AustralianGovernment
Attorney-Gencral's Departmen t
Officeoflnternational Law
13 June 2013
His Excellency
Mr Philippe Couvreur
Registrar
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague
NETHERLANDS
Dear Mr Couvreur
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening)
I have the honour to refer to your letter of 11 June 2013 enclosing a letter from the Agent of Japan
dated 10 June 2013 conveying Japan's views on the matters raised by Australia in its letter of 5 June
2013 concerning the filing by Japan oflengthy comments by Professor Judy E Zeh on Australia's
expert evidence.
First, I note the reference in the letter from the Agent of Japan to the e-mail chain attached to
Dr Gales' statement of 31 May 2013, presumably as sorne form of alleged precedent for its filing of
the material from Professor Zeh. The e-mail chain attached to Dr Gales' expert statement was
included as a source of reference for a point made in Dr Gales' statement and, of course, Dr Gales will
be able to be cross-examined on that statement. That e-mail chain and its limited purpose stands in
stark contrast to the 24 pages of extensive and untestable evidence set out in the two e-mails of
Professer Zeh filèd by Japan.
The intent of Japan in seeking to introduce expert evidence by the back door is now confirmed by the
statement in the letter from the Agent of Japan dated 11 June that the material from Professer Zeh is
tendered on the basis that it will be '... useful to assist the Court in assessing the scientific aspects of
the case ... '.
We reiterate in full the comments made in our letter of 5 June 2013 as well as our request to the Court
that the material from Professor Zeh not be treated as part of the Court's dossier and that no reference
should be made to this document or its content during the oral proceedings. We note that Japan bas
offered no characterization of the material from Professor Zeh (in particular, whether it is to be treated
merely as evidence, or as expert evidence), and has offered no explanation of the manner in which this
new material is consistent with (i) the specifie process and timetable adopted by the Court, following
consultation with the Parties, and (ii) the Rules of the Court.
3-5 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 Telephone (02) 6www.ag.gov.au ABN 92 66l 124 436If the sole purpose of Japan is to give Australia advance notice of possible questions for cross
examination of Australia's witnesses and not in any way to deploy Professor Zeh as an expert witness,
that only confirms that the material bas no placee Court's dossier.
Yours sincerely
d!/11
W M Campbell Q
Agent of Australia
Whalinginthe Antarcti(Australia v. Japan: New Zea/and In2 of2ning)
Letter dated 13 June 2013 from the Agent of Australia