing to provide further detail in respect of an allegation sufficiently pleaded in advance so as to raise
an issue under Article 14, and another to try to repair fatal defects in a pleading
regard the tenns of Article 14, the latter course is not open to Congo in respect of the Montreal
ConventiThis Court's jurisdiction under the Convention cannet be at1racted solely by particulars
allegation which en!ivens the Court's jurisdiction.the Application itself fails to raise a specifie

31 Application, p. 12 (French text), p. l3 (English text). 1

16 1

1

11

1
2.27 Congo bas here confused the settlement of the armed contlict, the nub of the
1 allegation it makes, with the settlement of the -specifie dispute which it asserts
exists under the Montreal The reality is that Congo bas made no

1 attempt to negotiate with Rwanda on the allegations about the destruction
Boeing 727.·bas not lacked opportuniIn the ten months which
1 elapsed between the alleged incident of 9 October 1998 and the filing of the

Application, representatives of the Congolese Govemment met with Rwandan
1 representainter aon 26-27 October 1998 in Lusaka, on 20-21 November
1998 in Gaberone, at the meeting of the OAU Central Organ on 15-18 December
1
1998 in Ougadougou, on 14-161999 in Lusaka and at the signing of the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement on 10 July 1999. At none of these meetings wa:Sthe
1 question of an alleged breach of the MontreaIn addition, raised.

1 Congo has addressed the United Nations Security Council, the General Assembly
and the Human Rights Commission about the conflict without ever mentioning
either the Montreal Convention or the alleged incident at Kindu. There have also
1
been numerous opportunities for Congo ta raise this issue bilaterally or in a
1 multilateral forum, bath before and since the It has notn was filed.
done so.

1 2.28 Nor does the fact that Congo raised this matter withact that

1 Congo has made no attemitalleged dibynegotiation. Congo is,
of course, entitled to raise whatever issues it chooses in ICAO. However, ICAO

1 was, not, in this instance, a forum Congo did not use the
occasion of the ICAO discussion of its complaint against Rwanda to propose
bilateral negotiations or to suggest a negotiated settlementt
1 used ICAO as a forum in which ta make a complaint against Rwanda. It did not

1 invoke theO dispute settlement mechanism, as it had done on a previous
occasion when an aircraft was allegedly As bas been seen,.
the Council of ICAO neither established the facts nor identified a dispute between
1

1 Jl See Annp.100.

1 17

1 ------------------~

1

1
Congo and Rwanda concerning the application of the MItsreal Convention.

resolution was in the most anodyne terms. 1

2.29 It is true that in the case, the Court held that the dispute b1tween Libya
andthe United Kingdom could not be settled by negotiation, even though the two
33
countries had not held negotiations onAs the Court expressly 1
noted, however, in that case the United Kingdom had:

... always maintained that the destruction of the Pan Am aircraft did not
give rise to any dispute between the Parties regarding the interpretation or
application of the Montreal Convention, and that, for tha1 reason, in the
[United King.o34s] view, there was nothing to be settled by negotiation
undehe onventiOn.
1
That is not the case here. Rwanda has at no time rejected negotiations.
1

(3) One of the parties must have sought arbitration and 1he parties
must have been unableee upon the organization of the arbitration

2.30 Article 14(1) of the Montreal Convention also makes the jurisdîction of the Court

contingent upon (a) oneparties to the dispute having requested1arbitration
and (b) the Parties having been unable, within a six month period, to agree upon
the organizatione arbitration.
1

2.31 In the presencaseCongo has neversuggesteeitherm bil.ateral 1
communications, in, or before any other multilateral body that the dispute
be referred to arbitration.rent, therefore, that an essential requirement of
1
Article 14(1) has not been satisfied.
1

Libya v. United KÎngdom, Ip3 at para. 21; Libya v. United Stat1s ofA.merica,
ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 115 at para. 20.
l4 Libya v. United Kingdom, lCJ Reports, 1998, p. 3 at para. 21; Libya v. United States of America,
ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 115 at para. 20. 1

1
18

1

11

1
2.32 Congo attempts to avoid this obvious obstacle to jurisdiction in the Application by
claiming that
1
Inasmuch as arbitration during a period of armed conflict is vain and
1 illusory, the Democratie Republicaccordingly justified in
referring the matter dire35ly ta the Court sa as ta enable the latter ta settle
1 the differences between itself and Rwanda.
2.33 Congo advances nothing in support of this It is not conclusion.
suggested that any arbitration that might be proposed would be held in the Congo,
1
and in fact the parties found opportunities for structured discussions on other
1 issues in the period after 9 October 1998. Congo evidently found it possible
have detailed discussions with Rwanda on issues involving the conflict, to make
1 complaints against it and others before the ICAO (which the ICAO nonetheless

did not sustain), and to commence proceedings before this Court. The one thing it
1 did not do at any stage was ta propose discussions on a possible arbitration of the
dispute. Yet this is precisely what Article 14 requires.
1
2.34 Once again, the facts of the present case are markedly different from those of the
1 Lockerbie case. In that case, the conclusion of the Court that the dispute was not

one which could be referred to arbitration under the Convention was based upon a
1 finding that Libya had written to the United Kingdom and the United States of
America requesting arbitration under the Convention and had received no reply.
1 Moreover, the two had made clear, in the course of debates in the Security
Council, that they hadtion of agreeing In the present.
1
case, there was no request for arbitration by Congo and nothing in the conduct of
Rwanda could be portrayed as a rejection of arbitration, in contrast to the stance
1 adopted by the Respondents in the Lockerbie cases.

1

1 35
Application, p. 12 (French text), p. Il (English text).
J6 Libya v. United Kingdom, ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 3 at para. 21 ; Libya v. United States of America,
1 ICJ Reports, 1998, p. 115 at para. 20.

1 19

1 Il1.

l'
2.35 lt is not enough for Congo to assert that any attempt to take the matter to
arbitration would have beend illusCongo has at no point tried to

commence arbitration proceedings,se any question with Rwanda aliut
such proceedings.

2.36 It follows that the requirements set out14(1) of the Montreal 1
Convention have been met. Those requirements may be procedural but they

are not formalities. They are essential preconditions to the c1eation
for theurt.Congo's failure to satisfy them means that Article 14(1), which
could, in any event, have conferred jurisdiction only in respect
of the Application, does not, in fact, provide a. basis for the jurisdiction of the

Court over any part of the Application. 1

D. The Inadmissibility of the Application 1

2.37 In the alternative, Rwanda submits that the Application is inadmissible. This is so
on two distinct grounds. 1

2.38 First, Rwanda has already giveof the complete failure of Congo to
attempt to comply with the prerequisites for thision laid down in
1
Article 14 of the Montreal Convention. There has been no attempt to resolve the
dispute by negotiation, and no attempt (within six time) to refer
the matter to arbitration. To the exterrt that this failure may be considered to relate

not to the jurisdictionourt but the admissibility of Congo 's a1plication, it
is in any event fatal. In accordance with the basic princip le of consent, Congo can
only seize this in the manner provided for in the relevant treaty, and this it
has made no attempt to do. The claim, event were ta be held to have

jurisdiction over accordingly inadmissible. 1

2.39 But there is a further and distinct basis for inadmissibility here, in that
failed sufficiently to particularize its allegations regarding the only matter in the

37 Application, p. 12 (French text), p. Il (English text). 1

1
20

1

11

1
entire Application which might possibly fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.
As set out in its Application, the case iAs pleaded indefective.
1
Section IlLEongo's Application, the daim is_that the aircraft in questions
1 "was shot dawn ... by rebels supported Since no furthers".
particulars are offered of this allegation, it can only be taken to be an allegation
that the shooting dawn was the act of Congolese rebels. It is not suggested that
1
the aircraft was shot dawn by Rwandan troops, nor is it alleged that the rebels
1 wcre acting under the direction or control of Rwandan troops. AU that is alleged is
that Rwandan troops gave undefined and innominate "support" to rebels who, in
1 fact andheir own volition, are said to have shot dawn the aircraft.

2.40·The Court is entitled to take into account the parallel and independent allegation
1
simultaneously made by Congo that the very same planebels
1 supported, respectively, by the troops ofNo allegationof Uganda.
of joint conduct having been made, it is clear from these parallel claims that
1
Congo asserts that troops belonging to the three States separately supported, in
unspecified ways, the same unidentified Congolese rebel group which is said to
1 have shot dawn the plane.

1 2.41 Article 38 (2) ofthe Rules of Court provides as follows:

The application shall specify as far as possible the legal grounds upon
1 which the jurisdiction of the Court is said to be based: it shall also specify
the precise nature of the claim, together with a succinct statement of the
1 facts and grounds on which the daim is based.
2.42 This provision is not merely a directtothe desirability of
1 specif)ring the daim and setting out the groult is anhich it is based.

obligation or requirement, failure to comply with \Nhich must affect the validity of
1 the Application As the Court said, in the Case concerning Certain
Phosphate Landsauru, these provisions are "essen tial from the point of view
1

1 38 See paragraphs 2.19 to 2.20, above.

1 21

1 1

1
of legal security and the good adminisThe Court and thee."

Respondent should be able to tell, from the Application, the essential basis of the
claim, not only so far as it concerns jurisdiction but also so far as it concerns the
sufustaHshould be possible by reading the Application to determine what is

the basis of claim. It is true that the requirement laid dawn by Article 38 (2) is
qualified by the phrase "as far as possible", and deficiencies in the specification of

the factual and legal basis of daim can thus be remedied, and further particulars
supplied, in subsequent pleIcense given by the phrase "as far as
possible" is a limited one. It does not excuse an Application which totally fails to
1
set out any statement of the facts and the grounds on which the claim is based,
e~recialer, as is the case here, the Applicant had a period of more than a
year between the occurrence of the alleged incident and the filing of its

ApplicatIn such a case there isbility for the Court to say1(without
questioning the factthe Applicant) mayexista valid claim.

2.43 This requirement has been affirmeFor example in their Joint

Dissenting OpinionNuclear Tests CJudges Onyeama, Dillard, 1
Jiménezde Arechaga and Sir Humphrey Waldock said:

... we recognize that, if an applicant were to dress up as a legal claim a
case whîch any informed legal mind could not be said to have any
rational, that is, reasonably arguable, legal basis, an objection contesting
the legal character of the dispute might be susceptible of decision in limine
as a preliminary question. This means that in the preliminary phase of
proceedings, the Court may have to make a summary surve1 of the rnerits
are reasonably arguable or issues that are reasonably contestable; in otherat
words that these daims or issues are rationally grounded on one or more
principles of law, the application of which The resolve the dispute.
essence of this preliminary survey of the merits is that the question of
jurisdiction or a~ndscenideration is to be determined n1t on
the basiswhether the applicant's claim is right but exclusively on the
basis whetherscloses a right to have the claiAnadjudicated.
1

J9 !CJ Reports, 1992, p. 240, at paragraph 69. 1

22 1

1

11

1
disclose the rational and arguable nature of the claim. necessary to
1
2.44 In arder for the Court to fulfil this role, Article 38 (2) of its Rules specifies the
minimum elements that have to be containedBut Article 38ation.
1
(2) bas a further function, in tying the Applicant down to a particular case
1 against the Responde.nt. It is settled that the Applicant cannat, in subsequent
pleadings, introduce a new claimeven if it is in sorne sense related to

1 the original claim or demand), which was in the original
ApplicatioIf Article 38 (2) could be satisfied by a merely formai or trivial
1 assertiona breach of international law, this _important safeguard could be

circumvented by a pleading deviee.
1
2.45 Thus for a claadmissit~leurt must be able to say (without entering
1 into issues of evidence or of the merits) that, at !east on the Applîcant's own
statement as set out in the Application, theional and arguable

1 basis". And that basîs is completely lacking here. The alleged act is admîtted not
tobe an act either of Rwanda, or of Burundi, or of Uganda, but of unidentified
1
"rebels". No facts whatever are alleged or particularîsed which could lead to the
rational or arguable conclusion that Rwanda could be responsîble for that act. Far
1 from being a specifieounded in the arguable resof theility

Respondent, this is a vague and general assertion irresponsibly made by the
1 Applicant. If the Applicant bad any basis for assertîng Rwanda's responsibility, it
bas completely failed to plead it. lndeed it could hypothetically be true that rebels
1
who shot dawn a plane supported by States A and B and C, yet that
allegation would not begin to establish the responsibîlity of any one of those
1 States, or ail of them, in accordance with the criteria laid dawn by the Court in the

1 Nicaragua case.

1 .IQ
:\'uclear Tests cases !Cl Reports 1974 at p.364 (Joint Dissenting Opinion).
1 41 See e.g. Case concerning Certain Phosphate Lands (Nauru v. Austra!ia) ICJ Reports 1992 p. 240.

1 23

1

__ 1 1

1
2.4for the protection of tIis contrary to t1e sound. protection of the parties but also
administration of justice for a State to be permitted to take the time of the Court
by filing a whoiiy inadequate application which then remains on the List for two
or three years.
2.4For ali these reasons the Court should dismiss this daim on the basis that it is
inadmissible (a) for failure to comply wi1h Article 38 (2) of the Rules; (b) for
failure to state any rational or arguable basis of a daim under the M.ontreal
Convention. 1

1
1

1

1

1
1

1
1

1

1

1
24 1

11

1
1 PART III
CONCLUDING SUBMISSIONS
1

1 3.1For the reasons advanced above, Rwanda -requests the Court to adjudge and
1 declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the daims brought by the Democratie Republic of
the Congo and/or that the claims brought by the Democratie republic of the Congo are
1 inadmissible.

1
1

1 21 April 2000 Gerald Gahima,
1 Procureur Général
Agent of Rwanda
1

1
1

1

1
1

1

1 25
11
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

11

1

1 List of Annexes

The following documents are annexed in an accompanying volume to this Memorial:
1 I Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawjul Acts againsr Civil
Aviation, J97J.
1
2. United Nations Convention against Torture, J984.
1 3. !CAO Document PRES AK/639:-
AttachmA:Letter from Minis/er of Transport and Communications of
1 Congo to the President of the Council of !CAO (9 Derober J998)

1 Alinister ofTransport and Communications of Congo (3 November J998)the

Attacfunent C: Letter from .Minister of Transport and Communications of
1 Congo to the President of0(20 October J998)A
Attachmentter from the Embassy of Congo to the President of the
1 Council of !CAO (2 February J999)
AttachmE:Letter from Minister of Transport and Communications of
1 Congo to the President of0(2 Februwy J999).A

1
4. !CAO Council.Minute C-MIN 156/9.
1 5. !CAO Council record ofNinth Meeting, JOMarch J999, C-DEC 15619.

6. !CAO Council record ofTenth Meeting, JOMarch J999, C-DEC J56110.
1 7_ !CAO Council Declaration, adopted JOMarch J999.
Il

1

1

1

1 27

1 1
1
1

1
1
1
1
. 1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1 ----------- ---
11 .
'\,' BY:lCAOHOM1l.. 3-30- 0 18:52 LEGAB LUREAlJ-t44l223276707 ;#14/30

1

1

1 DEMOCRATie REPUBLIC OF TJIE CONGO­ Kinshasa, 20 October1998

MINISTRYOFTRANSPORTANDCOMMUNICAllONS
l- TheMinister

I No. 409/CAB/MIN/TC/21161H3/98

1 Subject: Complaint agaRwanda and UgandatonŒming an attack qainst a civil airtraft

1 Copysent for informationto:

MinistcrofF oreignAffairs
1 at Kinshasa..Gombe

Dr. Assad Kot.aite
1 PresidentofCounciofiCAO
Montreal

1 Sir,

Furthtomy letterNo.409/CABIMINff5/H3/9of9 October199concernithe
1 hijackin,gsandviolationsof thetheDemocratRepublof the Congoby Rwandaand Uganda
I havethe honour to infonn ySaturdayJOctober1998,a Boeing727 belotothe private
airlincConAirlinflightE0-165 Kindu-K.i, assavagelyl3ho1ylhcaggressC'lrasgainst:our
1 country.threeminutestake-ofwascarryi37passeogermainlywomeMd childrand4 crew
·members.Thetc were nosurvivors..

1 Through thact, our RwandandUgandanaggressoviola ine~e cyesof the
signedat Chiçagoon 7December1944,inacwithwhiStatemustrcfiaînfromresottheuseAviation,
ofweaponagainscivilaiftinflight.
1
It sbobednotedtbon thodaafterthis attaoftheaggtessorspokcspersons
expressly acknowledged responsithiacttberîs not the sbaofa doubt t.theyquitc
1 dcliberateJymadean attethliveofinnocentpassengcrsin violationof tprinciplofary
humanitandthe intemationa1rules ofconductbycivilizednatiotls.

1 Severa]otherviolationsofthe internation~ccoaggrcssowcrebroughtta
yourattentiomy above-rnentionedJetter,namely:

1 • The hijacking of 2 Bocing707s beloogingto Congo Airlines and Lignes Aérlenncs
Congolaises respectively a Blue AirlinesBoeing 727 to use them for militai)-'
purp~c ausewhichis prohibitedbytheprovisionsof Articles4 and 35 of the above-
1

1SENTBY:ICAOHO M11.. 3-30- 0

1

meotionC.onventaswenastbosethe MontreConventiof23 Scptcmber 1971 1
fortheSuppressiooofUalAetagainsthSafetyof CivilAviati·n;
• Almostdaily vioWifrom4 August199tothepresenofthesovereignty of the
airspaCJtfDeanocratc epu.oftheCQiagbyRwandan andUganda:·rrùJitary 1
-aircrcanyinmunitioofwarandimplemenofwar inviolationofthe provisionsof
Artic1oftheChicagoConvention;·
• Frequent flwithouradio contact with the air traffic unies obyairways1used
schcduledairtinvîolatoftbeStandaaDdRecommcndePracticcsAnnéX1l
tothe JCAOConvention, thus exbOththedomestiand internatitraffic
operatinCongoleseirspacougoindanger. 1

Inviewoftheforegoi,nda.lthoughtheyare tthe above-mentionedconventions,
ourRwandanandUgandanaggressorsviolatedbathourStatf(sterritandourairspace, which 1
constitutesan infractiooof the rinternatilirlawfromtheviewpointthprovisionsof ·
thParis Conventof13Octobe191forth&:gulatio.nofANavigation:affirmby the Chica8o
Conventioand the provisipub~international law. 1

Conscquently,sincethcseviolationsand particulartowcapons agajnst the
above-mentionodcivilairesucasto jeopardizelhandobjectivoflCAO asweJfsthe very 1
foundation of mtematîonallaw, begratefifyou would be good enough to condemn them
·requircthe necessaryreparationsfrQmthem.ytheChicagoConventionagainau~rsiand
1
Accept, Sir, theassuranchighm~osideratiOn.

1
(Sgd)

HeruiMOVASakanyi 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 LEGA LUREA~441223276707 ;#16/30
L BY:ICAHQ Mil. 3-30- 0 ; ]8:53 ;

1

1 Attacbment D

1 EMBASSYOF THE DEMOCRATJCREPUBLICOFl'HE CONGO· Otta~2 February 1999

1 No.132.63/Al/025/99

1
Subject: Requestathe complagainRwandaudUgaada ooncern8Dnttaqainsa
civilaitbepJamlothe1geadaofthe 156• SotbeCouncilofICAO
1

··Copsenforinformato:n
1 MînisofTransportandCommunicstbDemocratRepubl:ftheCongo
Kinshasa/Gombe
1
MiDisŒrof ForeignAffiùrsofthe&-publotheCongo
Kinshasa/Gambe
1
DPresidoftheCouncICAO
Montrea1
1
Sir.
1
Furth.er to the telephonhadwith Dr. LuWeberon 22 January 1999
concemjnthe above-mendubjoot.I bavethehtransmtoyou herewa letwhiçh the
1 Ministerof TransCommunicatifthe DemocratieRepublic ofthe Congoisa.ddressingto you,
oJCAO.a11yrequthyou placethe saidcomthagendaof the ·essionofthc Council of

1 Aecept,Sir, the assurancesofmyhigheslconsideration.

1 (Sgd)

1 SampaAmbassadorilombe

1

1

1

1.SEI'IiBY:1CAOHQMTL 3-30- 0 18:54 ;

1

1
AttacbmetE,

1
DEMOCRA:'FIC REPUBLICOFT.lŒCONGO

MINISTRY .OFTRANSPORT ANDCOMMUNICATIONS 1
'ThMinisteF

1
No.409/CABIMIN/TC/182Ai3/98

Subject: Request tthe complaa_eainRW.ndaand Uganda etmceming an attack apinst a
civil aircraft be the•genda the156'1'Session of tbe CoUDdl of ICAO
1

Copysentfoinfunnationto: 1

HisExcellencythe PresidentoftheRcpublic:
withtbe assurancesof myhighestconsideration 1
atKînshasa/Oombe

MinistoForeignA1fainl 1
at Kinshasa/Gambe

Dr. Assad Kotaitc
PresidentoftCouncil ofJCAO 1
Montrear
1
Sir,

I havethehontoremindyothasince2 Augu1998the DcmocratîcRepublthef 1
ConghasbeenthevictimofarmedaggressionbyRwandaand Ugandaactingjointly.

Pursnatothisags;resseverviolationsoftheinternationalconventionsin the1ieldof
civilaviatioby the two States habeennoted and reporteto you by my letterNo.
409/CABIMINffC/2075IH3/98 of 9 Octo1998 and No. 409/CAB/MIN/TC/{2116]/HJ/of
20 Octobe1998,Œpieofwhich are attheŒto. 1

lnaddition,adelegationfrommyhasdiSQlSShimatteatlenginMontrealwith
the Directorofthe LegalBureauofiCAO.
1
ConsequcntJy.stheviolationsof internationalair ltheabove·ment.ion~
lettersthicase the rectcweaponagainsa ciaircraare suehasto jeopardiz.ethe aimsand
objectivesofiCAO as \vellas theveofîntcmation.a1wouldbegratefultoifyowould 1
be gooer~o o lhcethis complaitheagenofthe 156SessiontheCouncil.

AeŒpt,Sir,he assurancesofmyhigbestconsideration. 1
(Sgd)
Henri MOVA Sakanyi
1

1 1
1

1
1

1
1
·1 ICAO Council Minute C-l\UN 156/9

1
1

1
1

1
11

1
1

1
1
1

'1
1 Jl
1
1

1
- 1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1'
1'
1
1

1
1
1

1n.--------------------------------------~~ ----

if BY:1CAOHQMn. ; 3-30- 0 18:58
LEGA L LREA~441223276707 ;#23/30

1

-93- e-MIN t.s6/9

C::::OUNCI-J56m SESSION

SUMMARY MINUTES OJo''fiNINTfl MEETING'

(THE.('ot!NCŒC-ttAMIIERWJ.:DNESDAY,10 MARCH 1999, '1000_HOL:'RS)

OPEN MEETING

Presidenf tlleCouncil:Dr.AssadKotai.te

SeeretaryMt.R.C. CostaPereira, Sec:reGeneral
1

PRESENT:

1 Algeria - Mr.T.Chérif Kenya -Mt. S.W.GiUraiga
P.rgentina - Mr. A.:f.Fa:zCarreras Mexico - MI. R. K.obehGon:dlez

Australia -Dr.J. Aleck NclherJands ~ Mr.L.T.Wilhelmyvan Hasselt
BotS'.'an - Mr.K. JMosupukwa Nigeria - Mr. D.O. Eniojukan
Brazil - Mr. A.R. BragaMalmestrom Norway - Mr. O.M lt!mbech
Camc:roon -Mr. T.Tekou Pakistan -Mt. S.N.Ahmad..
Canad.'i --: :r.o.Richard Parwna - Mr. R.E.GarciadeParedes
China - Mr.J.Yunn(Alt) Russian - Mr. V.A. R.outchkine
Colombia ~ Mr. JHcrruindez6pez Federation

Cuba -Dr. M Molina:Martincz SaudiArabia '- Mr. s.Al..Qhamdi
-1 Egypt - Mr. A.Y.El Karimy Senegal - .Mr.C.M.Diop
France -•Mr.. M.-Y.Peissik Slovakia - !o.fO.Fabrici
Germany - Mr.T.E.W.Sclunidt Spain - Mr. L. Adrover
'1 India -MF. V.S.Madan Un.itéKingdom -Mr. D.S.Evans
Indoncs.ia - Mr.E.A. Silooy , UnitedStates - Mr. J.P. OrJando(Alt.)
ltaly -Or: C.Pw111 aAit.) Uruguay - Mr. C.A. Bcrucki
Japan
::'1 - "-'I. . Okada

ALSO PRESENT: $RCRETARIAT:
,.l'
~ Mr. V.M. Aguado (President.ANC) *Mt. V.Pattanayak -D/ADB
Mr. GB. Graziani (Ait.) - Argentina •or.L.J.W~r ~PILEE
lvfJ. Majakwara(Alt) -Botswana "'MrJ.D.HoweU -DIANE!
Mr.J.S. Escobar .(AJt.) - Brazil •Mr. Y.N. Betiaev
-CILPB
Mr. A.VeiUard (Ait.) -France "'M.-. .-Boquist -C/AlM
Mr. J.F. Murphy (Ait) - C8nada *Ms:.L. Boisvcrt -ERO
Mn:.Z. Gonzâlezy •Mt.S. Esplnola -PLO
Reynero (Ait.) -Mex.lco •or. K.M Rooney - TO/OPSJAIP.
Mr.J. Whyte (Alt) - Nelherl.alu:H (Dangei"Q1J$oods)
Mr.K. Keltlr.zsüd(Alt.) -Norway •Mr. J. Huang - LegalOfficer
Mrs. A. Valdés(Ale.) -Uruguay "'Mrs.H.M.Bichtackî -Aviation Security
Mr.K.M.Sampassa (Obs.) -Democratie RepubUc, · Officer

ofCongo Mrs. C..Rideout -cso
Mr. A Mùkama (Obs.) -Rwanda
Mr.J.W. Kabbs Twijuke (Obs.) - UgandaSENTBY:ICAO HOMn.
3-30- 0 18:59 ;

-94-

Subj~ Nco. 1:4': Stibjeds Relating toNsvigation·

Requestby the DemocratieRepublicthe Congo

1:. Theabovesubjecwas doournenteoitheCounciJconsideratiinaMemorancfu mfthe
PresidentoftheCouncilAK/639dated JSfelltuary 1999.DOCUstedfor information.purindudCd:
MemorandumPRESAI<J642 dated2March1999,by whicthePresidenoftheCouncilcirculacopiesof
two statementsby the Presidentof the tlnito::lNatSecuritCoundl, datcd·31 .Augustand

Il Decemoer1998.anda pressreJeasebytheUnNationsSecretary..(]edlted.January1999.onthe
situatiintheDemocratieRcpublictheCongo.Thcsedocumentsntadcnoreferentothesubjecwhich
formedthebasiof the cornplbcforetheCouncil.

2'. ThePresidentothC~ouncirecalledtatthercquesttheMinisterofransponation and:

€bn;:unut oftheD~1mocrasieRepoblictheCongo,the CouncilitsSecondMeetingof tCUITCllt
Sess~ ilon5~'n622Feoruruy1999,baddecidetÇincludthe iteRequ~ b:1hcD;etocratiRepublic
of theCongo11inits work programmefothel56th Sessionand bad agreed to exait Wcdne.Sday.
10March 1999.

J:. InaccordancewitbArticle53oftheConventiInternalionalCivilAvta_andRule32
of theRules of Procedure for the Council, the PresinvitRwanda and Uganda toparticipate,
wi!heut theightto vote, in theconsiderationbyCouncilof this item. The alsoinforrnethe
DemocratieRepublic oftheCongooftheCoUilcsecision,andhadcxtendtdan invitationto theDemocratie
.Republicf theCongo to aJsoparticipatcin thisdiscussirlght tvoteThe Presidenexteadea

welcome toMr.Ka-wetaM. SainpassAmbassadoroftheDemocratiRepublicof theCongtoCanada;to
Mr. Augustin Mukama, Chargéd'Affa atteeEm·b~s of Rwandain Canada; and Mr. J.W. Kabbs
T\.., iirctkro~AirTranspotat theNationalCivilAviationAdministrationof Uganda;

4, The Ptesident then refctred to bis above-tnentîonedMemorWidumPRES. AK/639 .of

15February 1999,bywhichhe bad informedtheCouncilthat hisohadon.lJOctober 1998, receiyed
aletŒrdtrted October 199HfromtheMinistcrofTranspoi ommunicationoftheDemocratieRepub)ic
oft&e Congo, raising the matter ofthe hofthrdCongol.s;civiaircrafby the military forces of
Rwanda and Uganda formilitapurpŒ;es.as wea. te "iolatio:fthe Congoleseairspace by the said
military forces. .President binfonneth Council arany this lctteron 21 October(l551l). 1

Su&seq_uentlby a hater datcd 20 October l,he MinisteFof TransportCommunications ofthe
Democratie Republicof theCongohad infarmedthePresitheCouncilthatcvilaircraft belontoing
theprivate airline CAirlint:sltadboenshotnyUgandanandRwandanforces;the37passengerand 1
follrcrew membcrsbad ailperishedMinisterhadrequescthattheCouncincludthiscomplaintinthe
work ·J)rogramrneofJ56thSession,rcqu wi~htbicbtheCouncilhad complied,as irulicatedabove.
1

5. 'Ibe Councilhcard the foUostatemt:prescntedby the DeJcgatesof the Dt."'ITlocratic
RcpublicoftheCongo,Ugandaand Rwanda: '"
1
6. The Deleg,aofthe Democrat: .epubof thC~ongg: ·'

"It ibothan honourandan awcsomercsponsibilicyto take the floor beaugusthi1
Councilto spt:aksuchas~msi isuethetconcernncighbouriStateswitwhîchwe havetraditionally
badmendly and fraŒmal relatioThe DemocratieRepublicof tb.:Congois mobyda desire to a.·1·
retum to peaandsrabiliinthe rich,beautifulregionGreaLakes, itheint_ercofa.Jlour pcople..
.~

1

odJZ5..,
tt . 1&! 1i 1 li Il
ii& a 1111111

11 BY:ICAO HQ MTI.. ; 3-30- 0 18=01 UB14lBü]fAU4441223276707 :#25/30

-95- C·MlN 15619

Weare addressing ICAOin conneçtionwith a seriesofacts ofwhich ourcounûy basbeen the vieti.mand

wruchare violations of the variousconventions soveminginternationalair law. In bis statemcnts oc
31 August 1998 and.ll Decembcr. 1998. the President of the Security Counreafiirmedi'theobligatioto
rcspcd the territorial intcgrand oationasovercigntyof the Democratie Republicof theCongo and other
Statesintheregion :jllldtnced foran Statestorefiainfrom·aJJYintcml"ellcei~ other'internaiaffairs'"
(31 August 1998); ..the obligatiOJtto respectthe territorintcgritypolitical indcpcndcncandnational

sovereigntyof theDemocratie RepublicoftheCongoandotherStatesin lhcregion.includingtheobligation
to refrainfromthethreatoruseofforceagaiosttheterritorialintcgrityorpolticaliindcpcl1dcnŒofany State
or inanyother manner:inconsistentwiththePurposesof the UnitedNations."(Il Dccembcr1 -998).

Transposcd into thefieldofintcrntationlivil aviatiothC5cprincipJesliat the baseoftbe

ChicagoConventionand aUthe otherinternationalair law instruments that flowfrom it. 11leDemocratie
Republicofthe CongoasksthatICAO direcitsattentiontotheviolationofthese principlesithefielof civil
aviationbyour twoneighbours,RwandaandUganda,andrequeststhatthese violationsbecon.demned andthat
the sanctions and othcr mcasures ptovidcdfor undth ~onvention beapplied.

(1) The unlawfulseiztneon4 August1998ofthree Boeingaireraft operated.by theCopgolese
carriers CongoAirlinesandBlueAirlinesnnd acargoaeroplaneepcratc:dbL yJgne;a:ériennes
congolaisesdepartingfromGamaAirport. A stop atKigalifor refueltintransportation of
anned soldiersand ammunitioJ' I. Kitona"tosupport theoffensivein thewest. Return to

Kigaliwith tbewoundedandothervietims.(Testimony of theNigerian Captainlnyang).
Boeing707. regîstration9Q-CKG·Congo Airlines
Boeing 727, registrati.on 9QCDI-Blue Airlines
Boeing707, registration5N EEO -Air Atlantic

(2) Beghming on 4August 1998,almo.Sd tailyviolationsothe sovctcigntyoflhc airspaeeofthe
Democratie Republicof the Congoby Ugandanand Rwandan military aircraft cauying
munitionsofwarandimplemenl5ofwarin violationofArticle3 5 oftheChicago Convention.
Morescriously,these flightsfrequenyfailedtoestabl.sradiocontactwithair ttafficontrol
units along theroutes us~ by scheduled air tra.ffic, in violatof the Standards and

Reeomm.cnde PrricticesoAnnex .1ta theICAOConvention,thus exposingboth domestic
a.ndnternationaltra:fficinCongoleseairspaceto constantdanger.

(3) On Saturday, 10 October 1998 at:8:54 ure. thatis 10:54 EST in OUI'country, a eîv11
Boeing 727 aircraft, registtation 9Q-CSQ, belongiug to the private carrier Congo Aidines,

was savagely shotdawn bytbose attacking our countzythrteminutes aftertake-offfrom
Kindu airport on a flight to Kinshasa. The aircraft was earsomcg forty crcw members
and passerigerson board, mo!rtothem womcnand clûldr U nnbleto controlthe aireraft
nfter iwas struck, the pilot broadcastdistress ca1tomdicatc that he"\\o"attemptÎ11a
forcedlanding.The message wasbeardbythe Airways Board controlcentres,includil'those

at Kinshasa. The çrash occurredmomentsh\tcr, 50 kilometres from the city of Kindu,
resultinin theJossof innocenthuman.livesandconsiderablemate rialdamage. Oneof lhe
sponsors oftheattackclairnedresponsibiHtyforion Radio France1ntemationale and on the
Voice of America, broadca.stingfromihe aggre:;sors'base.

(4) ln order to trn.velto or fromGama by 1:1i,lipa.sscngcrsgo through Kigalior Kampala.
There an::almost daily fligh[sto Gama, BukAvu,and Kindu. These _aremassive and
systcrnatic violations of the sovereignty of Congolese airspace.SENT BY:1CAOHOMJ'L 3-30- 0 ; 13:02 ;
LEGAL BUREAUH441223276707

C-MIN 136/9 -96-

The Govenunent of theDentOCr31 ienbli cf the Congo caUs upon the intematiocal,
community7tbrough the ICAO Councilto examinetheviolationwe &.ve denounced:and!to adoptthe
sanctionsand oillermeasuresprovidedfol'unrheConvention.~

?. The Delmte ofUganda: '..l

"Ibringyouwari nreetingaodgood\vishesfro.heGovemmcna tDdpeopJeoftheRepublïc ··-.1
ofUganda. - . .
. ..-l'

Ott25Febroary1999,ourMinistcrofWorks.Housinga.ndCommunicatiomreceivcda letter
from tbePresidenof theICAO Councildated 23February 1999,invitinUganda topartîcipatin thcse
deliberationInthe lettcr.thePresidentofdu:CouncilînfonnedourMinisterthat the Minit:rrer·ofTransport
andCommunicationsof theDemCICratR icepublicofCongobadwrittto him andleviedaccusationagainst .
theRepublicof Uganda. Uganda bas sludithefettewritten·bythMinisteroftheDemocratie Republic
of Congo,copiesofwhlcb wercsenttoUganda.undcrcoverof.theletteroftbe Presiofnthe Council.·

ltistheconsideredopinionof Ugandathattheallegaraised bytheDemocratieRcpubJic '·
of Congop..completel.unfounded. Ugandacategoricald~es thehija.ckingof the threeCongolcivil
aireraisbooting dawn of the CongoAirlincsaircrafon 10 October1999 and non--observanceofthe
internationstandardsand recommendedpracticuftheConventiononInternationalCivilAviation. any l
caseitis Uganda'svicwthat suchconflictsshouldbve beenbrougbttothe attentionofUganda earlierwith· '
a viewto~king bilateraJor evenregionalsolutionsas envi.sagedinArticle 84 of the Chicago Convention.
Iti:alsosurprising note thatthemattewas brougbtotheattentioof thePresidentothe!CAO Council
t
as earlas 9Oetober 1998butwas neverbroughtame attentioofUganda. Ugan~ onJylwrnt oitthro~o~gh
thePresidentoftheCouncilinhislenerof23February1999.Itwou.bave bet:expectcdtbattheDemocratie
RepublicoftbcCongo would haveraiscdtheseissueswithUgandin the fitinstance·However,now that J
the matter is otheagenda ôf this augCouncil,Uganda isobligeto present its forrcsponseto the ·.~
Democratie Rcpublicof Congo algalions.
.'·;·"
ltis unrea.listic to terrn tin Congoas an act of aggrcssion onpartof Uganda -.-~
whercas atthe localnationaand even 1ntemationallevels it is aeknowledged that thepartof the

Democratie Republlc of Congo undertheCQntroolfCongolesrebels. Thi~be lolwas triggered 9ff b-y ·-1
P.rnutinofsectionofthe CongolesAnny basedintheeasternpartofthe DemocratieRepublie oftheCongo:
-;1
In principlandpracticeUgandare5pectsinternationallaw andgood neigbbourliness. It is
enjoinedby the UrûŒdNations and OrgaoizatiofAfricanUnity(OAU) Charters to respect international ~
borders.il is howcver also mandatbyinternationlaw and its owa Constituttodefend itterritorial
inŒgricypeopleandtheirpropertyfromcriminaandkillerswhohavebeenrecru.ittrainedanne :~upplied
and eoordi.Mtedfrom the DemocratieRepubiicof theCongofora very long timc. 1

The DemocratieR.epublicoftheCongobasforalongtime bccn sanctuaryof several rcbel 1
groupswhichincludcthe NationalAnny fortheLib~;r oaUtgandna(NALU), AlliedDemocratieForces
(ADF).WestNilcBankFront(WNBF),UgnndaNationalRescueFront (Ul\'RF)andR\.vandeseIntetaharnwc.
These n::bclgroups have for a longtime,beenusingtheDemocratieRc:publicof Congo as a Jaunchingpa"1for .
theîr atta.cks on innocent civiliUganda. The tnosgrislyincursioY.'aStheADF. burniog ofover
l00 studt..at a technicinstituinUganda,inthedistriknown asKabarole incarly1998 andthe recent
atrociousmurder of foreigntouristand Ugandaasin the BwittdiNational Park by tbeseRwandesc
1

Il

•• a J BY:1CAOHOMTI... 3-30- 0 19:04 LEGAL BUREAUH441223276707 . ;#27/30

1
-97- C-MIN 156/9

Intcrahamweso.sroeently as lweèk Other attack$ mounted by these groups from theiinbCongo
ineludetheOct:ober-N o9v6amackbonr pondwe.Kilsesand Bweraby theADF and its abduction
ofstudentsfrom aseminaryinKasesein1991.

.- On 15 Jlln1'997, J\DF movedfromtheDemocratieRepublicof theCongoand attack:ed

Bundibugyodistrict. locatesouth U~gwnealootd lb L~v.w:tdkilled11people, dis:placinganothcr
200 0~0. The VINBFandUNRFwhichalsohavetheir fm:SeilheGarambaNational Park intheDemocratie
Republic ofthe Congohave also beeu.launchingtheir terroristaagaiitthe people inUganda.The
wholeof westernUganda which includetbcdistrictsoKisoro, KabalRukungiri,Kasese,Bundibugyo.
Hoima,Masindi, Nebbi,AruaandKobokohavebeen:subjectctountoldsuffcritatthebandsofrebels bascd

inthe DemocratieRepublicoftheCongo.

It.isagainst thisbackgroundlhattl1eUgandanGovcmandthecum."DGt ovemmentofthe
Democratie Rcpublic of the Congo, under a protocol betweenthe two oountries sigo.edin Kinshasa on
27 April 1998,agrecdto deployUganda'sArmedForces (UPDF)intotheDemocratieltepublic oftheCongo

to c:onductjoint operationsaga.inrttheaf'oremcriminalgroups. Uganda cannat stand by and watch
it:speoplebeingkillooarufpropertydestroyedbyorganizedcribasedintheDemocratieRepublicofthe
Congo. Uganda isinthe DemocratieRepublicoftheCongotodenythe:semurdcrousgroupinterritothat
canbe uscdto launchatta ~gainstitpeople and will immedi.afeavewhen a mecbanismcapable of

effectivecheckingthese~be activîtis:inplace.
~
The accusat:iOofextemalnggJ"I;':havebeenraised by the DemocratieRepublic ofthc
Congo and cxhaustivelexplaincdby theGovemmeot of Uganda before the UNGeneralAssembly, tbc:
Organizationof AfricUnity.theSouthemAfticanDevclopmen tommunity(S ADC).and tbeEastAfrican

CooperationUganda bas attendedaUregionandinŒmationa leaceinitiativin AddiAbaba. Mauritius~
·VictoriaFaUs,Lusaka,Windhoekand Pretoria. ln tesccasesihas beenappreciated ththeconflicin
the DemocratieRcpublicof the Congo hasboth intandcxJ~; dm esions and that securitconce.rns
ofneighbouring countries, includingUganda,haveto beaddressèd.

1wish now toaddrcssChepecifie complairaisobytheDt:mocrntiRepublicofthe Congo
to the effect that Uganda bas violatedthe DemocratieRepublicof Congo's aîrspaŒ, hijackethe
Democratie Republic of tCongo•saircraft and sdoV!.a Congo Airlinaireraft.

(1) Hijackingofthtce aircraft:TheDemocratieRcpublicoftheCongoallcthaonthedate of

4 August 1998threeoircraft,nHoeing707 rc:gistration·9Q, Bocing 727registration
9Q-CDI bclongingtoCongo AirlinesandRlueAîrlinesrespectivcly, and an Air Atlantié
Boeing 707 on lcasto Lignes aeriennes congolaises were hijaby Usandan anned
forŒs. Ugandasubmitsthatitbanevertakcnanypossession,lawfulor uniawfofthesaid
three aircraft.The Democratie R.;.,p1.1f the Congo cat.:.:goricallystates that a

Mr. JwnesKabarehev•boissaitohave commandeercdthethrce aîrcraftheirformerchief
of staff. For this reason Uganda cannat answcr fhi:actioas. Moreovcr the said
Mr. James Kabttreheisnota Uga.cdannational.

(2) · ViolationofterritorialintandiCongoleseairspacc:Ugandahas notengagedinany acrial

activities or missionsin the DemocratieRepublic of the Congo, neither doanyit have
aircraft in tDemocratieRepublic of the Congo. Therefore, Uganda bas v1olated
De_mocratiRepublicofthe Congoairspaceoanyprovisionsofthe Chicago Convention,let
atoneArticles3o35 asallegedbytheGovemmcntoftheDernocratiRepublicoftheCongo.

1 .---.__:--;;__~~=~
SENTBY:ICAOHQ MTI... 3-30- 0 13:05
LEGALBI.JREAU-~·441223276707 ;#28/30

C-Ml:N156/9' - 98 -

(3); Shootingdawn ofan aircrafTheDernoenttioRepub6c oftheCongoalleges 1haUganda shot

· downan aircraftbelongitoCongoAirlineson 10Octobcr 1998.Uganda basno knowledge
'?Ftlleshootindown ofthe aircraftTbereforethe DemocratieRepublic of the Coogo's
accusationofUganda fornoo-observaneeof theStandard snd RecommendedPractices as
containedinAnnex 11totheConventiononInternationaCl ivilAvJatiisindoedsurprising.

ln,conctu Usgandn:asnotbijackedorsbotanyDemocratie Republic of theCongo a.ircraft--

and llasnot violated Democratie Republie the Congo airspace or conttavenedany provision of the
Convention, onlnternanonalClvflAviaHon. The cla.imrâ.isedby thI)emocra.ticRepublic of the·Congo.
agniru!Ug:mda are unfoundcdand Ugandaappealsto this Counenot t:accept them."

8. The.U.el§gatef Rwanda:

"1wouldlikctorefertyou aletrerdated23February 1999from theICAO Council President.
Assad Kotaite, to the MinisterofTT3IISportandCommunicationthe Republic of Rwanda, infotminthe
GovernmentoftheRepublicofRwanda ofàccusationby the DemocratiRepublicofthe Congo.of attacking
and hijacking Congolese aircraftviolatinitsairspaŒ.The Governmcnt of Rwanda basthe pleasureto
respondtothese allegationsas follows.

First of all. 1wàuld ltoegiveyou a briefbackground of theconflict stha.tyou will
Wldc:rstandbettwhat is'goingoninthat regioln 199 t4e~worst genocidinour modern timestoo place
in Rwanda. It was bath tragicandgruesome. Overonenilltioninnocentpeople losttbeir lives in one hundred
days.The sh~ sXac andorganizatiooftheRwandàgenocidewastragica.l1yspcct.acular. unprecedcntin
humanhistory. Thegenocidewasplannedby theGovcmmentof theIatePresidentHabyarimanaand exewted
by thdead.lInter3hamwea; militiawhichpi'Cachdthniebatred.divisionandeatto Tutsis anHutus who
didnotsharetheirevilpoHtics.Theonehundred daysofmurdcrwasonJybrought toa baJwhen the eurrent

govemmentdefcatedthe forceofHabyarimanaa ·w::lthelnteraham.wn batde, sendiIJUUlyof them across
theborder to the DemocratieR.epuboftheCongo (thenZain::)whéretheyinunediatelybcgan plottirlg_their
retum toRwanda. On retum,theyhopedLocomplete: the1unfi:nished"task of annihilatofTutsis and
modcrateHutus.

The Jnterahamwefoundan ally itheirevplot.Itwasfonner PresidenMobutu who, seeing
1
the regional uphcavalsas a threato his dictatorship. chose to give moral andmaterial supptothe
l.nterah.amwe.With thissupport,the Interahamwcwereatocontinuetheirwaraga.lnst_tnew governmcnt
ofRwanda. They made frequentcross border raids, crearing serious ÏDsintheprefectures bordering
tht::DemocratRcpublic oflhe Congo. Thousands of innocent villwerc killtastheInterahannvêmade 1
nightraids otht:villages.whîleotbcl'Swereabductedand forejoin rcirrBllkasfigh.teor concabines.
Aftcr repeated requetotheMobutu governmentto eut off linwith thenillitiandthe security si_tua.tion
havingdeteriorated the extent thabecauscof thecross-bordeattatks by the:ntc:rahamwe.here were 1

hundreds of thousandof interna1yisplaccdpersons in Rytanda,the govemment of national uintKigali
was compelledta baclean internairebellinCongo whichcventually letothe ovefthrowof Mobutu.
1·
The new governmenli.nKinshasledby Presidentl..aurent Kabila, howevct, faiiEXtIo provide
adequateguaTanteesagaJnsthelntcrahamwe, andinthecourseof1998 aetually enterintoan alliance with
them tc create instabilandcommit acts of violenceanterroin Rwanda. ln September 1998, President 1
Kabila of the Democratie R.epublicoflhe Congosaidin a spe&hathe would takcthwar he is fighting in

eastern Congo to Kigali, a statementbybath Rwandcse and the international community as a declaration
ofwar against Rwanda,in violationoArticle ofthe UNCharter.Ka.bila'sMinister for Healinthe sante 1

1

- AU 1 '·j,>'"'~~·...:.~,..:.•-------~~n~•~-----·--~~~-~~~~-~---·~-r

BY:JCAOHO MfL 3-30- 0 18:07 LEGAL BUREAU4441223276707 ;#29/30

1
-99- C-MIN15619

1
mooth n::ferred to Tutsis, wcluding Rwandese Tutsis. as •mïc:mbes which should be extermilbisd!'.
statementwas the maincatalystforthemasskiJlingsofRwandesandCongolescTutsis rigbt accoss Congo
in 1998.Thesceventswerewidelydoeumentedin_theintematioomediaandinreportsofinternatiocal human
1 rightsgroups.

1 Equallyworryingfor Rwandawas thatKabila'salliMcwith theIatembamwc rcsuitedin a
·resurgenceof.insecurity,andthcrclos5oflife andpropcrty intemaldisplacemeutinthe border regions
of Rwanda. Kabila'sdecisioto hack thes:emilitias,statcdaimîstooverthrowthegovemment in Kigali
and continue the genocider.beganin 1994i.n~w~ violatcsArticle2.4 of the UN Charter.
1

AtthispojntIslrouldlitomentionthat thiisnotjust thevicwofRwanda, but also tbat of
the UnitedNations. ln fitthefinareportofthe lntematiooal Commissionoflnquicy for theInvestigation
1 of Anns Fiows to FonnerRv;andanGoverruneutForcesin theGreat LakcsRegion,established by Security
CouncilResolution1013 (1995)andreactivateby SecurityCouncilResolutio1161( 1998) witha mandate

to collecinfonna.tionand investigater:eportsretothesale, supply and shipm.entoa.rmsand relatcd
1 matérieltoformer Rwand.altgovemmentforcesand militiasin the Great Lakes regofcentrai Africato
identîfyparties aidingaabertintheillegalsale toor acquisitionof anns by former Rwandangovcrnmcnt
forcesand militias;atomakerecommendationrselatingto theillesaJflowofanns intheGreat Lakes region,
,.1
stated,inits paragraph 87, itwasconvincedthatntheex-FARandlnterahamwehavecontinucd torcccivc
anns and ammunition.bothlhrougbtheircloselinkswithotherarmedgroupsinAngola,Burundi. Ugaodaand
elsewhcre, and'most recèntly,fromtGovemment ofthe Democratie Republic of the CongDespite the
i impositionupon themof a SerurityCouncilanns embargo.whichbas remainedfuTCCsînçethe genocide of

1994,the ex-FAR andJ.oterahamwehavcnow becomeineffectthealliesaftheGovemmcntofthc Democratie
Republic of the Congo and its allies,theGovernof Angola. Chad.Narruoiaand Zimbabwe. The new
.~·1 relationshihas conferred a fomtofJegitimacyon tlnterahamwc and th~-FAR. This isa profçundiy
sh~kisn tateof affairs. ''
...
;,.
In a,ccordancth<:rcfor'h'Îprovisions ithe Constituti0of theRepublio of Rwanda
referrinto the obligation of the Stlte in protecting the populatiioteJomor t~trna. lttack, the
Govermnentwascornpelledta takeactiontoprotectthesovereigntyandtenitorintcg;riofRwandaand to
defenditspopulation. To this end,theGovernmentofRwanda sent troops to Congo, once mtohunt for

andapprehend thecriminallnterahamwewhoarêfightiugwithinthe ranksofPresidentKabilanny. 1[must.
however. be made clearthatthe presenceof Rwanda'stroops in Congo are a result of an initial act of '
aggression by the DemocratieRepublieofthe Coninblatant violationof Article 2.4 of tht:UN Charu:r. IL
shoulda.a be made clear that warin Congo isessentialaninternai conflict with extrepercussions
as 1have hlghlig:babove.The accusations made agains'tRwanda thelneedto bedrcctedatthewarrîng

factionsintheCongoleseconDict,namelytbegovemment ofthe Democr.lticRcpublicoftbe Congèand the
rebelallianceIthas not bt.:cnin Rwanda'scapacitinteresto attack DemocratieRepublic of the Congo 1....
aircraftathethan putSuingIntera'-mwcwhoarc Rwanda'sinterest inCongo.

The Government ofRwanda rcqu~ tleC ouucilto rejecttheaccusatibysthe Democratie

RcpubHc ofthe Congo bccauseofthe nbove-stnrensons.Il~ becomea.tacticofthc:Democratie Republic
of the Congo govemmenttoi!CCUSRwanda andUganda.of causingtheproblems iis fa.ci.aa rc.~ oualt
rebellionneastern Congo. instcadoffacing the problemsand comingto tcrrnsYlitbcheinternai problems in
theDemocratie Republîc otheCongo.lt isunfortunatethattDemocratie Republic ofthe Congo is tak.ing

upthe time ofthihonourable Counciltoengagein makingSca.pegoatofUganda and Rwanda.. Had the
Democratie Republic of thCongoeven remotelythougbt that Rwanda bad violated iobligationto tbe
Conv~:; Arntcleo4(,Sett/ o[Disuf(n)tofthConvention onlntemat;onalCivil Aviation wouldhave ---n----~1
SENf BY:ICAHQMIL 3-30- 0 19:08 ;
LEGALBUREAU~441223276707 ;#30/30
e-MIN 15619 - tOO-
1
:applied.This isweilknowtthe DemocraRepublof tCongoand hscr.npplibetweeaJ..
usnvicebefolnbothinstances,a perfectly;uniwas~-solutiOll
1
The twinstanwerc: .

(1) Whenaircrnftregjstrationnumber9Q-CBScribe Airlifi wasallegedlyshotdawn
on 10Septembcr1991. In accorda:necwithofArticle 8theConvention,
bothcountrieshelratiobeforeresortingto theCouccitheAfricanvil 1
AviationCommis(AFCAC)wereinV: sobserversthe deliberations_
. (2) AZairiregisteredaircraft (B-737)whichviolatedRwandlaod'W\'ÎthouL
au:tborizaKamembeAirport,a non-inteairport inApril 1996. In accordance
v.-thesamcarticlementioncdabave,cwcreheldand ICAOandits Easternand
SouthemAfricanRegionalOfficeofficiaisattendedas observerS. -1

Itshouldbenoted thatwhilea pilot of an aircraft is duty bow1d to immediat.elyrcport any
unfonunateincidentinacwitbJml13-1Chapt13ofAnnt;6of the Convention,the authoritics
in theDemocratieReptheCongohaveneverinfwnoftheallegationsthat theyhavenowb1ought
beforethe Council.
loeocclusion,Jwouldliketo implorethe Councilro rsllegationswbic1,esa
givcthDemocraRepublicoftheConcurrepoliticaldifficulticsapdthehistoryofconsultationswhcn
disputesarise.atbeairnedatdiscn.gwandaandgainingpoiiLicalcapital intemat1onallyfor the
DemocratieRepublicof theCongogovernment.' 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

\ ··.·..

,_'1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1 Annex 5
1 ICAO Council record ofNinth Meeting, 10 March 1999, C-DEC 156/9
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1 Il
1
1

1
·-1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1 ;#18/30
L BY:ICAOHOM1L 3-30- 0 LEGAL BUREAUk441223276707

1

C..DEC 156/9
-1 (1/3/99 .. ·

COUNCIL - 1S6TII SESSION

1 ·NINTHMEETING

('l'l:OUNCJLCHt\MBERt WEDNf..SDAY,0 MARÇII1999 AT1000 HOOKS)
1
SUMMARYOF DECISIONS

1 Ol"EN MF.EJ'ING

1 Request by the Demotnltic Repuofthe Congo (SubjectNoJ4)

1. The abovesuhjectwadocumentedfotheCoùnci.sconsideratioa Memorandum of
thePresideoftheCouncUAK/639dated 15February1999. .Dm:umesistedfor informationpurposes
1 included MemorandumPRES AK/642 datediMarch 1999, by which the President of the Council
circulated copietwofstatemenlbythe President of the United Nations Security dat~cii,
31 Augusand n1Decem.ber1998,anda presreleaohy rheUnitedNationSecretary-General datcd
1 6 lanuar1999,onthesituation in the DemocRepubliof thCongo. The.sedocuments made no
reftl'ento thesubjewhi~ fbrmed the baofsthe tomplaint befure the CounciJ. ·

1 2. The President of the Crecallethatat the request of the Ml.njsterof Transportation
!lndCommunicationsof the DemocrRepublicof the Congo, the.Couneil, at itM~geconof
thecurrenSession (1561nn 22 February 1999, had decideinc1udethe ite~Reqù es he
1 Democratieepublicof thCongo" in its woprogrammefor the 156th Session and·agreedo
examineiWednesday,10March1999.

3. lnaccordancewithArticle 53 theConventionon lnternaJional.Clviati aOd~J
1 RuiB32 of th-Ruleof Procedure.for dze CounciPrac:idebad invited Rwanda and Uganda ta
participate,witthe rigbt"tovote, in the considCounciof!htitem.The FresldenbadaJso
infarmedthDemocratiRepubliof the Congnof the Counctl'sdecision, and haalninvitatio~
1 ta thDemocratieRepublof the Congo to also partinthis discussion without right to vote..·The
PresidentC':tendeda weitoMr. Kaweta M. SatnpasAmbassadorof the DemocratRepubfiof
theCongotoCanada;tMt. AugustinMukama, Chargéd'Affaires at the Embassy ofRwanda in Canada; '
1·
of Uganda.W. KabbsTwijukeDirecroof AiTransporat the NatioCivil Avia·ionAdministration

1
4. The Pre.~i henneferred to his above-mentioned Memorandum PRES AK/pf9
15Pebruary1999, bywhich he had infurmed lhe Couthahisoffic~ad ,n 13October 1998.
1 received Jettdated9.October 1998 from tMinisteof Tran.<>prtd Conununications of the
Democratie Repubof thCongu, raising matterof the hijack.ingofCongolesecivil aircraft
bythe military forces of Rwanda and Uganmllitary purposas weil as tviolatioÇlf the
Congolesairspachy the said military fürc:Presidenhad in.furmedthe Couorallyof this ··
1 letter on 21 October 1998 (1Subsequently, a lener dated 20 October 1998. the Minisrer of
Transpanand Communicationsof the DemocRepubticof thCongobad infonned the President of
theCt)uncthat civiaircraft belonging to rhe private airJi.aeCbadobeenshot downby ..
1

{pages)
1 0156.09

1 3,..30- 0 18:55 ; LEGALBD]EA~41223276707 ;#19/301
SENTBY:1CAOHQ N11...
C-DEC15619 -2-
1

UgandanaodRwandanforces;the37p~seng erdfourcrewmembershadaliperished. TheMinister
bad requested thal the Council include thisinlbe work programmofits l!i6th SŒsion, a 1
requeswithwhich the Council had compliind.icatabove.

S. The Councilbeardstatemenpresentbythe DelegatesothDemocratieRepubJiof
the Congo,Ugauda and Rwanda,after whichinterventionsweremadeby a mimberof Representatives
on the Council.The President of the CouncO observed from these interventions that there was
widespreadsupporfor aapproachoudined by the RepresenofCamer u oobad put furward.
twoalternatives.·The first alternatdave the Councitissl1ea declanrtionwhbehwithîn 1
theframeworkof thChicagoConvention,theCooncU'scompetenanddomain, asweil wltbithe

framework ocertaiaviatio:securiconventionincludingtConventionon 0./fenfJilCertain 1
OtherActsCommlttedon BoardAlrcra(Tokyo, 1963),OmvemionfortheSuppre.rsimJfUnliJl4ful
Seit.lof Aircrqfi(The Hag1970), thCon~ fortheSuppressioof UnlawjAas againstthe
SafetyoQvU A.villtion(Montreal,1971), and the 1988ProtheSuppressionof UnlawfulA.cts
ofVwlence at AirpoServinInternationalCMl Avlation,supplemetothe MontrealConvention. 1

6. The P're$iidtoted the referwhichthe Representativeof Scnegal batothee
preamhle of the Conventionon International CIVilAviŒion, which that •(: ..)future 1
developmentof intemationaJ civil aviation can gretocreateand preserve friendship and
understanding among the natandpeoples of the woryetitabuse can becorne a thtothe
generilecurity (...)In this connection, he ohservanytconflict coseriouslaffect tbe 1
deveJopmentand progreofcivilaviation,iairtranspon, whicbwasanessentialfafursocio·
·economiedevelopmenat thnatio negonaJand internationallevelsPresid indcatedthat if
the Counciso wishedhecouldpreparea dradeclaration withio the framewodomain ofthe 1
Organizationantheabove-mentioneddocumentswhichprotectedcivilaviation. The draftdeclaration
wouldbeavailablefor tCouncn consideratiatthenex(156/lOmeeting,whichwouldtakeplace
·. . lateinthe day.
1
7. As regards the second alternativbad been mentioned by Representatiof
Cameroon. wherebythePresidenof the Councwould use bis goodoffiand keep the Council
1
informeatappropriatime te ~residentsugge.tbatthe Counfir reviewthe above-mentionoo
draft declaratoodeterminwhetherit wouJfulfthe objt:etivesofCouncilin protecting civiJ
aviationanin takian thenecessarmeasureto ensurethsafetyefficienandregularityof civil 1
aviation. · ··

8. The Council acceptethe courl!cof actisuggestedby itsPresidentwitbthe 1
understandingthiwould retumtothe request by the DemocratieRepublic of dte Congo at it.snext
meetingat which timedrafdeclaration wobepresentedfor its review.
1

1

1

1

1

1

11
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
Annex 6
1 ICAO Council record ofTenth Meeting, 10 March 1999, C-DEC 156/10
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1 Il
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

-1
1
1
1

1.)1 BY:1CAOHOMTI.. 3-30- 0 18:57 LEGA LuREA~441223276707 ;#20/30

1

1 C-DEC l56/10
12/3/99

1 COUNCll. " 156111 SESSION

Tt:NTHMlt.TJNG
1
{l'HF. COtJNCU. CHAMBER, WEDIŒ·10MARCtt1999AT1600IIOURS)

1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS

01"EN MEETING
1
Requestbythe Democratie Republic of the Congo (SubjectNo. 14)

1 1. The CounciJresumed (15itconsiderationof the abovesubject, dinamented
Memorandum of the President of the Councildate15 February 1999. Futttorthe
the framcworanddomainoftheOrganizatlon and certain aviation securityfor thetions,ation,
1 CounciJ•s review.

2. Sornecommentsof editornature,offered inconnwitthedifferlanguage
1 versionsof the draftdeclaration.were notedbythe Secretariatforverification. Inaillanguageverstons?
the ve"Cl)ncludes .. which ithelJperatpart of thedeclarationwaschangedto "Dedares".

1 3. Subjecto the.se cunendments, theadopted the declapresenteby the
President and thus coits considerof the it"RequetytheDemocratiRepubltlthe
Congo". ThePresidentoftheCounciJtbaDelegat oioeD.~mocraRepublicof the Congo.
1 RwandaandUganda fur havingtaken part in thconsiderationof this subject, and expressed
thewish and tdesirthathiconflicwouldbe resolved.in a peacefulmanner. promoting close
cooperation relatioamong neighhourStateAs part of UnlteNations, ICAattached
1 great importtorcsolvingconflicina peaceway.

4. lt was understood thadeclaratiadopteby theCuuncil woulbe seot to
1 ContractingStates and ro tNationtad;,at a press releasewouldbe issued.

1

1

1

1 1The textThedeclarationadobyethCouncil is attached.

1

1r
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1'
1 ~------------- -
1
1

1
1
;1

1

1
1
1 Annex 7
ICAO Council Declaration,-adopted 10 March 1999
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1 1.
1
. 1

1
'1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1~ BY:!CAOHOMIL ; 3-30- 0 18:57 LEGAL BUREAUH441223276707 ;#21/30

1

DECLARATION ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL
1 OF THE INTERNATIONALCIVlL AVIATIONORGANIZATION
AT TI1E NlNTH MEETING OFITS 156THSESSION ON 10 MARCH 1999

1

1 111ECOUNCIL

1 HAYJNGCONSJDEREDthe requcstofGovcmmentoftDemocratiRepublofthc Congo for
considerationofmattereferrtoinits ledated9and20 October 19totbe·Pn:sidof'dtc
Councilandiitverbastatemtothe Councilon 10March1999;
1
HAYJNGCONSJDEREIJthStatcmcntsoftheGovernmentofRwatheGovenunentofUganda
respectivtothCounciJon 10March1999inrelttheabove-numtiorequcst;
1
·HAYTNGNOTEDALSOthe StatementsbylhcPret ftSeairiCounciofthUnitedNations
dated 31 August and 11 December 1998 and the Press Relea.scof the U.N. Secrctary Qcnc.raldated
1 . anuaJY1999~ ·

.MJNDFULtbaanconfliouldnegativelyaffecttheprogressanddevint.ematlcivil
1 aviationoonfyas a meof transpbutalsoas an cssentialfactorof sodevelopmŒt:ic

1
DECLARES nsfollows:

1. The preambleofConventionlnrerllfJlCivAviatiostipu hatteee~elopmenof
1 internationalcivilaviationcangtocreateandpreservefriendshipand undam<mgtheng
nationandpeoplesof wotl detitahusecabecome_athrtothegenerasocurity;

1 2. · The AssemblyandtheCouncUaffirmedinmeirre.wlutionsthat die unlawfulseizureof aircnJt
andothcr acts of uninterferenceagainstcivil aviatiaL."aimedatthe destruction of
aircrahave seriadverseeffectsonthesafety, effregularof internaticivaviation,
1 endanger the lives ofpa.~;~eiandcews, and undenninconfidenof the peoples of the
world in the safety of i.ntemationalcivil aviation:

1 3. In accordance with Articles 1ConvelUionon International CivtheCounciln,
recognizesthe principlethat everyStatehas oompleteandexclusivesovereignty over the airspace aoove
itterritorandthat the territory of aStdc=emetbe the land aand territorial waters
1 adjacent thereto;

4. In accordancewithArticle3 bisof the Conveinurefrain from the use of weapons
1 against civil aircraft in fljgbt as beingincompatiblewith elehumanity~nsiderations of

1

1

13ENJ'BY:1CAOHOMil. ; 3-30- 0 18:58 LEGALBCREA~441223276707 ;#22/30 '1

-2- 1

1

5. TheprotectionofcivilaviationfromaintetferbasbeenenbancedbytheTokyo 1
Convent(1963The HagueConvention(1970)..Conventi(1971)andtbe 1988Protocol
Supplementtthe MontrealConventionof wela byAnnex17totheConventlon on
lnternatOvilAviation; --1

6. The Counçü urges ail States in exe.-cisingConvention on ln/èrnational
ReeommendPracticlaidowninthese Conventioin thAnnexesto Convenllon and 1
lnternotCiviAviation;
1
7. · TheCouncurgesailStateshavnoyeduneso roratifyassoonaspos:dbbis ·cle3
othe ConventiononlnlerCivAviattantocomplwith ailprovisof this Article.
1

- END-
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
A:\finald-1 'wpd

1

1 1

1
1
International Court of Justice
1
1

1
1

:1 CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES
:1 ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO
(DEMOCRATie REPUBLIC OFC·ONGO
1 v. TREPUBLIC OF RWANDA)
1

1 ANNEXESTO THE
MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA
1
1

1
1 21 April 2000

1
1

1
1----_.--~~ü-~--- ~·1•

1
1!

1

1

1
1·

1

1
1

1

1
1

.1

1
1

1

1

1
1 --.---··
1

1

1
Lisof Annexes
1
1. Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Civil
1 Aviation, 1971. ...
2. United Nations Convention1_984.stTorture,
3. ICAO Document PRES AK/639:-
1
of Congo to the President ofthe Council ofiCAO (9 October 1998)ons
1
Attachment B: Letter from the President of the Council of ICAO to the
1 Minister Transport and Commof Congo (3 November
1998)
Attachment C: Letter from Minister of Transport and Communications
1 of Congo to the Presidilof ICAO (20 October 1998)
Attachment D: Letter from the Embassy of Congo to the President of
1 the Council of ICAO (2 February 1999)

1 Attachment E: Letter from Minister of Transport and Communications
of Congo to the President of the Council ofiCAO (2 February 1999).
1
4. ICAO Council Minute C-MIN 156/9.

1 5. ICAO Council record ofNinth Meeting, 10 March 1999, C-DEC 156/9.
6. ICAO Councilord ofTenth Meeting, 10 March 1999, C-DEC 156/10.
1
7. ICAO Councillaration, adopted 10 March 1999.
1

1

1

1

1

1··----~- --__1

1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
11
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
Annex 1
1 Montreal Conventionppression of Unlawful Acts against Civil
1 Aviation,1971

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1--~..~:__ .--_- __-_------------=----- -----··-

1
1

1

1
1

1

1
1

1

1
1

1
1

1

1
1

1

1
11

1

1

1

1
No. 14118
1
MULTILATERAL
1 Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the
safety of civil aviation (with Final Act of the Interna­
I tional Conference on Air Law heJd under the auspices
of the InternatCivil Aviation Organization at
1 on 23 September 1971r 1971). Concluded at Montreal
Authentic texts: English, French, Russian and Spanish.
'Registeredby the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great
I on8 July 1975.thern freland and the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics

1

1
MULTILATÉRAL
lonventionpour la répression d'actes illicites dirigés
contre la sécuritéde l'aviation civile (avec Acte final de
1 les auspices de l'Organisation de l'aviation civi1e in-
ternatioàaMontréal en septembre 1971)à Conclue
1 Montréalle 23 septembre 1971
Textes authentiques: anglais, français, russe et espagnol.
t registréepar les États-Unis d'Àmériquf, le Royaume-Uni de Grande­
soviétiquesle 18juillet 1975. et l'Union des Républiques socialistes
1

1
V91·l-1113

1

1 1

1

1

178 United Nations - Treaty Series • Nations UniesRecueil des Traités 1975

CONVENTION 1 FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF UNLA WFUL ACTS 1

AGAINST_THE SAFI;TY OF CIVIL AVIATION

1

The States Parties to the Convention
Considerîng that un!awful acts agaînst the safetyof civHaviation jeopardize the
safety of persons and property, seriously affect the operation of air services, and
1
undermine the confidence of the peoples of the world in the safety of civil aviation;
Considering that the occurrence of such acts is a matter of grave concern;
Considering that, for the purpose of deterring such acts, there is an urgent need
to provide appropriate measures for punishment of offenders; - 1

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1. l. Any person commits an offence if he unlawfully and inten·
tionally: ·1

(a) performs an act of violence against a person on board an aircraft in flight if that
act is likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft; or
(b) destroys an aircraft in service or causes damage to such an aircraft which .1
rendersitincapable of fliglÙor which is likely to endanger its safety in flight; or

l Came imo foree on 26 Jan uaxy 1973 in respect of thbhalf of wlûch an inmof rafca­
lion or accession had beon deposited with thof the Union of SoSociallRepublîcs, the United
Kîngdom of GrBritaiand Northelreland or the United States ofJOdays foUowing the(27 De­ 1
mn ber 1972) of dcposit of the instrumentstensignatory States having pinthe Monu·ta! Con­
fC«''Iina(;(:Ordwîth artide 15(3):

Dat<idtposir of ittstrtJmOII 1
arl.DrrIL)M=owa(Mi)on
SUif~ or Washiltg/on (W}
Brazil" . __. 24July 1972 (L,M.W)
Canada .... 19 June 1972 (L)
20 June 1972 (W) 1
23 July 1972 (M)
Chad ••......................................_......... 1972 (L,W)
17August 1972 (M)
German Demcx:icRepu blie• ......., . _.•.........•.uly !9'7{M) 1
GHungary• .............................•.......27 December !972 {L,M,W)
l.rael ......_. ____.. __........_............30 June 1972{L)
6 July 1972 {W)
JO July 1972 (M)
Malawi• ......__. _... __.........•..............•.ecember 1972 a {W) 1
Mali .............._. _.. _....................•......st 1972 "{W)
Mongolia" . . _....................., ..........~September 1972 (W)
20 Octoberer 1972 (M)
Niger ..................................: ... .....ptember 1972 {W) 1
Panama ..__........................._....•.....4 April 1972 (W)
RepublicofChi.....•..__.. _., .. , ......._... ....ecember 1972 (W)
South Africa • .........., ..................••....• 1972 {W)
Spain ..................................., .....••Octobcr 1972 {W) 1
Trinidadnd Tobago .____.................., .... 9 February 1972 {W)
United States of America .. _•. , ... , ......................••72 {W)
15 November 1972 (M)
Yugoslavia .............................., ... _-_.ctoberr 1972{L,M,W)
1
!Conrinr>r-·'·-

Vot. 974. J.J41 U
1

1

11

1

1

1
1915 United Nations -Treaty Series • Nations UnieRecueil des Traités
119

1 (c) places or causes ta be placed on an aircraft in service, by any means whatsoever,
adeviee or substance whîch is likely ta destroy that aircraft, -orto cause damage
ta it which renders it incapable of flight, or ta cause damage to it which is likely
to endanger its safety in flight; or
1
(d) destroys or damages air navigation facililies or interferes with their operation, if
any such act is likely to endanger the safety of aircraft in flight; or
(e) communicates information which he knows robe false, thereby endangering the
safety of an aircraft in flight.
1
2. Any persan also cammits an affence if he:
(a) attempts to commit any of the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 of thisArti~
cie; or
1
(b) is an accomplice of a persan who commits or attempts ta commit any such of­
fence.
(FOOti!CQQfI~IIÎ.1o}
Subsc:quently, the Convention came into force for the States listed below 30 days after the date of do:positoftllcir in­
1 stromcnt of ratification or accession with tllc Govemrne!lt.s of the Union of Soviet Socia!ist Republic:s, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland or the United States of Ameri4): in aecorda nee with article 1S (
Datr d~pooirtstrum~m
of 1't1tOf' QC«S(a.Jl
1 Statt gtar Wa:hin&ton (W}fo'"""'
Arg~n ......•.............••...........•.•.26 November 1973 (L,M,W)
(With dfect f25Deccmber 1973)
Ausrralia •...•..............................12 Ju!y... 1973 (L,M,W)
,~ (With effe.:t from l 1August 1973)
1 A(Witheff~fomt13March 1974)..••......•...•..Il February•. 1973(L,M,W)
Bulgaria• ....•...•.......•.....••....................•.•
(With offe.:t from 24 March !973) 22 Fcbruary 1973 (L)
20Man:hh l97J (W)
1 Bye1orussSov iocllst Repub1ic•...•..........Ji January 1973 {M)
(Witll cffect from 2 Mar<:l\1973)
Cllile.•..•......•...........................28 February 197a (W)
(With effect from 30 March 1974)
Costa Rica ..•....••............•.........•..21 Scptcmber 1973 (W)
1 (Witll effect from 21 O.:tober 1973)
Cy(With effe.:t from 14Scptember 1973).....•.27 Ju1y 1973 (LJ
JOJuly 1973 (Ml
Czeclloslovakia • •............•.......•.....!()August....1973 (L,M.W)
1 (With cffect9fScptembcr 1973)
Denmark .......•....•........••..............17January. 1913 (L,M,W)
(With cffcti froFebruuy1973. Decireserva.<
and Grecnland}pUcation of the Convention to the F'ITOCIslands

1 D_(__Witheffect from 28 December 1973).......28 Novembcr 1973(W)
S March 1973 (W)
Fl(With effcc:t from 4 A.prill973)········
·•18 April·····!973 (LJ
28 A.pril 1973 (M)
1 Fin!and ...•.............•...............•...13 Ju1y..... 1973a(L,M,W}
(With effcc:t from 12 A.ugust 1973)
G(With effect from Il January 1974)..........12 December 1973 (W)
Gr~c •......•.....•.............•................•.••.
(With effect from 14 Fcbruary !974) 15January 1974 (W}
1 lcc!and ••......•.....•..............•....·.29 June....•
1973 (M)
(With effcti from 29 July 1973) 29 June 197a (L,W)
Iran •.••·.......•..........................10 July.. 197a (L,M,W)
(With effect from 9 A.ugust 1973)
1 Iraq• •..•......•.....•.....................10 Scptembcr. 1974 a (M)
(With cfffrom 10 October 1974)
(Continurd on ;;. I.W)
Vot 9!-t<~!

1

1 ~-·~~ ~-..-

1

1

180 1
United Nations - Treaty Series • Nations Unies - Recueil des Traités 1975

Article 2. For the purposes of this Convention:
1
(a) an aircraft is considered to be in flight at any time from the moment when
all its external doors are closed followîng embarkation until tqe moment when any
such door is opened for dîsembarkation; in the case of a forced landing, the flight
shall be deemed to continue until the competent authorities take over the respon. 1

sibility for the aircraft and for persans and propeny on board;
(Footncte 1ccntin<=ifl'r1"'p./'19/ Dale of lkpos;t of ÎI!Stntmtrll
ofmtif'l<rllion or(a)ion
4LOIIdO!L)M=<Jw (MJ 1
S/ate or WŒhillgton (W)
Iuly ...............................................19.Fcbruary 1974 (L,M,W)
(With effect from 21 Ma197-1)
Ivory Coast .•..• -..........................------..9 January 1973il(W)
(\Vith effect 8rFebruary!9ï3) 1
Japan ..............................................12.June 1974 a (L,W)
(With effect fr12July1974)
Jordan .............................................13Fcbruary 1973 (L)
(Witheffet! fr15 March 1973) 19Fcbruary 1973 (M)
25April 1973 (W) 1
Libyan Arab Repub!k ................................19 February 1974 Q(W)
{With dfect from 21 March 1974)
Me(With effect f12October1974)..........--------··- 12September 1974 (I..,M,W)
Nethcrlands ......_.•••...•._..••..•................
(With effect from 26 Septcm1973for the Kingdom in 27AllgUS! 1973 (L,M,W) 1
Europe and Surinam, and with a declar1he effcet that
the Convention shall apply to the Netherlands Antilles from
IlJune1914)
New Zealand ..............................--... -·• 12February 1974 (L,M,W)
(\Vith effcct from 14 March 1974) 1
Nicaragua.............................................6November 1973 {W)
_(W~ efect from6December 1973)
Ntgena ......••........•........., •................3 Ju!y 1973a (W)
(With effect fr2August!973) 9 Joly 1973a {L) 1·
20 July· 1973a(M):
Norway ...............................•..--------· l August 19H a (l:.,M\W)~
(\Vith effectm ~1 AugusH973)
Pakistan ...........................................16 January 1974a (M).
(With cffect from 15February 1974) 24 Januar)-: 1914a (L,W) 1
Paraguay ........•..•.....................--.· .. -.-S March 1974 (W)
(With effeet fr4April1974)
Philippine5 ..., ......................,............26 Mareh 1973(W}
(With effect from 25 A19?3)
Poland• .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 January . . . 1915(L,M) . . . .. . . . •. . 1
(With dfect fro27February195)
Po(\Vith effect from 14 Feb1973).............,..... 15January 1973 (L)>
Repubileof Korea• ..• , ...............................•... 1973 a (W)
(With effect fr1September 1973)
Saudi Arabia • .............._. . . . . . . . . .. .14-June. . . . . !.91a,~W), 1
(With effect fr14 lilly 1914)
Sweden .....•...., •........__..............._.. _..10 July 1973il(L,M,W),
(With effe<:tfrom 9 August 19i3)
Uhainian Soviet Sociatist RepllbJic• .. ·_..........26 February 1973 (M)
(\Vith effeet from 28 19i3) 1
Union of Soviet SocRepub~ .. . . . . . . . . . . .19 February. . . 1973 (L,M,W)
(With effect f21mMarch1973) .._
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland25 October-. . 1973 (!:.,. )
(With cffe<:tfrom 24 Novcmber 1973. In respect of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northcrn Jreland and Ter- 1
titories under the territsovereignty of the United
Kingdomas we!las the British Solomon Islands Protectorate)
United Republic of Cameroon • . . . . . . . . . .. .Il July. . . . .1973 i(W). . . .
(\Vith effect JOAugust 1973) . . 1
• Sce p. 223 of this •·olume for the text of the reservations and declarations made upon ratification or accesm>n.
Vot. 9'14,l-14118

1

1

Il1

1

1

1975 United· N:uioTreaty Series • NationsRectJeil des Traités81
1

preflight preparaof the aircraby groundpersonneor by the crew for ae
1 specifie flight until·four hours after any landing; the perîod of service shall,
in any event, .extendhe entire period during which che-aircraftass in flight
defined in paragraph (a) of this Article.
1
Article 3.Each Contracting State undertakes to make the offences mentioned
in Article 1 punishable by severe penalties.
Articl4. 1. This Conventioshall riot aptaaircrafused in military,
1 customs or police services.
2. In the cases contemplatin subparagraphs(a)(b),(c) and (e) of
paragraph 1of Article 1, this Convention shall apply, irrestheair~ofwhether
1 craft is engaged in an inteor domestic flight, only if:
(a) the place of take.aff or landing, actual or intended, of the aircraft is situated
outside the territory of the State of of that aircraft; or
1 (b) the offence is commiin the territof a State other than the State of
registration of the aircraft.
3. Notwithstandinparagrap2 of this Article, in the cases coninmplated
also apply if the offender or the alleged offender is found in the terri tory of a Scace
1 other than the State of registration of the aircraft.
4. With respect to the States mentioned 9and in the cases mentioned_
insubparagrap(a),(b)(c) and (e) of parag1 of Article 1, this Convention
1 shall not app!y if the places referred ta in(a)of paragrap2 of this
Article are situated withinrit ory of the same State where that State is one of
those referred to in Article 9, unless the offenceor the offendor
alleged offender is found in the territory of a State other than that State.
1 5. In thcases comemplaced in subparag(ci) of paragr1of Artic1,
tional air navigation.apply only if the air navigation facilities are used in interna­

1 the cases contemplain paragra2 of Article 1.his ide shall also apply in

Article 51. Each ContractiState shall take such measures as may be
1 necessary to establish its jurisdictionfences in the following cases:
(a) when the offence is committed in the territory of that State;
(b) when the offence is committed against or on board an aircraft registered in that
State;
1 (c) when the aircraft on board which the offence is cominits territory
with the alleged offender still on board; _
(d) when the offence is committed against or on board an aircraft leased without
1 such place of business, his peresidence, in that State.s or, if the lessee has no
2. Each Contracting State shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary
to establish its jurisdiction over the offences mentioned in Article 1, paragraph 1 (a),
1 (b) and (c), and in Article 1, paragraph 2, in so far as that paragraph relates to those
offences, in the case where the alleged offender is presem in its territory and it does
not extradite him pursuanticle 8 to any of the States rnentioned in paragraph 1
of this Article.
1 Vol. 974. 1-1•1 18

1

1 -1

1

1

182 United Nat-oT~atSeries Nations UniRec1.1eildes TntiI9ï5 1

3. This Convention does not exelude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in ac­
cordance wilh national law. 1
Article 6I. Upon being satisfied that the circumstances so warrant, anv
ContractinState in the territory of which the offender or the isleged offender
present, shall take him imo custody or take other measures to ensure his presence1
The custody and other measures shall be as provided in the law ofthat State but mav
proceedings to be instituted.me as is necessary to enable any criminal or extraditio~
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary enquiry into the facts.
3. Any persan in custOdy purto paragra1 of this Article shall be as­ 1
sisted in communicaimmediately with the nearest appropriate representative of
the State of which he is a national.
4. When aStatepursuant to this Article, has taken a persan into custody, it 1
shall immediat elyfy the States mentioned 5,paragraph 1, the State of
nationality of the detained persifit considitadvisable, any other in­
terested State of the fact that such persan is in custody and of the circumstances1
templated in paragraph 2 of this An ide shall promptly report its findings to the said
States and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
1
is found shall, if it does not extradite him, be obliged, without exception whatsoever
and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to
itscompetent authorifor the purpose of prosecThose amhorities sha\l
take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a1
serîous nature under the law of that State.
Article 81. The offences shall be deemed to be included as exuaditable of­
fencesin any extraditreaty existirig 'between Contracting States. Comracting 1
States undenake to include the offences as extraditable offences in every extradition
treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a Contracting State which makes extradition conditional on the existence1
whichit has no extradition imay at its option consider this Convention as
the legal basis for extradition in respect of the offences. Extradition shall be subject
to the OLherconditions provided by the law of the requested State. 1
3. ContractiStates which do not make extradition conditional on the ex­
istence of a treaty shall recognize the offences as extraditable offences between
themselves subjectthe conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
_4. Each of the offences shaH be treated, for the purpose of extradition be­ 1
itoccurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdJc­
tion in accordance with Anicle 5, p1 (b), (c) and (d).
1
operatîng organizator internatioperating agencies, which operate aircraft
whichare subject to joint or intregistration shall, by appropriate means.
designate for eachraft the State among them which shall exercise the j urisdict io1
and have the attributes of the State offor the purpose of this Conven­
tionand shall give notice 10the InternatioCivil Aviation Organization
which shall communicthe notice to ali States Panies to this Convention. 1
Vol. 974, 1·14118

1

1

1 •-•,:·--.;...,._.

1

1

1 J975 United NlltiTrelltY Seriés •s UnieReo::ueîldes Trll183.s

Article 101. Contracting- States shall, in accordance with international and
1 national law, endeavour to take ali practicable measureprevent~ purpose of
ing the offences mentioned i1.Article
2..When, due to the commission of one of the offences mentioned in Article 1,
a flight has been delayed or interrupted, any Contracting State in whose territory the
1 aircraft or passengers or crew are present shaii facilitate the continuation of the _
return the aircraft and its cargo to the persans \awfully entitled to possession.

1 Article 11l. Contracting States shall on~oanother the greatest
measuref assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of
the offences. The law of the State requested shaH apply in ali cases.
1 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall not affect obligations
whole or in part, mutual assistance in criminal matters. governs or will govern, in

1 Article 12Any Contracting State having reason to believe that one of the of­
renees mentioned in Article 1willbe committed shall, in accordance with its national
law, furnish any relevant information in itsn to those States which it
believes would be the States mentioned in Article 5, paragraph 1.
1 Article 13. Each Contracting State shall in accordance with its national law
repototheCouncil of the International Civil Aviation Organization as promptly as
possible any relevant informationossession concerning:
1 .~( thecircumstances of the offence;
(b) the action taken pursuant 10paragraph 2;
(c)themeasures taken in relation to the offender or the alleged offender and, in par­
1 ticular, the results of any extradition proceedings or other legal proceedings.
Article 141. Any dispute between two or more Contracting States concern­
ing the imerpretation or application of this Convention which cannol be settled
through negotiation, shaH, at the request of one otoarbitration.miued
1 If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are
refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with
the Stature of the Court.
1 2. Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or
accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding
paragraph. The otherracting States shall not be bound by the preceding para­
1 graph with respect to any Contracting State having made such a reservation.
3. Any Contracting State having made a reservation in accordance with the
preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the
1 Depositary Governments. '"
Article 151. This Convention shal\ be open for signature at Montreal on
23 September 1971, by States participating in the International Conference on Air
Law held at Montreal from 8 to 23 September 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the
1 States for signature in Moscow, London and Washington. Any State which does not
sign this Convention beforetry imo force in accordance with paragraph 3 of
this Article may accede toit at any time.
1
V<>l1-1~118

1

1 1-

.1

1

184 United Nations - Tru.ty SeriRecudes Traité1975 -
1
2. This Convention shaH be subject to ratification by the signatory States. In­
Governmems of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republ_ics,the United Kingdom ofth the
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, which are
hereby designated the Depositary Governmems.
deposit instruments of ratification by ten States signatory to this1Convention
which participated in the Montreal Conference.
into force of this Convention in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, or thirty
days following the dateit of their instruments of ratification or accession,
whichever later.
ceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of
ratification or accession, the date of entry into force of this Convention, and ether
notices.
Depositary Governmems tArticle 102of the Convention on Internation1ltered
Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944).'
Article 1..Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention by
written notification to the Depositary Governments. 1
fication isreceived by the Depositary Governmems.llowing the date on which noti­
lN WlTNWHEREOthe undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly auth1rized
thereto by their Governments, have signed this Convention.
DoNEat Montreal, this twenty-third day of September, one thousand nine hun­
in the English, French, Russian and Spanish languages.rawn up in f1t•r authentic texts

1

1

1

1

1
vol. 320, pp. 2.09and 217; voL 418, p. 161; voL 514, p. 209; voL 740, p. 21. and voL 893, p. 117.
Vo\. 97•, 1·14118
1

1

1Il
1 ~.~:

1
1
1

1
1

1
1 United Nations Convention against Torture, 1984
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1•_•~-~-~-~-_~·••-•-•-__--.-~- -· ..·-·-.--··-1-·

1

1

1

--1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1

1

1

11
~··
1 No. 24841

1
MULTILATERAL
1
Codegrading treatment or punishment. Adopted by the
1 General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 Decem­
ber 1984
1 Authentic texts: Arabie, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish.
R_egex ofon 26 June 1987.
1
1 ,~

1 l\1ULTILATÉRAL

1 Convention contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements
cruels, inhumainsradants. Adoptéepar l'Assem­
1 bléegénéraledes Nations Unies le 10 décembre 1984
Textes authentiques : arabe, chinois, anglais, français. russe et espagnol.
1 Enregistrée d'office le

1

1

1

1 ...-',

1 - --· .. - .. ------~
~-~a

1

1

1987 United Nations - Treaty Series • Nations Unies - Recueil des Trai_tés
1

CONVENTION 1AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN

OR DEGRA.DING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT 1

The States Parties to this Convention,
1
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proc!aîmed in the Charter of
the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of ali members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
·1
Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity the human persan,
Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to
promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental -
~~m. -
1
Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and2
article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which
provîde that no one shaii be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment, 1
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of Ali Persons from Being
Subjected toTorture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975, 4

Desiring to·makemore effective thestruggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman 1
or degrading treatm ornpunishment throughout the world. ·

Have agreed as follows:

PART 1 1

Article 1. l. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any
act by which severepain or suffering, whether physicalor mental, is intentionallyinflicted
on a persan for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third persan informa- 1

' Came into force on 26 June 1987. i.e.. the Lhirtieth day after the date of tof theosit with the Secretary-Gencral
United Nations of theinmu111<:fratificoraccession. in accordance :1(1), inclthepi"I.JIIisions
of anicles 21 and 22 concerning the competence of the Core, morthon five Stales' having declarcd
thatheyrecog niw lhe cornpofthe Co mmilu: e. in awith an icles 2n:and 1
Do.afd~po~ir Da"of d<ptnir
Q/fhiltSl/1liPI~I"Jt cf 1jrutrum~nt
çf~f~fi.catiafl "/ rarifi ctuion
$1au t.tlCct'(a)Jù:mSt.CJU aacc:~uicm
AFghanistan •• ............rApril 1987 Norway• ...................9 July 1986 1
Argentina................•24 Septembc1986 Philippin.......•..•......18 June 198a
Bulgaria..................J6 Dccembcr1986 Swcden•••.................28hnuary 1986
Byelorussian Soviet Soeialist Switzerland • .............2December 1986
Republic...........•....13 M3rch 1987 Uganda ................ 3November 198a 1
Camcroon ...•....•...•....19 Oe<:embcr 1a86 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Denmark'................•.21May 1987 Repuhlic................24 February1987
Franc-e•••~.~~.~~.. +••••.25 June 198a UnionofSoviet Socialist
Hungary**•.••••...........15 Aprilary1987 Uruguny ...........•......24 October 1986
Me~ic ................... 23 January 1986 1

• See p. 204 of lhiforthe te.\ts of the declarations recognizing the competence of the Comminee against
Tan•• See p. 207 of this volume for the texts of the reservations made upon r.uification.
2
United NatioOfficiel lùcord.r of thesmbly, ThiSarion,Part 1, p. 71. 1
p.45l (corrigento vol. 999). vol. 999. p. 171:v4(}(rectificof Spani•h autheij!ÎC te.tt); vol. 1059.
4United NatioOfficial &cord.r of the General Asrembl_v.Thinierh Sessio(A/10034), p. 91. 34

v;,1. 1465. r.14841
1

1

1

11

1

1

1
II4 United NatioTreaty Se• Nations Unies - Recueil des 1987tés

tian or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third persan has conunîtted or
1 is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination ·ofany kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflictedr at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
1 only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.ot include pain or suffering arising

legislation which does contain provisions of wider application.nal
1
judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any teriitory under its jurisdiction.

of war, internai political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as
1 a justification of torture.
3.An arder from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as
a justification of torture.
1 Article 3L No State Party shall expe(refoulor extradite a person
to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in
danger of being subjected to torture.
1 2. For the purposedetermining whether there are such grounds, the competent
authorities shall take into account ail relevant considerations including, where applicable,
the existence in theconcerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass
viola~ iohmsan rights.
1 Article L. Each State Party shall ensure that ali acts of torture are offences under
iby any persan which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.nd to an act

1 which take into account their grave nature.nce!! punishable by appropriate penalties

establ ish itsjurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following
1
(aa ship or aircraft registered in that State;ri tory under its jurisdiction or on board

(b)When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
1 (c)When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as toy be necessary
establishjurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present
1 to any of thetes mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article.xtradite him pursuant to article 8
3. This Convention. does not exclude any criminalexerciseinion
.àccordanèe with internai law.
1 Article l. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available
toit, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Pany in whose terri tory a persan alleged
to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present shall take
1 or take other legal measurhipresence. The custody and other legal measures
shall be as provided in the lawtate but may be cominued only for such time
as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
1 Vol1~·.l4S~I

1

1-:-.-..- ......:
1

1

1

1987 United Nations - Trea• Nations Unies - Recueil des Trll5és 1

3. Any persan in custody putoparagraph 1 of this arricle shall be assisted 1
of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless persan, with the representative of the
State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a persan into custody, it shaH 1
immediately notify thes referred to in article 1,of the fact that such
persan is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The
which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall 1
promptly report its findingssaid States and shall indicate whether it intends to
exercise jurisdiction.
alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases
contemplated in article it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent 1
authorities for the purposesecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same mannse
ofanyordinary offence ofa serious nature under the law of thatState. In the cases referred 1
to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and
convictionall in no waybe Jess stringent than those which apply in the cases referred
to in article 5, parl.raph 1.
of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at ail stages
of the proceedings.
· Article 1. The offences referred to in article 4 stobe included 1
as extraditable offences extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States
Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition
treatyo be concluded between them. 1
2. Ifa State Party which makes exlradition conditional on the existence of a treaty
receivesa request for extradition from another State Party with which it has noextradition
such offences. Extradition shall be subjecl to the orher conditions provided by the law
of the requested State. 1
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a
trearyshall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject
tothe conditions provided by the law of the requested State. 1
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States
Parties, as if they bad been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but
also in the territoriesStates required to estjurisdiction in accordance 1
with article 5, para1.aph
Article 91. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of
offences referredn article 4, including the supply of ali evidence at their disposai
necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1of this article
inconformity with any treaties on mutualjudicial ae~isstrween them.y 1
Article JO. Each State Party shall ensure that educationregard~formation
ing the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement
personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officiais and other persans who 1

1

1

1 ..-.- .,.,~_.~.......,..__.._......._.._

~·

1

1

1 116
United Nations - TrSerie• NarionUnies -Recueil des Traités 1987

1 may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any_individual subjected
to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment. -

in regard to the duties and functions of any such persans.or instructions issued

Article 11Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules,
instructions, methods and practices as weilas arrangements for the custody and treatment
of persans subjectedany form ofarrest, detention or imprisonment in any terri tory
1 under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.
Articl12. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed
toa prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe
1 that ance of torture bas been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article 13.Each State Party shaH ensure that any individual who alleges he has
been subjected torture in any territory under itsjurisdiction bas the right to complain
to, and to havehis case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities.
1 Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against
ali ill·treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.
Article 14:L Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of
an act of torture obtains redress and bas an enforceable right to fair and adequate
1 --compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event
of the dea of the victim as a resuit of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled
to compensation.
1 2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persans to
compensation whichay exist under national law.
Articl15. Each State Party shaH ensure that any statement which is established
tohavebeenmadeas a result oftorture shall not be invokedas evidence in any proceedings,
1 except against a persan accusedorture as evidence that the statement was made.
Anicle 16.L Each State Party shaH undertake to prevent in any territory under
itsjurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which
1 do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are conunitted by or
at the instigation ofor w'iththe consent or acquiescence of a public official or other
persan acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10,
Il, 12and 13shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to
1 other forms of cruel, inhumandegrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions ofthis Convention are without prejudice to the provisions
other international instrument or national law which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrad·
ing treatment or punishment or which relates to extradition or expulsion.
1
PART Il

1 referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the fonctions hereinafter provided.
The Cornmitteehall consîst of ten experts of high moral standing and recognized
competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The
experts shaH be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable
1 geographicaldistribution ande usefulness of the participation of sorne persans having
legal experience.
2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list
persans nominatedbyStates Parties. Each State Party may nominate one persan from
1
1,11~ll4PI

1

1 ..-~1

1

1

1987 United Nations - Tn• Nations Unies - Recueil dell7raités 1

amongitowri,national's.States Parties shaH bear in mind the usefulness of nominating
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and who are willing to serve on 1
the Committee against Torture. - -
3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings
meetings,forwhich twos of the States Parties shaHconstitute a quorum, the personsose 1
elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an
absolute majority ofthe votes of the representatives ofnt and voting.
4. 'l'heinitial'elecfion shaH be held no later than six months after the date of t1e
the Secretary-General United Nations shall address a letter to the States Partieselection,
inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General
States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties. ·1

shalleligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of fiveof the mernbers
elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the
of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3 of this article.osenan
6.Ifa member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no 1
longer perform his Comminee duties, the State Party which nominated hirn shall appoint
another expert froitnationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject
givenunless half or moreStates Parties respond negatively within six weeks aftersider1d
havingbeen informedhe Secretary-General of tl)e United Nations of the proposed
appointment.
mittee while they are in performance of Committee duties.s of the members of the Com­1
Artic18.L The Commîttee shaHelect its officers for a term of two years. They
may be re·elected.
2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall1
provide, inter alia, that:
(a) Six mernbers shall constitute a quorum;
(b)Decisionsof the Commibemade by a majority voteof the members present. 1
and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this
Convention. -
4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting 1
ofthe Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as
shall be provided in its rules of procedure. "'
the holdingof meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimburse­
mentto the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities,
incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 of this article. 1
Secretary-Generale United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken ta

1

/ 1

1 ~~~·• -·r'•·-·••"-• ·.-..••
l'

1

1

1
118 United Natiom - Trea• Nations Unies - Rec::ueilde1987aités

1 ·~ievfetttheiunder~kin tgiC·ovenon,rwithin one year after the entry
mto force of the ConventiOn Partconcerned. Thereafter the States Parties
shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken and
such other reports as the Comminee may request.
1 2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit the reports to ail
States Parties.-
3. Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such general
1 State Party concemed. That State Party may respond with any observations it choosese
to the Committee.
4. The Committee may, at îts discretion, decide to include any comments made
1 byit in accordance with paragraph 3 ofthis article, together with the observations thereon
received from the Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with
article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include
1 a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1 of this article.
Article 21.If the Committee receives reliable informatita which appears
the territory of a State Party, the Committee shaltoco-operatet State Party practised in
1 in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard
to the information concerned.
2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the
1 State Party concerned, as weil as any other relevant information available to it, the
Committee mayidecides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members­
to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
3.Ifan inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, the Corn­
1 State Party, such an inquîry may include a visit to its territory. agreement with that

Il with paragraph 2 of this article, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State
Party concemed together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate
in view of the situation.
5. Ali the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this
1 article shaH be confidential, and at ali stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the
State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard
tions with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary accounter consulta­
1 of the proceedîngs in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.
Article 1..A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this
article that it recognizes the competencettee to receive and consider
1 communications to the effect that a State Party daiPartyis notther State
fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received
by a State Party which bas made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the corn·
1 petence of the Committee. No commubedealt with by the Committee under
this article if it concerns a State Party which bas not made such a declaration. Corn·
munîcatîons received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following
1 procedure:
Vol. 146S, 1·24841

1

1 -------------1--~

1

1

1981 United NatTreaty Se• Nations Unies - Recueil de119raités 1

provisions of this Convention, ircommuni~tirorigthe matter tonot giving effect to the
theattentionof that State Party.Wtthin three months after the receipt of the conununication
the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explana1ion­
extent possible and pertinent, reference to domestic procedures and remedies taken,the
pending or available in the matter;
(bIf the matter is not adjusted ta the satisfaction ofboth States Parties conce1ned
within six months after the receiptving State of the initial communication,
to the Comnûttee and to the ether State;r the matter to the Committee, by notice given
(cThe Committee shall de;:à with a matter referred_to it under this article only1
after it has ascertained that ali domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in
the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law.
or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the persan who is the victim of the violationd
of this Convention;
(d)The Committee shaH hold closed meetings when examining communications
under this article; 1
(eSubject to the provisions (c)the Committee shall make available
its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the
this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliationon.1For
commission;
(/) In any matter referred toit under this article, the Conunittee may call upon the
States Parties concerned, referred ta (b)to supply any relevant 1
il).formation;
right ta be represented when the matter is being considtoed by the Conunittee and
rnake submissions orally and/or in writing; 1
(hThe Committee shall, within twelve months after the date of receipt of notice
under subpara(b)submit a report:
(iIf a solution wîthin the terms(eis reached, the Conunittee shall 1
confiitreport to a brie( statement of the facts and of the solution reached;
(iishall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and
record ofthe oral submissions made by the States Parties concemed shaHbe attached1
to the report.-
In every matter, the report shall be communicated ta the States Parties concerned.
2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to
this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1of this article. Such declara­
Nations, who shall transmit copies thereofto the other States Parties. A declaration may
be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary·General. Such a withdrawal1
shaHnot prejudice the consideration ofany matter which is the subject of a communication
be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration bas
1
Vol. 1465. 1-!4!.41

1

1

1 l

uo Unhed Nations - Trea• Nations Unies - Recueil des 1987tés
1
been receiby~heS~cretaFy-Ge nnes,he~,tateParty concerned has made a
new declaration'. -
1 Article 2L A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under
this articlirecognizes the competence-of the Committee to receive and consider
communications fromon behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim
1 to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No
has not made such a declaration.the Committee if it concerns a State Party which
2. The Conunittee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article
which is anonymouswhich it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of
1 such communications orto be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.
3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall brîng any com­
munications submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this
1 Convention which has made a declaration under paragtbe violatingalleged
to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy,
if any, that may have been taken by that State.
1 4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in
the light of ail information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and
by the State Party concerned.
1 5. The Committee shall not consider any communications from an individual under
this article ithas ascertained that:
(a)of international investigation or seulement;ing, examined under another procedure
(b) The individual has ex.hausted all"available domestic reme~·es; this shall not be the
1 rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely
to bring effective relief to the persan who is the victim of the violation of this
Convention.
1 6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications
under this article.
7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the
1 individual.
this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declara·
tians shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United
1 Nations, who shall transmit copies thereofto the other States Parties. Adeclaration may
be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal
shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of acommunication
1 individual shall be received under this article after the notification ofwithdrawal of the
declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party has made
a new declaration.
Article 2The members of the Committee and of the ad hoc conciliation com­
1 missions which may be appointed under21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled
as laid dawn in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiess
of the United Nations.
1
' United TreSeriml.1p. 15. and V<ll.90. p. 327 (corrigtndurn to V<ll. l. p. 18)_

1

1

1 ·~·-~--::.~.·-~-----~'·~~..., .-~-~~~~-~-·-~~~ ~-~.1

1

1

1987 United Nations - Trea• Nations UnieRecueil des TraitéUl
1

thisConvention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations. ·
1
PARTIII

Article 25l. This Convention is open for signature by ali States.
2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shaH be 1
deposited with the Secretary·General of the United Nations.
Artic26. This Convention is open to accession by ail States. Accession shall be
effected the deposü of an instrument of accession with the Secretary·General of the 1
United Nations.
Articl27. 1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thîrtieth day after the
datef the deposit with the Secretary·General of the United Nations of the twentieth 1
instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For eachState ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of
thetwentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Conventionshall enter into force
on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument 1
accession.
Articl28. 1. Each State may, at thé time of signature or ratification of this
the Committee provided forrticle 20.lare that it does not recognize the competence of 1

2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of
General of the United Natio·s.ithdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary- 1

file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall
thereupon communicate the proposed amendmente States Parties with a request
that they notify him whether they favour a conferencerties for the purpose 1
of considering and voting upon the proposai. In the event that within four months from
the date of such communication at !east one third of the States Parties favours such a
conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of 1
and votingat the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary·General to ail theStates
Parties for acceptance.
2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph l of this article shall enter 1
into force when two thirds of theParties to this Convention have notified the
Secretary·Generalthe United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with
their respective constitutional processes. 1
3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties
which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of
this Convention and any earlier amendmentshey have accepted.
Article 30l. Any dispute between two or more States Parties conceming the 1
interpretation or application of this Convention which cannat besettled through negoda­
tionshall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months
zationof the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to theInternational 1
Court of Justiceequest in conformity wîth the Statute of the Court.

1

1

1

1)1

1

'1
1
1
U2 United l\ations - • Nations UReeueil de.sTr1987s

1 accession therettat it does not consider itself bound.by paragraph 1 of thistion or
article. The otherParties shaH not be bound by paragraph 1 of this article with
re3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 of
1 this article any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary­
GeneraJ of the United Nations.
1 tthe Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denonciation becomes effectiveone year
after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
its obligations under this toany act or omission which occurs prior
1 tthe date at which the denunciation becomes effective, nor shaHdenonciation prejudice
by the Committee prior .to the date at which the denonciation becornes effective.ation
1 3. Fol!owing the date at which the denonciation of a State Party becomes effective,
the Cornmittee shall not conunence consideration ofany newmatter regarding that State.
Article 32.- The Secretary"-General of the United Nations shaH inform aU States
1 acceded to it of the following:nd ali States which have signed this Convention or
(a) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles
(bThe date of entry into force of this Convention und.- article 27 and the date of the
1 (cDenonciations under article 31.er article 29;
Article 1.This Convention, of which the Arabie, Chinese, English, French,
1 Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary­
Ge2. The Secretary-General of the United Narions shaH transmit certified copies of
this Convention ta ali States.
1
[Forthe signature pages, see p. /55 of this volume.]
1

1

1

1

1

1

1--- •.·.- --- ·--·- ·-----
.--------~~

1

1
1

1

1
1:

1

1

1
1

1

1

1
1

1

1

1
·1

1r•
1

1

1
l- Annex 3
ICAO Document PRES AK/639
I Attachment A
Letter from Minister of Transport and Communications of Congo to the President of
1 the Council of ICAO (9 October 1998)
Attachment B
1 to the Minister of Transport and Communications of Congo
Il (3 November 1998)
Attachment C
Letter from Minister of Transport and Communications of Congo to the President of
1 the Council of ICAO (20 October 1998)
1 Attachment D
Letter froICAO (2 February 1999) to the President of the Council of
1 Attachment E
Letter from Minister of Transport and Communications of Congo to the President of
1 the Council ofiCAO (2 February 1999)

1

1

1
1

1

1

1~.-.....--"----~---~~.::.::-,_·--_---;·.:-,~.~.,~_~...-.=:---~-
---·----~--.---.:-1~

1:

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 3-30 0~; 18:47 : LBQ4L BUREAU~41223276 ;#0830,
INTERNATIONAL CIVILAVIATION ORGANIZAllON
ORGANISATIONDE L'AVIATIONCIVILEINTERNA110NALE

ORGANIZACI6N DE AVIACiôN CIVIliNTERNACIONAL
ME>KJlYHAPOAH OAA rAH~3A rPAIAfAAHCKO AOBlMU"'~·
~~' ~~1 ,)..); s.,_.4 13;.

999 UNIVERSsmEET. MONTREAl.OUEBEC,CAN: 3CSWT
Tet.: (5f4) 954-8219 lrrtemet icaohqOicao.org Telax: 05-24513
Fax: (514)954-60" Si\atex: YULCAYA CebiMICAOMONTREAL
1

1

1 PRES AK/(,39 15February 1999
AS 815.1Conf.

1
To:. RepresentativtheCouncil

1 From: Presid o~hJluuncil

Subjcct: Requcst theDemocratiR.epubofthe Congo
1

1 On 21Octobcr1998, ùuring the first meeting of the !55th Session of the Council
(C•DEC155/l inf(trtheCouncthaa lctdated9October1fromtheMinisterofTransport and
Comn1unicntiorthe DemocratpubloftheCongwasreceivedmyOfficeon 1Octob1998.
This lette~ethe maUcr of the hijackinCongolercvlaircraft on 4 August 1998 by the
1 milif ~ocs of Rwanda and Uga.nda for rnilitaty purposes, as well as the violation of the C'..oJ'lgolesc
airspace by the said militnry forlcttis attacbed (AttachrnenNovember1998,
1sent o.lctter of rMinistea copy ofwhjch is also(AttachmeB).
1
Subsequcntlreccivthefollowlcttfrom the DemocrRepublofthCongo",
copiesfwhicare attached:
1
- A Jetter dated 20 October 1998 from the Minister of Transport and Communications
·(Attachmcnt C);
1 A lctter datcd 2 Februttry 1999 from the Embassy ofRt.'Publicratie
of the C:o11S:O(Attnc0),wt which was anacheanothcletter dated
2Fcbruary 1999 fi'Omthe Ministcr oCommunications (Auachrnent E).
1
In accordanwitRulcs 25 h) and 27 thRules ()f Procedure for the Council
(Doc 75$9/5inlc;:bring lhe sutthe met.<lftCounci] Monday.22 Febru1999for
a decision on the inclusion of the subjcct in the Work Prub'ramme of the lS6th Session.
1

1 ;-?.,_:~~
·-/;f~~~).
AssaKotaite
1

Attachment·
1SENf BY:ICAOHOMTL 3-30- 0 18:48 ;

1

1

1
DEMOCAA'FI€ REPtJB'LICOF 'FHECON.GO · Kinshasa,October1998

MINJSTRY OF''F.ANSP0R:TAND COMMUNICATIONS
TheMinister 1

409/CABIMIN!FCn07S/H3198 1

Subjeet: Compl:üntazaiRwanda,and Ugaodconcemiataircraft hijackings and ofolatio11
CoQgoleseairspace

1
Dr. AssadKotaite
Presidentof the CouneilofiCAO
Montrea.J 1

Sir,
1
Jhavethe honourtOinfontbat Sin2 August998the DemocratieRepubJicof the
Congohasbeenthe victimofarmedaggressioparof RwandaandUgarwJaactingjointly.
1

Beforerefertothflagraviolationsofthe ConventiononIntem:ationa.JCivilAviation,
signcd Chicagon 7December1944andcertaininiematiair linstnoneots, pemeiiorel-a-tc 1
bricfthefacts whichestablishandprovethereprehensiblebetwocou.ntries.

l. Dermiti eemn~ntorthannedaegression.
1
Pursuatothediscoveoseveraleventsandactionscharacofthplohatchednd
organi.zbythe Oovc:rnmcnRwanda andUgandaagainst the Head of Sta.teand Govetheent of
Democratie Repubücofthe CongoincomplitheRwandansoltlicrswho.servedin our anncd.fo1ces,
theHead ofState decidedon 28Jutoendtheassignmentofthe Rwandansoin thDemocratie
RepubJioftheCongoandordcrthatheybe rcpatrlatheicountryoorigipendinconsideration
ofanotherfonn of militaryCOOperation. 1

ThessoldierswererepatriatedinfuUyoffion29andb3\ July and l August 1998
.bagreementwiththeRwandanGovernHt. WL-ir,formationservicesreporttocolwnnsmade 1
up ofsevertrucoftheRwandanPatrioticArmyloadcdwithhcavilyarmedsoldbad violathe
Congolesebordersto besiegetandairponofGOMA andBUKAVUon the::ordewith Rv,.-ando
Sunday. 2 and MondJAugust 1998respc:etively.While these events were oor:urring in 1he east of the
country,a grotJpofR.wandansoldierswhobadescathrcpatriation operation took Tshatshiand
KokoloMjlitaryCamatKINSHASA bystorm.
1
Theywercneutralib.ytCongo] A~medForcesaftertwodavsofcoandmopping-up,Alsoduring
lhesamnighofSunday,2to'Mon®y,3August1998.anotbcroRwpandan soldierswere:waiting
repatriationopcned:tireon the KISANGANIgthEastern Province. 1

1

1li BY:ICAOHQMTL 3-30- 0 18:4S ; LEGAB LUREAUH441223276707 ;#10/30

1

1 AndtopursuetheexecutionoftplotthrŒBoeing-typaircraft ftomthe Congoleseairlincs
CONGOAIRLINES andBLUEAIRLINES andacarxoaeroplaŒbelongingtoLignAériennes Congolaises
were hijacked 4nAugust i998upon dcparturc:frGema Airport bRwandan andUgandan troops
1 commanded byMr.IamesKABAREHE. aRwandansubjectwhobadpetformedthe fimctiof ActingChief
of Staff theCongolesArmed ForcesuntilJuly 19These aeroplaneswerfurCetolandatKITONA
MilitarBaseinthewesterfringeofthecountryandafseveraltriUDJ.oad housandsofRwandanand
Ugandaosoldiersthen:.tbjsregardthedamningtestimoaof the NigeriCaptaiINYANG,Pilot-in­
1
Command oftheAIR ATLANTICBoeiDg 707 onlcasetoLignesAérienneCongolaiseswhichwasalso
hijackedby RwandansoldiersfromGOMAtoKITONA,andtbatoftheRwandanandUgandansoldierswho
1 ·were captun:d and made prisonw.uconfirm the aggressThe.purposof theshija.ckiwas to:

• attempto winover the Congolese soldiertraineatKITONAMilitary Base;
1 • blockadctheseaportsofBANANA.BOMAandMATADI andsabotage thfaciliticsin ·
ordcr1:wt Kinshasoff:fromsuppliesoffoodstutfs and other indispensablegoods,such
as bydroca.rbandmedicines;
• besiegand sabotagetheInghydrŒlectrdam, whichsuppliesclcctricalenergyto the
1 cities o.KinshasaanBrazzavillLower-congo Provinceand theKatanga mining
operationsas weilas severalothcrcountricsiandesouthcmAfiica.

1
ltshoulbenotedthatUgandaexpresslyaclcnowlthepresenceoittroopsonCongolese
territoat1heSurnrnit.ofNon~AJi gouetiesheldat Durban,.SoMrica. in September199and
1 thSADC meetinghelat VictoriaFa!Js,Zimbabwe,inSeptember1998,as weilas a meetingoftheUgandan
Parliament, clai.that thewere fighting Ugandan rebcls whorwere operating from Congolese
territory.

1 2.. The aircraft bijackings violation of Congolainpace constitutcscriousviolatioof
·international air law.

1 OneofthepurposesofthUnitedNationsistmaintaiinternatiopcaceandsŒurityand

achieveinternatiocooperationisolvinginternationalproblems ofccononùc,social, cultural or
1 humanitariancbaracter.

As a specialized aofthe UniteNationthe lntemational Civil Aviation Organiz.arîon
hassetas oofits objectcontributingtoa.voifrictiandpromotinthatcooperationbct"'lations
1 and peoplesuponwhichpeaceintheworlddepends.

Assuch,ibassetitselftheai.mparticuJaofdevelopingthe princand techniques of international air
1 navigationandfosterithplanningandevelopmentofinternationatransporinter alsoasto ensure
the safe and otdcgrowth ofinternationalcaviation throughoutv.."Odnd encouragrl1artsof
airctaft design and operation for peacefut purposes.
1
Flighsafety isabsolutepriorityICAO, whichbasfor severyears, becconcemed.
withtheuseofforcagainstcivilairerait.Thus,Article4oftheConventionobligecontrattiStates
1
totakeappropriatcmcasurcstoprohibideliberauseofanyaircraftforany purpinconsistwiththe
aimsoftheConvention.

1 Furthermore,theCharteroftheUnitedNatandtheChicagoConventioonJntcrmttional
Civil Aviation enshrine the cardinal principle ofcqua1itofStatn whsc~obliges aS~te ts

1

1 .. , ·--•·--"~-~''._----~----,~----··-"-'"".~~"-'"'..·'··'-1·o·ü.:"

SENTBY:1CAOHOMTL ; 3-30- 0 ; 18:50 ; lEGAL BUREAIJ-t441223276707 ;#11/30

1

1

respeçtherigbrofothes~. 'l'obligationisassernpartiçularrespecfotheterritorialintegrity
ofetherStateaswellasfe:SJX'Clhercompletenessandcxclusivesfthepowersexc.-cisedeachof
· thewithinr.heirterritoInthisregartbcInternatioCourtof Justice states: "Beindependcnt 1
Statesrespecforterricorialsoveroiisan esseotfoundQtioof internatirelations(JC J ~rfu
Cbanoel,Judgnlents,AdvisoryOpinionsandOrders,1949,p. 35).
1
This iswbatemergesfrom tbe provisiofsArticle-ofthe ChicagoConventionin

accordancewith which"thecontradingStatrccogniztbateveryStatebas completeand exclosive
sovcreigntyovertheairspa.c;:aeterritorThisprovisionentaib soonsequenoess: 1

• no aircraofacontractiStateshflyoverthterritoryBDOtheSrtaorlandthercon
withoutauthorU:atnyspecialagreemetrothcrwise,andinaccordawiththtenns
thereof(ArticloftbeConvention); 1

• nomunitionsofwarorim.plemen tfwarmay becarried or ahovethetenitorofa 1
Slate in airoraftengagedin internationalnavigatioo,exceptby permissionof such State
(Artic35oftheCoovet~tion).

It isothbasisofthcseprinciplctheCouncilofiCAOhascondemne atsof'unlawful 1

seizureof aeroplanes, violoftheairspacof States aotheactsinoonsistentwitheaimsofthe
ChicagoConvention. 1

lnthis particularcase, in vicwoftheeof theRwandan-Ugandanarrnedaggression
against the Democratie Repofthe Congo,hasnowbcencstablisbedrhathChicago Conventionon
InternationalCivilAviahasbeenseriouslyviol:ûcd.Aotberthingthiviolatiischaractcriby: 1

• theinvasiooftheCityandInternatiol irpoofGOMA inrheDemocratieRepublic 1
oftheCongoby troopofthe RwandanPatriotAnny and Ugandaandthe\UÙawrul
scizure of the following aircraft: the Bregistereas 9Q - CKG andthe
Boeing727 registtrcd Q- COIbelongingrespectivetCONGO AIRLINESand
BLUE AIRLINESand an AIRATLANTICBoeing707 on Jcaseto LignesAériennes 1
Congolaises.

1
• these aeroplanwhichwen:hijackeon 4 August 199on departurc froGOMA
InternationalAirportwhilelhenservice(atthemomentwhentheirrespectivecrews
were intheproccssof preparingthethflightdestiforKinshasa),wereforcedto
landtKJTONAMilitary Base(Lower-CongProvince),'\\oel,ter severaltrips, they1
unloadedthousandsofRwandanand Ugandsoldiersandmunitionsand implemcntsof
war. The CONGO AIRUNES Boeâng7()7rcgistered as Q- CKG suffered serious
1
damageontake-offfollowinganexchangeoffire between1heelofthe Congolese
Armcd Forces being trained at KJTONAMilîtary Base theRwandan-Ugandan
aggressors, and wascomplctclycannibalized.
1
• following this surprise aggrcssionand the occupationoMilitaryBase and
Airport, civilaeroplanesfrom Rwandaand Ugrepeatedlflew over andviolated
1
Congolcseirspata unload.soldicrstherefromtheRwandanPatriotic ArmyMd Uganda
asweilas munitionand weapons inorderto pursue their agsresagainst the
DemocratiR.epublcftheCongo,particularlyby blockadingtireseaportsofBANANA.
1

1

1 -.·..'-..

3-30- 0 18:51 LEGAL·BLREAL~441223276707 ;#12/30

1
A-4

1 BOMA and MATADI andsabotagintheifacilitics as \\thoseof tbe Inga
hydroelectdam.

,l ltis important to tbatthcsc acta.ggressihe bijaclciandthe violatorn
Ccagoleseterritintegrandwpace bytheRwandanannywercconfinnedat thepressconferencebeld
in August 1998 by the Nigerian Captaipilot-iJH:omrlfthAIR AJLANTIC Boeing 707 on
least.Lignes·AériennesCongolaises,whicalsobijackby.theRwanda.nand Ugandansoldiers
1 Œmmandèd by Mr. JamesKABAREHE, on departure fGOMA International Airport destinedfor

KITONAMilitaryBase.
1
Furthermorthe~ssion and violation of the integrity of Congolese territory by the
Ugandanarmy werofficially acknowledgedPrc~ideolnanda athe Summiofthe Non-Aiigned
1 Countries,the SADCmeetingandthatof theMinistcrsofDefenceofthe countinthwaroandd
during a meeoftheUgandanParliamertt iScptcrnbc998.

1 3. WhattheDemocratie RepublicoftheCongoexpertsfrom the Countil oftheIntCivilional
Aviation Organization.

1 InaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheChicagoConventionon1ntcmaAviation,vil
ititotheCouncilof1CAOtoconsideranymatteanylnfractionoftheConventionaasanyfaüurc
to cany out recommendationsor derenninationsof theCouncil.
1
Asthevictirn of the Rwandao-Ugandan aggressioandhairspaviolatiothe
Democratie Republic of the Congo requests th3t ththinfrnctions reported a.bovc,condemn
thflagraviolatiotheConventiandapplypenaltiesandothermeasuresprovidedforhytheConvention.
1
Accept, Sir. the assurances ofconsideration.

1
(Sgd)

1 H~nr MOVA Sakanyi

1

1 ce: .1\.finistcorcigAffairs
Acting UNDP Representative
(ALl) at KJNSHASNGOMBE
1

1

1

1

1 --------------~~--01
LEGA LUREAU~441223276707 ;#13/30
SENTBY:1€AQ HQMTh. 3-30- 0 18!51

1

.1
Attacbment B

1

1
_AS 8/5 .l Conf. 3 November 1998

1
Deat MrMinis[e~.

1 wistorefetoyoot letdated 9 Qc[ober 1998 inyousubnûtted a complaint 1
against Rwanda and Ugaarisifrom theunlawfuselzure (hijack:ing) of three civil aircraft on
4 August 19by thmilitarforces of RwaandUganda for military purposes, atothel as
violation oCongoleSeairspacethe samilitforces. 1

ln your letter, refis made ta Articles 1,and35 ofthe Convention on
lmemationtl.lCivilAvas weilasto otherprovisions. Ontyouhave requested the Council
toexaminethe acis to whichthe Ieuermakesreftocondemnthe actsand totherrelatee!
action.
1
1 wishtoadviseyouthat have infonnttbe Council verbally at its meeting on
21October 1998of the receiptcomplaiand itcontents.
1
Furthermore. IhavesoclarjficoniCertaaspectsyour requindirect contact
with the Ambassador of the DemocrallcRepub1ic of the Congo in Ottawa,
HisExcenencKaweta. iJomSa.mpa!i. aminfunhecontactWiAmbassadoSampassa regards 1
theclarificattheaspec;eferred beforthismattercanbeofficiaJiysubmittedta the Counci! for
itconsideration. 1

Please accept, Mr. Mithe assurancesof my highestconsideration.
1

1
Assad Kotaite

1
M:r.HenriMovaSakanyi
MiniteofTransporandCommunications
B.P. 6.514ansporand Communications 1
Kinshasa/N' Dolo
Democratie Republic Congoe
1
Fu No.:2432423604

1

·1

1