L COURT OFJus-
CASECONCERNINGMARITIMEDELIMITATION
ANDTERRITORIALQUESTIONS
BETWEEN
QATAR AND BAaRALN
(QATARV. BAHZAIN)
SUBMITTEDBY
THE STATEOF QATAR
VOLUME 1
30 September1998 TABLEOF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................
.............1..................
11. THE SOURCES AND INITIALEXAMINATIONOFTHECWLENGED
DOCUMENTS .............................................................
.....................
II. THE FURTHER FOIZENSICEXAMINATIONOF THE DOCUMENTS
BY QATAR'S EXPERTS FOLLOWINGBAHRADJ'SCHALLENGETO
THEIRAUTHENTICITY ............................................
.8.........................
IV. THE CONTENT OF THE CHALLENGED DOCUMENTS IN THE
CONTEXTOF THE EUSTORY OFQATAR ...........1..................12............... Case ConcerningMnritime Delimitationand TerritorialQuestions
betweenQatarandBatrrain (mar v. Bahraiiz}
INTERIM REPORT ON THE QUESTIONOF THE AUTHENTICITYOF THE
82 DOClJMENTSANNEXEDTO THE MEMORIALANDCOUNTER-MEMOKIAL
OF THE STATE OFQATAR AND CHALLENGEDBY BAHRAIN
The present Interim Report is submitted by the State of Qabr pursuant to the Order of the
Court dated 30 March 1998fixing 30 September 1998 as the tirne-limit for the filing by Qatar
of an interim report on the question of the authenticity of the 82 documents annexed to its
Memorialand Counter-Mernorialwhichhave been challengedby the State of Bahrain.
1. INTRODUCTION
1. The Court'sOrderdirected that the InterimReport "be ascomprehensive and speciilc
as possible" and that the Reply of Qatar contain "its detailed and definitive position on the
question of the authenticity of each of the documentschallenged by Bahrain". The Court will
recall that the Memorial of Qatar amexed eighty-one documents and its Counter-Mernorial
one document, theauthenticity of whicti ischallengedby 6ahrain1. Qatar has deposited with
the Registry the originals of seventy-six of these documents,not having been able to locate
the originals of the six remaining documents. ln its letter dated 17 March 1998, Qatar
indicated that it wouidnot rely on the six missingdocumentsuntil their originals had been
' Those documents arethe following: QM, Annexes 11.12(aIso reproducedas Annex 111.1)11-13 (dso
reproduced as Annex 111.2)1117; 11.18; 11.21 {also reproducedAnnexes III.7 and IV.5); IL22 (dso
reproducedasAnnexes111.8and1V.G);11.23(alsoreproducedasAnnexes111.9andIV.7);11.24(also reproduced
as AnnexesIII.O and IV.8); Annex111.0also reproducedas AnnexIV.11);11.31(alsoreproduced as Annexes
711.14andIV.13);11.32(also reproducedas Annex111.2011.3(also reproducedas Annex1H.25); 11.34(also
reproducedas Annex111.26);11.3(alsoreproduced as Annexes111.29and IV.14); 13;III.15; III.16; III.17;
111.18(alsoreproducedas AnnexIV.12);III19 (alsoreproducedasAnnexIV.lO); 111.21;111.27;111.31(also
reproducedasAnnex IV.15);111.34;111.36;111.37;111.39;111.40;111.46(alsoreproducedas AnnexIV.17);111.48;
111.49;111.50111.54;111.69;111.71;111.76;111.77;111.78;111.79;111.82;111.83111.96;111.97;II100;
III.1OI; III.105; 115; 11116;111.17; 111.19; 111.122;111.127;III.128; 111.140;111.141;III.145; 111.151;
III.155; I167; III.175; III.179; 111.180;III.186; III.187; 111.194;III.201; 111.202;115; 111.216;1
111.217;111.218;111.223;111.224;111.241;111,242;IV.9;V.66; IV.67; QCM, MapNo. 1 (dso reproduced
as Annexes11.6andIII.12).located and deposited with the Registry so as to permit Bahminto examine $hem2.As of
today, these originals have not been located. Consequentiy, Qatar will disregard these six
documents for the purpose of the present case3. Accordingly, this Interim Report contains
Qatar's position,ascomprehensiveand specific as possible, on the question of the authenticity
of eachof the remainingchallengeddocuments4.
2. Throughoutthese proceedings,initiated in 1991,it bas been Qatar not Bahsainwhich
has sought to have the Court examine fully the merits of the dispute. Bahrain'sattempts to
cnntest the Court'sjurisdict~onand to preventthe adjudication of the dispute are a matter of
record and need not be recanvassedhere. Qatar views Bahrain'sattack on the authenticity of
the documents as an additional attempt to prevent the Court from finalIy adjudicating the
dispute. Bahrain now claims that "the 81 documents play an essential role in Qatar's
Memorial, servingas almost the only basis forQatar's claimro the Hawar Islands as well as,
to a lesser degree, the Zubarah regionus. Contrafyto Bahrain's assertions,Qatar'scase does
not dependon the challenged documents but is founded on many other factual and legal
bases. Indeed, as w~llbe explained below, one of the reasons why Qatar was led to believe
that the documents in question couldbe relied upon was because they were consistent with
other, unchallenged,sourcesupon which Qatar'scaserests6.
3. Bahrain's letter of 25 September 1997 also contains a nurnber of inaccu~aciesand
exaggerations.For example,Qatar has never allegedthat "itwas a well-establishedstate with
a defined territary, borders and people before the arriva1of the Al-Khalifa in Zubarah in the
1760s"' . Such misstatements,exaggerations and other defects in Bahrain's presentation, to
~vhichQatar willdrawattentionin this lnterirnReportand itsannexes,provide no grounds for
Thoçe documentasre QM,AnnexesIII.105,III.116,III.117,III19,HI.122 and 111.127
Qatar has alsdecidedtodisregard apNo. 1ofitsCounter-Mernorial
TheInterimReport comprise the Report itself(Volum1)andtwo volumesof Annexes(Volumes2 and 3)
Bahrain'sletterdat25 September 1997,para.1.
"ee, for example ,CMJA, Amex 111.16Vol. IIIp. 83, which waç statetobe a petitiofiomthe so-called
residentsof Zubarah (with 536signatures)he text of which is virtuaidenticao that containedin one of
Qatar'schallençcddocuments(QM, Annex III.127,Vol7,p.135).
'Bahrain'lstterdated25 September1997,para.12.Bahrain'salIegations that the challenged documents are designed to distort each of the three
aspects of the case concerningthe Hawar islands,Zubarah, and the maritimedelimitation.
4. ln its letter of 25 September 1997, Bahrain has also statcd that it is "puzzled by the
appearance in [Qatar'sMernorial's]Annexes of 81 documents of which Bahrain had no prior
knowledge"' .Qatar recalls that it had attachedtwo ofthose documentsto its Mernorialdated
10 Pebruary 1992in the jurisdiction and adrnissibilityphase9. In its Counter-Mernorialin that
preiimina~yphase, Bahrain made no commenton these documents although it did comment
on issues related to the substance of the case1*.
5. Bahrain took over one year to prepare the reports attached toits letter of 25 September
1997.Qatar isconscious of the gravi9 of the accusations made by Bahrain and has treated
them seriously.Qatar has been obliged not only to make a more thorough examination of the
challenged documents themselves but also to analyse the voluminous reporis by Bahrain's
experts. In the short time available, Qatar has obtained and is providing the Coufi with t\vo
forensic studjes, commissioned from independent experts, attached in Volume 2 as
Annexes 11and III; and two historical reports, also commissioned from independent experts,
dealing with what Bahrain characterises as "historical and other inconsistencies and
anachronisrns",attached in Volume 3 as Annexes IV and V" .Tothe extent that the historical
issues are related to the merits of the case, Qatar will addrcss them further in its Reply.
Ibid., para. 1
See,QMJA, paras.2.15-2.16andAnnexes 1.6Vol.TI,p.27,and 1.11,Vol. II, 49
10
See,RCMJA,para. 2.1, where Bahrain statedthatits Counter-Mernorial was "notthe proper placein whichto
state the whole of Bahrain'shistorical case.nstead,Bahrainwill direct a few paragraphsto correctingthe
Qataristatement in respect of twmainthemes of importance".Bahrainmade no mentionof the two Ottoman
surveymaps nowchallengedbyBahrain which were QMSA, Annexes 1.6and 1.13.
II aven the timeconstraints,Qatarhas not retainedexpertsto examineeverysinglereport submittedbyBahrain.
Rather, it has concentratedon the essentialaspectsofthe problem,which initsvieware (i) the forensicissuesand
(ii)the historicalissues addressedby Bahtain'sexper1.Bostm and Dr. C.Finkel(Appendix 11.2to Bahrain's
letter dated 25 September 1997) and Dr. J.C. Wilkinsonand Mr. R. Schofield(Appendices11.1and 11.4to
Bahrain'sletter date25 Septernber1997, respectively).The forensic issues are addressed by Messrs. Abdul
KarimYounis Al-Tarawnehand Abdul-HamidNajiIrshaidintheirreport attached asAnnex TI andbyDr. David
A. Crown and Mr. Brim B. Carney in their report attachedas AnneIIIThehistoricalissues are addwssedby
ProfessorDr. M.MehdiIlhanand AssociateProfessorDr. ZekeriyaKursun intheirreport attachedasAnnex IV,
andbythe InternationalBoundariesResearchUnitof theUniveri@ of Durhaminitsreport attachedas AnnexV.6. With respect to the forensic issues, the reports show that Qatar's forensic experts
dispute many of the findings of Dahrain'sforensic experts, but themselves have differing
views on the authenticity of the challengeddocuments. Qatar is itself unqualified,of course,
to take a position on the authenticityof documentswherethere appearto be conflictsbetween
the experts.As regards the historical aspects,however,the reportsof Qatar'shistoricalexperts
show that there are gross exaggerationsand distortionsinBahraïn'sassertions.
7. Qatar's intent has always been to rely only upon documents whose authenticity is
beyond question.ln the light of the conflictingforensicreports,Qatar formallydeclares to the
Court that it will disregard al1the challengeddocumentsfor the purposes of the present case
so as to enablc the Court to address the merits of the case without further procedural
complications.
8. This Intenm Report wilI explain how the challenged documents were obtained by
Qatar and why itwas decided to submitthem to the Court. Xtwillthen present the results of
the forensic examination of those documentsby various experts following the challenge by
Bahrain to thcir authenticity. Finally, it will offer certain observationson the relationship
between the content of the challengeddocuments and the history of Qatar as known from
other sources.
9. As a result of Qatar'sdeclarationin this InterirnReport that it will disregardal1of the
chailenged documents, Bahrain 1snowin a position to prepare its Reply on the same basis.
Bahrain suffers no prejudice in this respect since Bahrain itself prepared its Counter-
Mernorialon the basis that it wouldalsodisregardthe challengeddocumentsi2.
II. TEE SOURCESANDWITLALEXAMlNATIONOFTHECHALLENGED
DOCUMENTS
10. In its letter of 25 Septembcr 1997,Bahrain has expressedthe view that "althoughthe
documents are purportedlyfrom different sources, widely separated by time, place, and
12
See,BCM,para. 6,inwhich Bahraindecfarthat it "willtreat the cofthe 81 forgeddocumentsanon-
existent".person, it is highlylikelythat everyone of them cornes from a single, non-genuineso~rce"'~.
In paragraph 15 of its Counter-Mernorial,Bahrain has gone further, and fiassuggested that
Qatar itself may have fabricatedthe chaHengeddocuments. This accusation is entirely faise.
Not only did the documentscorne from a variety of different sources, but the expert opinion
of Messrs. Al-Tarawnehand Irshaid,attached in Annex 11,showsthat they werewrittenby no
fewer than 57 individuals.
Il. Bahrainclaimed that none of these documents was known to histonans or scholars or
couid be found in a public archivet4,and that they shoufd not have been located in~atar".
Rut this doesnot by itself prove thatthe documents are fxaudulent Both Turkishand British
experts consultedby Qatar haveexplainedthat the state of the archives inTurkeyand Britain
cannot support such a conclusionby ~ahrain'~. Furthemore, according to Qatar's Turkish
experts, the Ottoman-relateddcicurnentsare not "official Ottomandocuments";nonetheless,
they could have beendrafis, copies or translations of çuch documents". ln addition, the
letters tn or from Belgrave in the 1920s and 1930s as well as the correspondencebetween
Belgave andlcrrthe Ruler of Bahrain, on the one hand, and intelligence agents acting for
Bahrain, on the other hand, were of such a nature that they would not nomially be found in
the official archives of a particufar country. Finally, it is well known that neither private
correspondence by of'lXcialn sor secret intelligence correspondence is generallyincluded in
normal departmental files
12. At first glance it may appear peculiar that Qatar has oniy relatively recently obtained
the chalienged documents. The reason for this resides in the history of the State of Qatar
itself. Qatar wasa protectedState untilthe end ofthe British presence in 1971.Prior to 1949,
there was no British representation in Qatar; rather, the Political Agent in Bahrain was
responsible for reporting on conditions in Qatar, and there were no separate archives
'"atuain'ls etterdated25 Seplember1997, para.22
l4 Jbid.paras.2and 14-17.
l5Ibid.atpara.15
l6See,AnnexIV,Vol.3, pp.5 and15;andAnnex V, Vol.3,paras.29-31
17See,AnnexIV, Vol. 3,p.4.See, dso,paras.34,et seq.belowexclusively related to Qatar existing on Qatari territory. Archival material relating to Qatar
was thusfound in Rahrain,Britain, Turkey,Iran and India. The nationalarchive was kept in
the persona1archive of the Ruler of Qatar. Only with the appointment of a British Political
Officer in Qatar in 1949did official correspondence begin to be generated andarchived on
Qatari territory.
13. Apartfrorn a general scarcity of documents in Qatar, there was another problem. In
1961the BritishPolitical Agent inQatar (Moberly)stated in a letterto the Political Resident
that:
"...the Qatar Government archives are very incomplete and ...Abdullah Danvish is
suspectedof havingmade off with many officialGovernmentpapers which he cannot
now be persuaded to hand back. To make good these deficienciesin the Government
records Ahmad Mulla said that from time to time he may haveto ask us to supply
copies of letters senttothe Ruler in earlier years"18.
Totryto remedythis deficiency,Qatar beganto accluiredocuments which relate to itshistory.
24.
Followingthe end of the British presence in Qatar, one of thetasks assigned toQatar's
Department of Cultural Heritage was the general acquisition of documents concerning the
histoxy and heritage of Qatar and its people. With this in mind, and well before it was
apparentthatthe Court wouldeverbe seised ofthe presentcase, Qatarmade numerousefforts
on various frontsto identifyand collect documents that should have a place in its archives.
Therefore, a number of sources were contacted, through official, academic andprivate
charnels, in an effort to collect any relevant materials. Several hundred documents have
alreadybeen acquiredin thiswayfrom various sourcesal1over the world,with a viewto their
inclusionin Qatar'sarchives.
15. As far as the 82 challenged documents are concerned,these were acquired by Qatar
between 1989 and 1993. Histo~ thus provides the answer to Bahrain'squestion as to why
Qatar failed to mention thesedocuments in 1938-3919. Qatar d~d not mentionthe challenged
documents then, nor indeed inthe 1980s,for the simplereason that it didnot have themin its
possessionat those times.
18 Set.QM, Annex111.286,Vol.8,p.421
"~ee,Bahrain'slettedated25September 1997,para.2.16. Alf of the chalienged documents were obtained from sources in Bahrain, India,
Morocco,Oman, Saudi Arabia, Singapure,Dubai, Sharjah, and Qatar. They may be divided
into two principal categorics: those that were donated and those that were purchased.A total
of 18documents were donated to Qatarby four different donors from different countriesin
the Gulf region. Purchased documents came from a variety of sources in the countries
mentionedabove.In ail, 15differentsellersand donors from nine differentcountriesprovided
thesedocuments
17. While Bahrain purports to be surprised that the documents are not to be found in
various official archives, the fact remains that there is a considerable trade in original
documents relating, znier al~u,to the OttomanEmpire and the hislory of the GulfStates.It is
also regrettably true that numerous documents have been removed from off~cialarchives,
notablyforthe purposeof furtheringthistrade.
18. Despite the fact that,primafacie, the documents Ehatit had acquiredappeared to be
genuine,Qatar did not wishio submit donated or purchased documents to the Court until it
had taken the precaution of obtaining an opinion from an expert in forensic science. It
thereforesubrnitteda representativesample of the documents that it had collected(including
some of the challenged documents) to a renowned forensic expert in Germany,Dr. Walter
Koch.
19. ln the early 1990s,Dr. Koch performed a series of non-destructive forensic tests on
these documents,using VSC equipment in order to assess the compatibitityof the age of the
paperand ink with the dates ofthe After completing this examination,Dr. Koch
issued reports on the authenticity of documents presented to him2'. First, these reports
describe certain details found on the document, such as paper quality and appearance;
VSCequipmenthasalsobeenusedby Qatar's andBahrain'sforensicexperts intheseproceedings.
'' Annex I containsa seriesreportsprepared byDr.Koch. Qatardid notsubmitevery document toDr. Koch
forforensictestingsince,asnotedabove,Qatar had collectedseveralhundreddocumentsin ail.Aitshoukdbe
notedthat notailthe certificatesissuedbyDr. Koch relateto documentsthat havebeen subrnittedbyQatheto
Court, sinceQatar had not at the time selectedthe documents upon whichit intendedto relyinaddition,
manyof the severalhundred documents collectedby Qatar have no bearion the present case. However, the
certificatesproducedby QatainAnnex 1show that Dr. Koch did examinethe documentsthat becarneAnnexes
II.21,III.37,III.14III186,111.241and IV.66to Qatar'sMernorial.watermarksandfoldings;signsof ageing such as holes or browning;ink colour;nwnber and
types of seal and stamp impressions. Second, theyexplain the technical examination carried
out and its result. Third, they state Dr. Koch'sconclusion: that examination using criminal
investigationtechniquesproducedno evidence raisingquestions as tothe ageof the paper and
ink and thejr genuineness. This is also confirmedby Dr. Koch's affidavit of 24July 1998,
which isattached in Annex 1.
20. In addition, the documents collected by Qatar were considered as being consistent
with other documents from the British or Ottoman archives. They compiemented other
unchallenged documentary evidence. The historical report attachcd in Annex V has now
confirmedthat the greatmajorityof the challengeddocuments do have an historicalcontext.
21. The foregoing account of the various sources from which Qatar acquired the
documentsin question, togetherwith the steps taken by Qatar to have an independent expert
examine a representative sample of thcm before submitting them to the Court, sufices to
demonstrate that the Bahrainicharge of any misconduct by Qatar iswhollyunfounded.
III. THE FURTEER FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF THEDOCUMENTSBY
QATAR'S EXPERTSFOLLOWING BAHRAIN'S CHALLENGETO THEIR
AUTHENTICITY
21. In its letter of 25 September 1997,Bahrain stated that it had reached the "conclusion
thatal1of the 81 documents are .forgeriesU2' on the basis of "concrete and cornprehensive
evidence providedby 12 experts in the relevant areas of historical scholarshipand forensic
analysis of d~curnents"~! As regards the forensic aspects, Qatar has in turn had recoursc to
forensicdocument examiners,who wererequested to examine the originals ofthe challenged
documentsat the premisesofthe Court, as well asthe reports ofBahrain'sexpertsz4.
-. -
22 Brahrainetterdated25 Septembe1997,para.4
23
Ihidp.,ra.5
24 ASnotedabove,theseexpertsareMessrs.AbdulKarimYounisAl-Tarameh andAbdul-Hamid NajiIrsbajd
andDr.DavidA. CrownandMr.Bnan B. Carney,whose opinionsareattachedinVolume '2asAnnexesIIand
ILI,respectivelBetween thestwo reportsQatar'sexpertshaveaddressedeachof thechallengeddocuments
hm theforensicpointofuiew.23. Based on their respective examinations of different aspects of the challenged
documents, Qatar's forensic experts have reached conclusions which differ from those
reached by Bahrain'scorresponding expertsbutalso differ between themselves.Thus,Messrs.
Al-Tarawneh and Irshaidconclude as follows:
"Based on this careful, detailed, scientific analysis of each of the seventy-five
documents, it is Ourconclusion that these documents are authentic. There is not one
piece of evidence in the various areas we examined that indicates in any way that
these documentswere forgedora~tered"~~.
Their report adds that:
"The Bahrainiexperts'report was explicitly drafted to misrepresent the evidence and
to deceive the reader through endlesspagesof detailed handwriting analysis,whichis
groundless,unscientific, and internallyinconsistent""".
24. These conclusions were based on an analysisof the challengeddocuments in terms of
paper, handwriting, signatures and "stylisrjcrn~~hology"~~.The experts' most significant
findingsarc summarisedat pages 3to 4 oftheir report.Accordjng to those findings:
(i) Thereis no atternptto disguisethe handwritingonanyof thedocuments;
(il) There is no indication of any alteration of the handwritjng in an attempt at
imitationor forgery;
(iii) The handwriting is consistentin everyway withthe time period in which each of
the documents is said to be wrÎtten, and iç a handwriting which would be difficult
consistentIyto imitate today;
(iv)The 75 documents examinedwerewrittenby 57 different persons;
(v) The vocabulary used in thedocuments is consistent with the time penod ln which
theyare saidto have been written;
(vi)The paperis from the sarnetime periodas thedocuments'dates;and
" 5ex JI,Vol.2, p. 19.It shoddbe noted thatthe75documentsreferred to here arthe 75 originalsof
annexesto its Mernorialchathaveben depositedbyQatarintheRegïstrythesixremainingoriginanot having
beenlocatedby Qatar.
26 AnnexII,Vol.2, p.19 (vil) There are as many variations in the handwriting and signatures in the "kno\m
documents"referredtoby Bahrain'sexpertsas there are in the challengeddocuments.
25. The reportof Dr. Crown andMI-.Camey goesbeyonda mere response to the forensic
report subrnittedby I3ahrain2\ andisbased to a greatextenton forensicaspectsnot addressed
by Messrs. Al-Tarawneh andIrshaid. Intheir report,Dr. CrownandMr. Carney havecorneto
different conclusionsfromthose reachedby Messrs. Al-Tarawnehand Irshaid.They conclude
that, while they might dispute a felv points made by Bahrain's experts, out of the
79 documentswhichtheyexamined,77 contain tàults or fla~s~~.
26. This conclusion is based on various observations, depending on the particular
document examined.In contrastto the views earlier givento Qatar by Dr. Koch, some of the
documents are held to be questionable because, in the experts'view, the ink used is too
modern for the purportedage of the document. Some documents are considered to be not
wholly reliablebecauseof the presenceof inappropriatestampsor seals, whileothers bearing
the same stamps orseals which, in isolation, might be held to be authentic, are classified as
doubtful becausethey are "contaminated"by the use of a stampor seal that has been foundto
be inappropriate on other documents. Other documents are considered to be problematic
because, "while in every instance the paper can be considered '01 d'...thereare qualiQing
conditions such as miiltiple usage of one sheet of paper by individuals with incongrnous
connections,paperremoved undoubtedlyfrom oldbooks and files, and recent cuts dong old
paper whichreflectnegativelyuponthe validityof the 'oldpaper"'3".
27. Itmaybe notedthat on manyoccasions a document is viewed as flawedby Dr. Crown
and Mr, Carneyfor onlyone of theabove reasons.Qatarnotes thatin some such cases there is
a conflict between its own experts. In other cases, Dr. Crown and Mr. Carney raise points
which even Bahxain'sexperts have not addressed. As far as purely forensic issues are
concerned, the questionof paper isthe one whichmost sharplydividesQatar'sexperts. While
'' Bahrain'sletterda25dSeptember1997,Appendix11.8.
29See,hnex III, Vol2,p. 14. Dr. Crownand Mr. Carneexamine 75 originalsplus four photocopies, the
qualityofthe tworemainingphotocopiesbeing insugicientformeaninpfulexamination.
'OAnnexIII,Vol.2,p. 1.Dr. Crown and Mr. Carney consider a number of documents as questionable for the sole
reason that the paper appears to have been taken hm a book, Messrs. Al-Tarawneh and
Irshaid found no problems wtth the paper, an aspect specifically çovered by their
examinaiion. lndeed, while noting that for some documents the paper had been re-used, they
state that, "As there was a paper shortage in the region, the re-use of paper was not
uncornmon and does not change our finding that this document is authentic"". As wilIbe
seen in fürther detail below, the Turkish historiansconsulted by Qatar have corne to similar
conclusions regarding the re-use of paperu. As those experts state, "...given the scarcityof
paper in the region at the time of drafiingthe documents, this fact does not establish the
documentstina~thenticity"'~ .
28, Withrespect to stamps and seals,it rnaywell be that some of those thaiwere foundro
be "inappropriate"were added at alater date, possiblyby thc sellerwith a view to makingthe
document appear more valuable to a potential purchaser, but in fact "contaminating" what
rnayotherwisehavebeen an authenticdocument.
29. In view of Dr. Koch'searlier opinions and the opinions expressed by Qatar'sother
experts, Qatar was surprisedthat the reportof Dr.Crownand Mr. Carneycalled into question
the authenticity of 77 of the challenged documents. As a resuit, Qatar considers that
Dr. Crown and Mr. Carney may havebeen too categoricalin theirconclusions.
30. in the light of the uncertain and sometimesconflicting assessments made by its own
forensic experts and those of Bahrain, Qatar has decided to disregard the challenged
documents. This decision applies to al182documentsthat have been challenged by Bahrain.
The question of the historical context of the documents is, however,a quite ddifferentissue,
which Qatar willnow address.
3L AnnexII, Vol2,p.4.
32 Ser, para.36, below.
33 See, AnnexIV,Vol. 3, 4.IV. THE CONTENTOF THECHALLENGEDDOCIJMENTS IN THECONTEXTOF
THE HISTORYOF QATAR
31. Theexamination by Qatar of Bahrain'sallegatlonshas notbeen limited to the forensic
aspects. Qatar has also addressed the reportssubrnitted by Bahrain pertaining to historical
questions, which itregards as inacurate and seriously distorted. As noted above, Qatar has
therefore consulted two Turkishspecialistsin Ottoman history,ProfessorDr. M. Mehdi Ilhan
and Associate Professor Dr.ZekeriyaKursun, and a team of experts from the International
Boundaries Research Unit of the University of Durham ("BRU"). The reports of these
expcrtsaxeattachedin Volume 3 hereto asAnnexes TV and V, respectively.
32. Thetask assiped tothese historicalexperts was not to determineas such whether the
challenged documents were authentic, but rather to assess whether their content was
consistent with the historical facts as alreadyknown and whether the documents could thus
rcasonablybe considered asgenuinehm an historicalpoint of view.
In particular, Prof. Ilhan and Dr. Kursun were asked texamine the 27 documents
33.
from Ottoman officiais or addressed to Ottoman officiais that are included arnong the
challenged documents, wïth referenceto the report by Dr. 1. Bostan and Dr.C ~inkel" ".
Qatar's expertscvaluated the documents from the point of view of Ottoman diplomatic
practice,comprisingan examinationofthe contents,witing, signatures,headings,fomalities
md seals.
34. Prof. Ilhan and Dr. Kursun have concluded in their report that the documents
examined by them cannot be considered as official Ottoman documents. They reach this
conclusion afkr noting that the documents do not displaythe formalismthat was laid down
for official correspondenceby specific des for Ottoman burcaucratic language. Thus, for
34Bahrain'lsetterda25Septernbe1997, Append11.2.example, the official forms of address are not used, and the use of certain starnps or seals
appearsto be inappropriate3'.
35. On the other hand, iheseexperts provide responsesto some of the criticisms raised by
Bahrain'sexperts with regard to the Ottoman docunients.As they note, Ottoman documents
could be written in Arabic iî the writer or the addressee was himself an Arab, as was
sometirnes the case36.Furthennore, while the documents are not official documents, they
could be drafts, translationsor copies of official documents.In such an event, the fomalities
rnightbe dispensed~ith~~.
36. Again,as regardsthe paper,Prof. Tlhan and Dr. Kursun, like Messrs.Al-Tarawneh and
1rshaidB8o .bservethat paperwas scarce in the region at the time, and that the re-use of paper
does not establish a document'sina~thcnticity~~.Indeed, while Qatar'sexperts on Ottoman
history agree with Bahrain's expertsthat official Ottoman documents (rneaning documents
issued from recognised Ottoman officiais or pertaining to official Ottoman bodies) were
writtenon official paper, they point out that it is possible to find Ottoman documents in the
Ottomanarchiveswhich areeitherdraftsandor copies, andwhich arewritten on non-official
paper orpaperof lesserquality4u .
37. Finally, with respect to Bahrain's experts'assertion thal they have found none of the
challenged documents or their copies in the Ottoman archives, Prof Ilhan and Dr. Kursun
suggest thatit is not possibleto infer from this that the documents or their copies were not at
onetime, or still are not, inthe Ottomanarchives. As theypoint out,the Baghdad and Basrah
archives, which grouped the Ottoman administrativearchives from Nejd and Hasa, suffered
losses as a result of the First World War; in addition, the catalogues of the Basbakanlik
-
35 See,Annex IV, Vol.3, p5
'"bid., p.4.
37 Ibid.
See,Annex II,Vol 2,p.4.
39Annex IV,Vol.3,p. 4.
40&d.Ottoman archive in Istanbul coveronly one-third of the archive4'. Qatar'sTurkish experts
also notethat the maps whicharecontained inthe group of the documentsthat they examined
appear eitherto have been drawnby an expert or to have been copied from original Ottoman
map, sincethere are manyOttomanmaps of thistype inthe Ottomanarchives" .
38. In conclusion, therefore, while Qatar's Turkishcxpertsconsider that, for the reasons
which they have given, none of the documents challenged by Bahrain and subrnittedto their
examination çan be considered as official Ottoman documents, the documents cannot be
discountedforthisreasonalone,and could havean historicai context.
39. Qatar'sother historical experts,from IBRU,have addressedthe challenged documents
from the perspectiveof varioushistorical sources and of British knowledgeof Gulf affairsto
determine whether they are compatible with such sources and knou~ledge,with particular
xeferenceto the reportsby Ur.J.C. Wilkinson andMr. R. Schofieldthat havebeen submitted
by ~ahrain~~ .
40. Dr Wilkinsonand Mr. Schofieldbave tried to show that there is no historical context
for the challenged documents.BRU'Sreport appended hereto demonstrateshowever that the
contentof many of the challengeddocuments is compatible with their historicalcontext,with
the content of other, unchallenged,documents, and in generai with known historical facts".
Consequently,there is no basis for Balirain'sassertion that thechallenged documentscontain
"startlingrevelations which, if me, would rnean that previously accepted history mustbe
radically rewritten- not onlythe history of Bahrain and Qatar, but alsothat of the Gulf as a
hol le"^ Nor is there any basis for Bahrain'saccusation that"purportedp~litical relations
betweenBritain and the OttomanEmpire and between the Rulers of Bahrain,AbuDhabi and
Qatararejust inventedU4?
41 Ihid.,p.6.
42Ibid.
43 Bahrainaiettdated25 Septernbe1997,AppendicesII.1and11.4
4P AnnexV, Vol.3.
45 BCM,para. 4.
46 See,Bahrain'letterdated25 Septemb1997, para19.41. The researchthat has beenperfomed by DRIJ to date showsthat this propositionhas
been grosslyoverstatedbyBahrain andby its historicalexperts. Inparticular, the IBRIJreport
points to flaws in the research methodsof Uahrain'sexperts, which have led to a distorted
picture of the historicalcontext.l'hemore detailed research by IRRUthus demonstrates, inter
uliu, that while the maps produced with Qatar's Mernorial that have been çhallenged by
Bahrain may not be formal delimitation documents", the lines that they depict may be
prirnarily concerned with responsibility in conneçtion with the maintenance of the maritime
peace in theGU~P In~regardto the Ottoman-related documents,therefore, it is IBRU'sview
that since these documents do have an historical context, Bahrain'sexperts are "wrongto
declare so categorically that it is impossible for these Ottoman-related documents to be
genuine"43.
42. Similarly, with respect to the documents relating to conflictsbetween Qatar and Abu
Dhabi, IBRU'sreport has show that such contlicts had existed sxncethe 19th century,and
that there is thus no foundation for Dr. Wilkinson's characterisationof these challenged
documentsas a "transparent retrajection" of the frontier disputesinthe 1950s.By referenceto
published works and archiva1documents, IBRU'sreport shows hereagain that the chailenged
documentsare consistent withthe contemporaryhistoricalc~ntext~~.
The BRU report has shown that Bahrain'sexpert Dr.Wilkinson was also wrong to
43.
reach the conclusion that there was no dispute between Qatar and Abu Dhabi concerning
Khor al-Udayd.Infact,Dr. Wilkinsoncompletely ignoredthe fundamentalpoint that Khoral-
Udayd was the main area of dispute between Abu Dhabi on the one side and Qatar and the
Ottomans on the other, between 1871 and 1913, and then between Qatar, Abu Dhabi and
SaudiArabia in the inter-warperiod51.Sirnilarly,Dr. Wilkinsonhas statedthat BBntain never
recognised any Oteornanjurisdictionin the Qatar peninsula; yet as Qatar has shown in its
- --
47 QM, Annexes 11,21,IL2211.2311.24,11.32,11.3III.17and111.46.
48Annex V, Vol. 3paras25,etseq..
49Ibid., para.78.
50Ibrd,,paras.79elseq..
51See,ibid .aras.82etseq..written pleadings'2 and as IBRU further demonstrates in its reportj3, unchallenged records
dating from before 1881 show that the British government did recobmiseQatar as having
fallen under de ,fuctu Ottoman jurisdictlon. Tndced, as the IBRU report points out,
Dr. Wilkinson himself, in one of his publishedworks, admits that at one time the British were
encouraging the Ottomans to enforcetheir rule in ~atarj~.
44. Referring to other challenged documents from the 1920sand 1930s,the IBRU report
again shows that they are plausible within the historical context5'. For example, where
Dr. Wilkinson has tried to show that the references in the documents to oil are an
anachronism, II3RU has demonstrated, on the basiç of known historical facts and
unchallengeddocuments, that there was considerable oil interest inBahrain from 1925'~,
45. As a result of its reseaxchto date, and on the basis of theabove observations and other
more detailed responses to objections raised in the reports of Dr. Wilkinson and
Mr. Schofield, TBRU cornes to the general conclusion that the Deal majority of the
challenged documents have an historical context and that they thus cannot be decmed to be
inauthentic on historical grounds alone. Indeed, for IBRU only one of the challenged
documents appears to cause aproblem as far as historical context isconcerned5'.
46. In Qatar's view, thercfore, there is nothing in the historiçal content of the challenged
documents which should have given rise to any doubts concerning their authenticity. Indeed,
as the BRU report shows, the content of the challenged documents is consistent with the
historical facts as recordcd inother unchallengeddocuments and publications. Qatar therefore
had no reason not to use these documentsto complement the otherdocumentary evidence.
52 See,QM,paras. 3.43,el seq.and 3.47elseq.;andQCM,paras.2.30, et srq..
53 Annex V, Vol.3,paras. 27,etseq
54 Ibid., para27,referrïngtoJ.C.WilkinsonA, rabia'sFroniiers7;6eSio~ ofBritain's BuunClaryDrawingin
theDesert, London, 1991,p. 78.
j5 hnex V,Vol.3, paras. 87,etseq..
56~hid.,para119.
57
Zbjd.,para.157. Thedocumentconcerned isQM,Annex 111.4647. Qatar cannotend thislnterim Report withoutcommentingonthe highlightingexercise
that has been performedby Bahrainon Qatar's Memorialand Counter-Mernorial.Undercover
of its letter to the Court dated 2 February1998, Bahrain submitted copies of thuse written
pleadings which were purportedly highlighted "to show al1 references to the forged
documents, and the argumentsbased on them". In this connection Bahrain stated that "It is
impossibleto overstatethe extentto whichthe forgeriesused by Qatarcontaminatethe case".
Qatar considers, however, that Bahrain hasvastly overstatedthe extent to which the content
of the challengcd documents affects Qatar's case, particularly when it is recalled that
Bahrain'sown Counter-Mernorialwas preparedon the basis that idisregardedthe challenged
documents. Bahrain's highIighting is an eloquent dernonstrationof such overstatement. To
give just one examplc, Qatar wouldlike to draw the Court'sattention to paragraph 5.1 of
Bahrain's highlighted version of Qatar's Memorial, frorn which it appears that Bahrain
considers that Qatar canno longerrely on Lorimer'sGmerteer of the Persian (Tuof:the 1913
Anglo-Ottoman Conventionor BritishGovernmentrecordsifthe challengeddocumentsareto
be disregarded. This is quite absurd, andthe highlightinghere and in numerous other places
has clearly been done by Bahrain in anattempt to exaggerate the effect thatthe challenged
documentshave on Qatar'scase.
V. CONCLUSION
48. As indicated above,after receiving itsvarious experts'reports, and in the light of the
conflicting views amongstthe Parties'experts, Qatar has decided that it will disregard al1the
82 challenged documentsfor the purposes of the present case so as to enable the Court to
address the ments of the case withaut furtherprocedural complications.Ttdoes so, however,
with the proviso that it does not accept Bahrain'sdistortions of the historical facts or its
exaggerationsof the effect ofthe challengeddocumentson Qatar'scase.
[Signed]
Dr.Abdullahbin AbdulatifAl-Muslemani
Agentof the State of Qatar
30 September 1998 LIST OFANNEXES
(Volume 2)
1. Certification bDr. Walter Koch
- Affïdavit
- Certificates withEnglishtranslation
II. Expert ForensicReport byAbdul Karim Younis Al-Taramch and Abdul-HainidNaji
Irshaid
III. Forensic Document Examination Report by Dr. David A. Crown and Mr. Brian
B. Carncy
(Volume3)
IV. Report by ProfessorDr.M. Mehdi llhan and AssociateProfessorDr. Zekeriya Kursun
V. Report by the InternationalBoundariesResearch Unit,Universityof Durham
W. Certification
Interim Report of the State of Qatar