Written Observations of Nicaragua

INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE

TERRITORIALAND MARITIME DISeUTE

{NICARAGUAv.COLOMBIA}

WRITTENOBSERVATIONS

OFTHEREPUBLIC OFNICARAGUA

ON THEAPPLICATIONFORPERMISSIONTO INTERVENE

FILEDBYTHEREPUBLIC OFCOSTARICA

26 MAY 2010 WRITTENOBSERVATIONS OFTHEREPUBLIC OFNICARAGUA

1) In accordance with Article 83 of the Rulesof Court and within the time-limit of

26 May 2010 fixed by the Court for this purpose, as communicated to the

undersigned Agent by a letter (ref. 135670) from the Registrar on 25 February

2010,the Republicof Nicaragua(Nicaragua)furnishes these written observations

to the Application for p~rmiss o ontervene in the case concerning the

Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaraguav. Colombia), filed by the Republicof

CostaRica(CostaRica)on 25 February 2010 referring to Article 62 of the Statute

of the Court.

I. GENERALOBSERVATIONS

2) The present case has been before the Court since 6 December 2001 when

Nicaraguafiled itspplication against the Republic of Colombia (Colombia). Not

only have copies of this Application been in the public domain for more than 8

years but the pleadings, including Nicaragua's Memorial and the documents

annexed, were made accessibleto the public on 4 June 2007 upon the opening

of the oral proceedings on the question of the Preliminary Objections raised by
1
Colombia. Costa Rica requested to be furnished copies of all the pleadings in

September 2008 and the Court granted this request with the consent of

Nicaragua.

1See Judgment, Preliminary Objections, 13 DeeR2007/16, p. 11. 9 and

1 3) It would thus seem that Costa Rica has waited an inordinate amount of time

before submitting its Application for permission to intervene, which, as required

by article 81 of the Rulesof Court, must state precisely and clearly:

(a) the interest of a legal nature which the State applying to intervene

considers may be affected by the decision in that case;

(b) the preciseobject of the intervention;

4) However, as shown below, notwithstanding the amount of time Costa Rica has

taken before submitting its Application, it has failed to clearly identify any

interest it may have of a legal nature that might be affected by the decision in

this case,or the precise object of its purported intervention.

5) Instead, the Application of Costa Rica to intervene in the present case is

apparently based on an assumption that the days when intervention under

Article 62 had not yet been granted by the Court, as reflected in the well known

casesof the Applications of Malta and Itall, are over and that nowadays the

exceptional procedure of intervention on the basis of Article 62 may be

accomplished by third parties with only the vague object of ({informing" the

Court of their supposed rights and interests, and therefore ({protecting" them.

6) Costa Rica attempts to discharge the obligation contained in Article 81 (a) by

pointing out that this caseinvolves a maritime delimitation in its neighborhood.

Aswill be shown below, CostaRicahas no claimsto the areaswhere Nicaraguais

requesting delimitation with Colombia. In fact, it admits as much. The mere fact

2Caseconcerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab JambyMalta for Permission to Intervene, I.CJ.
Reports 1981, p 3, and the case concerning the Continental Shelf (LibyaApplication to Intervene,
Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 1984, p. 3.

2 that the delimitation requested of the Court is in the vicinity of Costa Ricadoes

not, by itself, establish the existence of a CostaRicanlegal interest that might be

affected by the decision. If it were otherwise, virtually every maritime

delimitation casewould invite multiple interventions by neigbouring States.

7) As discussed below, there are only two cases in which intervention has been

granted by the Court on the basisof Article 62, and neither supports CostaRica's

Application.

8) CostaRica'sApplication raisesother general issues.One is that Article 84 of the

Rules of Court indicates that if an objection is filed to an application for

permission to intervene, the Court shall hear the State seekingto intervene and

the parties before deciding. This procedure cannot be interpreted to mean that

the application for permission to intervene may be filed without a clear

explanation and the backing of solid evidence. If the Court cannot decide on a

request for intervention without opening up the expensive and time consuming

processof public hearings, then a State could interrupt any case solely by filing

an application for intervention without further ado. To affirm that a delimitation

between States with opposite coasts - which is the case of the delimitation

between Nicaragua and Colombia - will affect a State with an adjacent coast,

must be proven at least prima facie with some type of evidence and clear

arguments before opening the door to public hearings and the consequent

delaysto the main proceedings.

9) Another issue is the particularity of the present Application by CostaRicain that

it is the first request to intervene by a State that has an independent basis of

jurisdictionvis a vis both Parties in litigation. Costa Rica has available the

3 jurisdiction of the Court with respect to both Nicaraguaand Colombia, at least by

invoking the Pactof Bogota,to which all three Statesare Parties.The significance

of this isthat CostaRicais not only protected against any decision of the Court in

this caseby Article 59 of the Statute, but also by its ability to file an independent

claim against eitherr both Parties,in the event its legal interests so require.

10)The comments that follow will be addressedto the crux of the matter in respect

of CostaRica'sApplication, that is, whether the alleged interest of a legal nature

it considers might be affected by the decision in the present proceedings is

clearly explained and fulfills the requirements set out in Article 81 of the Rulesof

Court.

11.COSTARICA'SALLEGED INTEREST OFA LEGALNATURETHATMIGHT BEAFFECTED

BYTHENICARAGUA v.COLOMBIACASE

11)The Costa Rican Application seeks intervention in this case simply because

delimitation is taking place in the vicinity of its possible claims. Thus par. 9 of its

Application alleges that lithe prolongation of their maritime boundary

(Nicaragua's and Colombia's) will eventually run into maritime zones in which

third States have rights or interests. As Nicaragua's adjacent neighbor to the

south, CostaRicais one of those third States". As indicated above, if this thesis -

that "nearness" of a delimitation constitutes grounds for intervention under

Article 62 - were to be sustained, then there would be few delimitations in the

world that could be carried out without intervention by third parties.

4 12) In the El Salvador/Honduras case 3, Nicaragua was denied intervention in the

delimitation within the Gulf of Fonseca,notwithstanding that it, like the Parties

to that case,hasa coastline along the Gulf and rights in the adjacent waters. The

Court (Chamber)in that casepointed out: .

//it occurs frequently in practice that a delimitation between two States

involves taking account of the coast of a third State; but (this)...in no way

signifies that by such an operation itself the legal interest of a third

riparian State of the Gulf, Nicaragua,may be affected." 4

13) Costa Rica'sinterests of a legal nature that it alleges might be affected by the

decision of the Court are set out in paragraphs 11-22 of its Application. These

claimsfail to justify an intervention on the basisof Article 62 of the Statute.

To begin with, certain facts must be recalled and clarified.

14) First, CostaRicahassigned two maritime delimitation Treaties in the Caribbean.

One Treaty was with Colombia on 17 March 1977, which has not yet been

ratified, and another with Panamaon 2 February 1982, which is in force.

15) This last Treaty, which is in force, stipulates in Article I that Costa Rica and

Panama have decided to establish as the boundary between their maritime

areas:

//(1)In the Caribbean:The median line every point of which is equidistant

from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breath of the

territorial sea of each state is measured in accordance with public

3Lalld, Islalld alld Maritime Frolltier Dispute (El Salvador/Hollduras),Applicatioll to IOlltervelle, Judgmellt, l.CJ. Reports 1990,

fIbid. par. 77.

5 international law; from the termination of the land boundary between

the two countries, at a point located in the mouth of the Sixaola River,

0 0
latitude 09 34' 16" North, longitude 82 34' 00" West, along a straight

line to a point located at latitude 100 49' 00" North, longitude 81 26' 0

08.2" West, where the boundaries of Costa Rica,Colombia, and Panama

s
intersect." (Underline added)

16) In this Treaty Costa Ricaacknowledges that it has no claims to the areasfurther

east from this end point located at latitude 100 49' 00" North, longitude 81 26' 0

08.2" West.

17) This same understanding is reflected in the Treaty signed by Costa Rica with

Colombia on 17 March 1977 which in its Article I states that the parties have

agreed:

IITo delimit their respective marine and submarine waters which are

6
established or may be established in the future by the following lines:

A. From the intersection of a straight line, drawn with azimuth
0 0
225 (45° SW) from a point located at lat. 11 OD'00" N. and

0
long. 81 15' 00" W., with the parallel 100 49' OD"N. West

along the said parallel to its intersection with the meridian 82 0

14' OD"W.

B. From the intersection of the parallel 100 49' OD"N. and the

0
meridian 82 14' OD"W., the boundary shall continue north

along the said meridian to where delimitation must be made

with athird State.,,7

5Counter Memorial of Colombia, VollI-A, Annex 6, p.3S.
6The 1977 Treaty was concluded when the Third UN Conference of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)that had been convened in late
1973was in progress. In 1977, the year of the signature of the Colombia/Costa RicaTreaty, the Conference adopted the Informal
CompOSiteNegotiating Text that allowed, among other novelties, for the establishment of a 12 nautical-mile territorial sea, a 24-
nautical-mile contiguous zone andZ.
7Ibid. Annex 5, p. 31.

6 18)Although this Treaty with Colombia has not been ratified, Costa Rica has not

given any indication of an intention of not ratifying it. On the contrary, in

paragraph 12 of its Application Costa Rica states that it IIhas, in good faith,

refrained from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of this

agreement". Therefore, the Application does not imply any reversal of the

positionof CostaRicaas reflected in that Treaty to the effect that CostaRicahas

no maritime claimsfurther eastthan the line of the meridian 82° 14~O' W'.

19)Second, in par. 12 of its Application Costa Ricaalso states: IICostaRica has not

agreed a maritime boundary with Nicaragua, although Costa Ricaand Nicaragua

have engaged in negotiations to this end." Nicaragua does not recall any

negotiations on maritime delimitation with Costa Rica in the Caribbean that

involved specific claims to maritime areas or even methods of delimitation. On

the contrary, it was understood that negotiations in the Caribbean would await

solution to the dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. Thus, Costa Rica has

not approached Nicaraguawith any specific claims to areaseast of the meridian

82° 14' OD" W, or to any areas near the area where the delimitation with

Colombia is sought by Nicaragua.

20)Third, CostaRicahasnot made any claims to an extended continental shelf in the

Caribbean,ashasbeen done by Nicaragua.CostaRica,asa Party to UNCLOS,has

submitted preliminary information on its claimsto an extended continental shelf

to the United Nations pursuant to Article 76 of the 1982 Convention.

Significantly, it claimed an extended continental shonlyinthe Pacific,not in

the Caribbean.s

8See:http://www.un.org/Deptnew/submissions files/preliminary!cri2009informacion preliminar.pdf

7 21}In par. 13 of its Application} CostaRicaclaimsthat:

"The 1977 agreement between Costa Rica and Colombia} defining the

limit separating their maritime areas in the Caribbean Sea}is predicated

on the notion that the negotiating States have overlapping maritime

entitlements the divisionof which requires agreement. This notion arises}

in CostaRica'sview} from two basicassumptions: first} that Colombia has

an agreed maritime boundary with Nicaragua along the meridian 82°W

longitude leaving Colombia free to negotiate maritime limits with its

other neighbors in the area east of 82°W; and second} that Colombian

insular territory in the southwestern Caribbean Sea is entitled to full

weight} or effect} in a delimitation./J

Jl
22}The statement in the Application that Costa Rica"assumed that "Colombia has

an agreed maritime boundary with Nicaragua along the meridian 82°W

10ngitudeJlis not correct. CostaRicawas aware of the fact that} since1969 when

Colombia first made the claim that the 82nd meridian was a line of delimitation}

Nicaraguahad contested this claim. Furthermore} CostaRicawas alsowell aware

that Nicaragua had claims over certain keysand over the continental shelf in the

area. There is a note to this effect dated 18 October 1972 from the Foreign

Minister of Costa Ricaat the time (5 years before Costa Ricasigned the Treaty

with Colombia) in which he clearly supports the Nicaraguan claim against

Colombia and states that the keys of Quitasuefio} Serrana and Roncador} which

are located considerably to the east of the82 ndmeridian} are on the continental

shelf of Nicaragua and that thus Nicaragua exercises sovereignty over all that
9
area. So it is incorrect for the Application to assert that Costa Ricaentered the
Jl nd
Treaty with Colombia in 1977 under "two basic assumptions that the 82

9 Annex 36 Nicaraguan Memorial

8 meridian was the line of delimitation and that the keys were Colombian and had

to be given full weight in the delimitation.

23} Furthermore} two additional documents contradict the assertion that Costa Rica

Jl nd
"assumed that Colombia}s rights extended up to the 82 meridian. One is the

Treaty of Costa Ricawith Colombia which follows a delimitation line that is west

of the 82 nd meridian at 82° 14} OOJlW longitude. The other document is the

Treaty of Costa Ricawith Par;tamathat has a line of delimitation lying east of the

nd
82 meridian and ends at a point located at latitude 10° 49} OOJN l orth} longitude

81° 26} 08.2JJWest. Thus} it is difficult to understand the Application}s reference

to the meridian ashaving any relevance to CostaRicaat all.

24} Finally} it is not clear why Costa Rica claims in paragraph 13 "that the Court's

ruling on the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia could affect

these assumptions and} in practical terms} render the 1977 agreement between
JJ
Costa R.icaand Colombia without purpose. Costa Ricaseems to assume that a

ruling by the Court} in a case involving third parties} is reason to disown or

modify its existing treaties. Why should a ruling of the Court "render} their 1977

JJ
agreement "without purpose ?The fact that Nicaragua can claim maritime areas

which Costa Ricahas recognized as being beyond her maritime boundaries with

Panama and Colombia does not ipso facto mean that Costa Rica can ignore its

commitments to those States. In any event} that would be an entirely voluntary

decision by Costa Ricawhich cannot serve as a valid basisfor intervention under

Article 62.

9 Against this background, the requirements of Article 81.2 (a) of the Rules of

Court must betaken into account.

25) Costa Rica,quite distinctly from the procedure followed by Equatorial Guinea 1,

did not attach documents or any clear elements of proof of its contentions. This

lack of supporting documentation, or even illustrations, makes it even more

difficult to determine exactly what are the legal interests claimed by Costa Rica.

With this caveat, the following observations are made to the several claims of

CostaRicathat its legal interests would be affected by the decision of the Court.

26) In par. 14 of the Application, Costa Rica claims "-at a minimum- to lateral

equidistance boundaries drawn from the mainland coasts of Costa Ricaand its

adjacent neighbors" which naturally includes Nicaragua. As indicated above,

Costa Rica has never made a formal claim to this form of delimitation in the

Caribbean, a question or claim on which Nicaragua generally reserves its rights,

but more importantly any well drawn technical equidistance boundary between

Nicaragua and Costa Rica would not affect or involve the areas claimed by

Nicaragua in the present case. Significantly, Costa Rica has abstained from

supplying documents identifying the area supposedly affected by this claim.

27) Costa Ricahas not furnished any illustration or given any coordinates of what a

"lateral equidistance" line would concretely imply, or where "the area thus

delineated" (abstractly) would be located. In view of this omission, Nicaragua

would point out that the line of delimitation it seeks with Colombia is located

substantially east of the furthest 200 n m EEZclaim of Costa Rica.It is also true

that the boundary described in the Treaty between Colombia and Panama

1LandandMaritimeBoundQ/ybetweenCameroandNigeria(CameroovNigeria:EquatorialGuineaIntervening),Judgment,1.
C.J.Reports200p. 303

10 (which the Treaty between Costa Rica and Panama uses to determine the

tripoint with Colombia) blocks any attempt by CostaRicato reach anywhere near

the areasin which Nicaraguaseeksthe delimitation with Colombia.

ll
28) In particulalthe 20 November 1976 Treaty of Colombia and Panama

stipulates in Article Ithat:

Itthe median line in the Caribbean Seashall be constituted by straight

linesjoining the following points:

... 2.From the point at latitude12°30'00" north and longitude

78°00'00" west the delimitation of the marine and submarine

areas belonging to each State shall be constituted by a series of

straight linesjoining the following pOints:

Point H:1r30'OO" N 78°00'00" W

Point I:12°30'00"N 79°00'00" W

PointJ: 11°50'00"N 79°00'00" W

PointK:11°50'00" N 80°00'00"W

PointL:1rOO'OO" N80°00'00" W

Point M:11°00'00" N 81°15'00"W"

29) It iseasily demonstrable that point KIlocated1r50'OO" N 80°00'00" W 1is well

over 200 miles from any point on Costa Rica/scoast and precludes any claims

that CostaRica'might presume to have east of that point especially asCostaRica
l

1CMColombia,Vol. II-A,Annexes,Annex4, p. 25

11 has made no claim to an extended continental shelf. Furthermore, this point K

(accepting Costa Rica'sargument of "nearness" only for purposes of illustration)

is closer to the Nicaraguan mainland than any point on Costa Rica'smainland. If

we consider the base points along the Nicaraguan mainland and the pertinent

islands off Nicaragua,this can be confirmed by simply looking at a map without

even need of a ruler or compass.

30) Paragraphs16 to 18 of the Application, which also addressthe alleged effects on

the legal interests of CostaRica,are an exercisein generalities. For example, par.

16 points out that "Costa Rica understands that these figures (in Nicaragua's

pleadings) are not meant to show the maritime area claimed by Nicaragua, but

instead are meant to show the area in which the delimitation should occur

according to Nicaragua" . In that case, what is the effect on Costa Rica's legal

interests?

31) The next paragraph, 17, claims issuesthat are "of more concern" to CostaRica,

namely "The depictions of Nicaragua' s area of 'potential EEZentitlement'

showing an even more aggressivesouthern limit can be found at ReplyFigures4-

5, 6-5, 6-9, 6-10, and 6-11. Here too Nicaragua appears to claim maritime area

that overlaps significantly with CostaRica'sarea of maritime entitlement." Asthe

Court will observe, all these figures in the Reply refer to the general area of the

"potential EEZentitlement", and do not imply, under any possible reading, a

claim to the entirety of the areasthus roughly sketched.

1232) In paragraph 18 CostaRicamakesthis assertion:

"In its ReplYINicaragua modified its boundary claim against Colombia

moving the new line far to the east of its original median line and beyond

any area to which Costa Ricaclaims an entitlement. (SeeReplyfigure 3-

11) However Nicalagua/sclaim to a boundary line implies entitlement to

the area bounded by that line. Costa Rica is concerned that the area

claimed on the basis of Nicaragua/sline overlaps significantly with Costa

Rica/smaritime area not least because the southernmost point of this
1I
new claim line is still closer to CostaRicathan to Nicaragua.

33)This paragraph contains an important admission that the delimitation line

claimed by Nicaraguais located "beyond any area to which Costa Ricaclaims an
ll
entitlement • This admission in itself should be enough to dismiss the

Application of Costa Rica without further time-consuming and expensive

procedures. The comment that "Nicaragua/s claim to a boundary line implies

entitlement to the area bounded by that Iine ll is irrelevant. First it would be
l

stretching to a new breadth the rights available to third parties under Art. 62 1 if

mere potential "implications ll of boundary claims could form the basis for

intervention. More concretelYI however Nicaragua ls not claiming any lateral

delimitation with Colombia that might affect Costa Rica/sinterests or claims.

There is no trace of any claim to a line of delimitation with Colombia that would

run from the continental shelf boundary requested by Nicaraguato its mainland l

and even lessto the neighborhood of its land boundary with CostaRica.

34) One final point must be made on the section of Costa Rica/s Application

purporting to establish that the proceedings in the casebetween Nicaraguaand

13 Colombia might affect its interests. This claim is contained in the curious

paragraph 21 of the Application which must be read in full to be appreciated:

1121.It will be clear to the Court that Nicaragua and Colombia are not in

the best position to protect Costa Rica'slegal rights and interests, And,

while article 59 of the Statute of the Court provides that "the decision of

the Court hasno binding force except between the parties and in respect

of that particular case,"the Court will appreciate that it would be difficult

for a small, non-militarized country like CostaRicato implement this legal

principle in practice."

35) It is surprising that a State that prides itself on, and studiously promotes its

image of not having an army should even suggestthat the use of military force

would be required to ensure its legal rights pursuant to Article 59 of the Statute

of the Court. It should be evident that a State like Nicaraguathat has repeatedly

had recourse to the Court, including in a prior boundary dispute with CostaRica,

is not one that isconsidering using non-peaceful meansof dispute resolution.

36) In any event, Nicaragua considers that Costa Rica'sstatement in paragraph 21

could not possibly refer to Nicaragua becausethe security budget of Costa Rica

more than doubles the defense budget of Nicaragua. Nicaragua also notes that,

despite the fact that Costa Ricadoes not choose to call its ample security forces

by the name of lIarmy", it does have a fully equipped police force which alone

hasa budget higher than the total defense budget of Nicaragua.

14 Decisionsof the Court referring to Article 62 of the Statute

37) Intervention based solely on art. 62 has never been granted to a State in a

maritime delimitation case when the Parties oppose the application. The first

two attempts at intervention - those of Malta in the Tunisia/Libya caseand Italy

in the Malta/Libya case-were denied by the Court. Costa Ricainvokes not these

cases,but two others - the only two in which intervention was granted. Neither

of these casessupports CostaRica'sApplication.

38) Costa Rica relies heavily on the Nicaraguan intervention in the El

Salvador/Honduras case not only for the obvious reason that it involved

Nicaragua, but also becausethis was the first successfulintervention under art.

62. But it affords no support for Costa Rica. In that case Nicaragua was denied

intervention in the delimitation inside and outside the Gulf of Fonseca.It was

only allowed to intervene on the narrow question of the status of the Gulf:

whether it was a condominium or enjoyed some other specialjuridical status as

claimed by the Parties.CostaRica'sApplication cannot benefit from a decision in

which the Court denied Nicaragua'srequest and did not allow it to intervene in a

delimitation that was not only lIin its neighbourhood" but directly adjacent to its

coastline inside a small gulf whose closing mouth separates the coasts of

Nicaragua and El Salvador by less than 20 miles. The case only serves to

emphasize the hollowness of Costa Rica's Application, in which it requests

something -intervention- that in more compelling circumstances was denied to
12
Nicaragua.

39)The only other casein which intervention was allowed under Article 62 involved

the Application of Equatorial Guianain the Cameroon/Nigeria case.But there the

12Nicaragua has maintained its traditional position on the questions involving the Gulf of Fonsecaand the maritime delimitation of
the area. The Judgment was not res judicata for Nicaragua.

15 request for intervention was not opposed by either Party.13Moreover, the Court

th
had already anticipated in a prior phase of that case(8 preliminary exception)

that one of the requests made by Cameroon, which involved the extension of the

delimitation line beyond a certain point, could involve rights of third parties and

this might be taken into consideration by the Court in limiting its decision on the

14
merits. The Costa Rican request is different because, apart from the question

of opposition by a Party, the delimitation requested by Nicaragua does not

consist of a single line that cannot be drawn because it would involve third

parties along its whole length, like the extension seawards of point "g"

requested by Cameroon. In that caseit was only this extension seaward that the

Court felt might be difficult to determine absent third States. And the Court did

not indicate that this circumstance could block its decision on the rest of the

maritime delimitation that wassub judice. In this respect it must be recalled that

Italy was denied permission to intervene in the Libya/Malta case were its legal

interests in an around Malta more or lessenveloped three points of the compass

around the island and not just asmall and distinct part of the delimitation.

40) Forthe sakeof completeness, the last casein which intervention was attempted

based on art. 62 involved the Application of the Philippines in the

Indonesia/Malaysia case. The request was different than the previous casesin

the sense that the Philippines' interest at stake had more to do with

interpretation of certain treaties and colonial agreements invoked by the Parties

than with the area of the delimitation or the entitlement to islands. For present

purposes the important point is that the Application was opposed and

intervention was denied by the Court.

13SeeJudge Oda's dissenting opinion in this case,in which he states that "The Court granted the request for permission to intervene
solely because the parties to the principal casedid n12,p.617. ...", par.

14"lnthe light of this virtual invitation to intervene, it is not surprising that Equatorial Guinea chose to do so and that the full Court
unanimously accepted Equatorial Guinea's request." Comment bTheStatute of the InternationalCourtofeds.ice,
Zimmermann et ai, Oxford Univ.2006)p.1350,par46.referring to the Court's Judgment in the casecoLandandg the

MaritimeBoundarybetween CameroonandNigeria(Cameroonv. Nigeria),PreliminaryOb(Nigerv.Cameroon)

16 III CONCLUSION

41) For these reasons, Nicaragua submits that the Application filed by Costa Rica

requesting permission to intervene fails to comply with the Statute andthe Rules

of Court. Nicaragua leaves it to the discretion of the Court to adjudge and

determine whether Costa Rica has complied with the legal requirements

necessary to base a right to intervene in the present proceedings and, hence

whether the request of CostaRicashould be granted.

The Hague, 26 May 2010

CarlosArgOelloG6mez

Agent of the Republic of Nicaragua

17