]
l
l
l
l
INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE
l
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA IN THE BORDER AREA
l (COSTA RICA V. NICARAGUA)
J
] Comments on the Reply of Nicaragua
1
J
Questions putby Judge Simma
}
J 1. Judge Simma's frrst question was the following:
J Before the hearing of 11 January 2011, did Nicaragua ever make, or attempt to
J make, Costa Rica aware of its claim according to which the course of the boundary
does notfollow that documented on al! existing-including Nicaraguan-maps, but
J
"reaches the river proper by the first channel met"-this the First Alexander
J Award of 1897-this clause being interpreted as referring to the "Cano Harbor
] Head"?
J
] 2. Nicaragua's reply fails to answer the question asked. Judge Simma's question relates to
Nicaragua's novel interpretation that the "Cafio Harbor Head" is the channel referred to in the
J
First Alexander Award of 1897. He asks, specifically, if Nicaragua ever informed Costa Rica of
J this new interpretation prior to 11 January 2011. Nicaragua's response refers to largely unrelated
] matters.
J
3. Nicaragua's response refers fust to its "White Book". This was published on 26
J November 2010, almost a month a:fterNicaraguan occupation of Costa Rican territory started. It
} obviously cannot be taken as a formai communication to Costa Rica. Furthermore, the White
Book differs materially from the position Nicaragua took during the hearings. The map included
J
in the White Book at p. 16 showing the alleged "Costa Rican claim" (indeed, the Nicaraguan
J
J
J
_,
J
J ]
J
l
one) shows a line that does not correspond to the claim advanced by Nicaragua during the
l hearings, i.e. that the boundary follows the right the "caiio Harbor head" or "fust caiio".
l
4. Nicaragua then mentions that at the 3 November 2010 session of the OAS Permanent
J
Council,"this" was also "spelled out" by Nicaragua. By ''this"it appears that Nicaragua refers to
l "the legal reasoning of Nicaragua's claim to the area in dispute". However, the minutes of the
l
J sessionof3 November do not mention either the novel interpretation of Alexander's First Award
or "Cafi.oHarbor Head". Nicaragua's Ambassador was so ambiguous in his speech to the OAS
l that he did not even state clearly that there was a Nicaraguan claim to Costa Rican territory per
se.His main and reiterated argument was that Nicaragua's armed forces had not entered Costa
J
Rican territory, since they were stationed on Nicaraguan territory, with the purpose of fighting
J
drug trafficking.
J
5. Nicaragua asserts.tha.:
J
J "[]efore the hearings and for many years Costa Rica was aware that the border had
J not been settled and that Nicaragua was interested in doing so. This subject was
addressed at the meetings of the bilateral Commission dating back to 1994 and the
J
---làstmeetingiwhich this subject-waraised~was-in~Octohec2- Q~_Q-_.._That~~~~Y.:
J
Nicaraguan maps had the legend that it had not been verified on the ground."
J
This paragraph completely misrepresents the situation.
J
J 6. In fact the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua was settled by the 1858 Treaty of
1
J Limits, and more specifically by the work and proceedings of the Demarcation Commission
1 (1897-1900), as duly recorded in Minute XXVII of 24 July 1900. The process that was
_j
undertaken from 1994 to 2004 was the establishment of additional boundary pillars in between
J
the original ones placed by the Demarcation Commission, and even then only from Marker II to
J
Marker XX, i.e. excluding that portion of the boundary where the right bank of the San Juan
J River constitutes the boundary. Nicaragua's reference to the land boundary densification process
.·.
J is completely irrelevant.
J
J
CR 2011/1, p. 45, para. 24 (Kohen).
J
J
J
j -~
]
l
.J
7. At the 1994 bilateral Commissionmeeting no issue relating to the settling (or unsettling)
of the land boundaries was addressed. What was agreed upon was on a land boundary
densification process. The text states:
l
"The Presidents coincided in the importance for both countries of the landmark
densification process throughout the whole common border, from Marker Il until
J..
Marker XX"..." 2
} Another issue agreed to was the negotiation of the maritime boundary between both countries,
both in the Caribbean as weil as inthe Paci:fic-again, a completely different matter.
J
8. The 2006 bilateral Commission meeting did not address issues on the "settling of
J
borders". What was discussed and agreed to at this meeting was to "organize, within the first
J
semester of 2007, a working programto restore and reposition the main border landmarks as weil
}
as the reference landmarks installed in conformity with the Ca:fias-JéTreaty ofLimits of 1858
J and the Alexander Awards.',3Another agreement was that IGN and INETER would exchange
] geospatial and thematic data.
J
9. Nicaragua further seems to suggest that, because sorne of its maps contain a statement in
]
their respective legends to the effect that they have "not been verified on the ground", the legal
weight of these maps is diminished. The reason sorne Nicaraguan maps - and the maps of other
J
countries, including Costa Rica- provide that th~ yave not been verified on the ground is
l
because the maps are dra:ftedin an office, and they are based on aerial photographs, as is clearly
J
the case with the official cartographyof Costa Rica and Nicaragua sincethe 1970s. What cannot
j
be verified by reference to aerial photography are place names, such as the names of towns and
J so on. Anything that the photographs cannot depict is referred to in the map legend. The physical
_] components portrayed in maps such as rivers, coastlines and so on, are élearlyvisible from aerial
J
2 Spanish original: "Los Presidentes coincidieron en la importancia que tiene para los dos pafses la
Densificaci6n de Mojones a todo lo largo de la fronteraesde el hito II hasta el hito XX..." Comunicado
6onjunto de los Presidentes de las Republicas de Costa Rica, ingeniero JoséMaria Figueres Olsen y de Nicaragua,
J sefiora Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, con motivo de su encuentro en las poblaciones fronterizas de la Cruz y San
Juan del Sur, (San Juan del Sur, Rivas, 29 May 1994).
J 3 Spanish original: "Las Delegaciones acordaron la necesidad de organizar, dentro del primer semestre de
2007 un programa de trabajo de restauraci6n y reposici6n de los bitos fronterizos fundamentales, asi como de los
J bitos fronterizos de referencia instalados de conformidad con el Tratado de Limites Jeréz-Cafiasde 1858 y los
LaudosAlexander".
J
J
J
J l
photography and do not require on-site verification. Moreover, as shown during the hearings,
the existing Nicaraguan map of the area at the smallest scale perfectly matches with satellite
5
photographs, as weil as with the relevant Costa Rican map.
10. It is significant in relation to the legal weight to be attributed to the statement that "the
map has not been verified on the ground" that INETER issued a 2011 edition of this map this
week, in order that the new map should correspond toagua's new claim of part of Isla
Portillos, in which the same statement is retained.
11. Nicaragua also refers to the "Political-Administrative Division" map of the "Department
of Rio San Juan", claiming that "this was not a map for international borders but one referring to
l the administrative divisions inside Nicaragua". However, if the part oflsla Portillos now claimed
J by Nicaragua were considered to be Nicaraguan, it would surely have been included in the
J Department of Rio Sa!lJuan in this map. J1()t.
] 12. Nicaragua also refers to the reservation formulated by Nicaragua in a footnote of its
] Counter-Memorial in theNavigational and Related Rightcase. But this footnote did not
] involve a territorial claim. It was (a) a footnote; (b) wholly unspecific; (c) unaccompanied by
any iiapor ëxplana 1tnaonyl-~event,-~the-fac itheth aviatiiI1aard_g{}aczted
J
Rights case produced maps depicting the boundary in accordance with the First Alexander
Award of 1897confirms that its boundary claim is a new one.
]
13. The general issue of the Bays of San Juan del Norte and Salinas, mentioned by Nicaragua
J
in its answer, is also a different matter. Article 4 ofthe 1858 Treaty ofLimits is clear in stating
J
that both hays are "common to bothepublics"; to date, Costa Rica has not been officially
J
informed by Nicaragua that it has any different understanding of this matter.
j
J
1 4 CR2011/3, p. 12, paras. 16-17 (Kohen).and CR2011/1, p. 23, paras. 13-14 (Brenes).
~ See Judges' Polders submitted by Costa Rica on 13 January 2011, tab 3, slide "1981 Satellite Photograph
J ComparedwithNicaraguan Cartography", and Judges Polders submitted by Costa Rica on 11 January 2011, Vol.
rn,p.s1.
J 6 Available at:
http://www.ineter.gob.ni/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=91 &Iternid=225. See Attachment CR1.
J 7 Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Republic of Nicaragua,
Counter-Memorial, vol. I, p. 9, footnote 14.
J
J
J
J -!
14. Nicaragua refers once again to a 1971 provisional map produced by Costa Rica's
J National Geographie lnstitute (IGN). When this map was presented during the Court's fmal
J sitting on13 January 2011, Nicaragua's counsel was careful to clarify that it was a provisional
8
l map. Nicaragua's answer now neglects this crucial detail. As explained in the attached note
] from the Director of IGN the error probably occurred during the printing process outside of
Costa Rica; as soon as the mistake was detected this map w:aswithdrawn from circulation.
Moreover, as explained in the same note, more detailed cartography takes precedence over the
J 10
less detailed: the 1970map, scale:50,000, is the basis for and prevails over the 1:500,000map
J of 1971. It is essential to recall that the relevant maps of the area San Juan del Norte/Poota
l Castilla produced and used by both countries until late last year clearly depict the boundary
l following the true frrst canal as determined by Alexander anddo not show at ail the purported
new "fust cafio"artificially created byNicaragua. The whole cartographie history of the area has
J
been and remains clear since Alexander himself drew a sketch-map as part of his arbitral award;
J
a sketch-map in relationto which Nicaragua maintains a resounding silence.
J
15. With regard to other maps included in Nicaragua's Judges' Folders of 13 January 2011,
J
Nicaragua does not contend that they depict the "first channel", but indicates in its answer to the
]
question that they "show the disputed area as being located in Nicaragua". These maps in
J
Annexes 4 and 5 ofNicaragua's answers, dated "191?" and "1923'',as well as those included in
] Annexes 7 and 8 ofNicaragua's answers, simply contain a wrong depiction of the boundary in
J different areas: (1)they draw the boundary line fu the eastthrough the Taura River (asNicaragua
J bad unsuccessfully claimed beforeE.P. Alexander) and thus as including the whole Isla Portillos
within Nicaragua, and (2) they wrongly place the boundary along the area below the Lake of
J
Nicaragua in such a way as to attribute to Costa Rica portions of territory which, according to the
}
demarcation agreed by the Commissions and the Arbitrator Alexander between 1897 and 1900,
J fall under Nicaraguan sovereignty. The "US Engineer OfficeNicaragua Canal Survey 1929-1931
J General Map" is not an official map of either Nicaragua or Costa Rica: it is "general" and it is
j' intended to show the "Ruta del Canal" (route of the canal). Furthermore, its inaccuracy with
J iègard to boundaries can be easily demonstrated: the boundary above Lake Nicaragua does not
J
CR 2011/4, pp. 8-9, para. 3 (McCaffrey).
J 10 See Attachment CR2.
See Attachment CR3.
J
J
J
J l
J
follow the one decided by the Demarcation Commission or General Alexander. For their part,
l
m~p10 and 11 annexed to Nicaragua's answers simply do not correspond, in any way, to the
j geography of the area. lt is not even clear whether they depict Laguna Los Portillos, even less
any "cai'io"that could constitute the alleged "fust channel" linking that Lagoon with the San
l.J Juan River. The boundarymaps seems to follow the San Juan River until its mouth,
without even depicting the Nicaraguan stripillos.
J
l 16. In short, it is clear from Nicaragua's answer to the fust question asked by Judge Simma
that Nicaragua did not make, nor attempt to make, Costa Rica aware of its claim before it
J
] occupied the Costa Rican territorys iO.October 201
J
17. Judge Simma's second question was as follows:
J
Considering the physical changes in the area of the delta of the San Juan river
J
already known at the time of the Cleveland and Alexander Clwards,why has
J Nicaragua, within the last century or so, never made an attempt to negotiate a new
J course ofthe boundary,or at leastto changeits maps?
J .18_..Niçlirag!,l! l:onetlul!_Smmassc!nJqetothat"there was no
J need to negoticourse~ft thi~sb-~~~lnoui~~r~ltnhre~p~eelled
] AwardsThis contradicts Nicaragua's answer to Judge Simma's first .question, where
] Nicaragua says at paragraphthe hearings andfor manyyears Costa Rica was aware
that the borderhadnotbeensettledand that Nicaraguawas interested in doingso."
J
J 19. Nicaragua's answer unequivocally confmns that it never made any attempt either to
.J negotiate a new courseundary orto change its official cartography. It also confirms that
Nicaragua never communicated to Costa Rica any intention of doing so.
J
J 20.·Judge Simma's third question was as follows:
J The dredging project concerning the San Juan river relates to a shared
J environment.ight of this, why was the NicaraguanEnvironmentallmpact Study
prepared from 2006 onwards and the permit of the Environment Ministry of
J
December 2008 for the San Juan dredging project to proceed, as weil as the
J
l
J
J ) extension of the permit to the cleaning of the "cano", never communicated to Costa
Rica?
l
21. As with the answer to the previous question, Nicaragua's response attempts to restate
}
sorneof the arguments presented during the oral hearings but fails to con:front thequestion asked.
l
None of the excuses proffered by Nicaragua can be considered acceptable. The fact is that
l
1 Nicaragua never presented Costa Rica with the Bnvironmental i:mpact Study (BIS) prepared in
1 2006, in spite of Costa Rica's repeated requests.
)
22. When the Nicaraguan authorities fust announced plans for a dredging project on the
l
lower course of the San Juan River in 2006, Costa Rica immediately communicated with
Nicaragua regarding the project, and particularly requested that Nicaragua furnish Costa Rica
with ali pertinent technical information related to the dredging project. This was doue through a
J
-) diplomatienote from Costa Rica's Foreign Minister dated 26 January 2006.U
] 23. When dredging works were announced for a second time in August 2009, Costa Rica
1 again requested, through a diplomatie note dated 27 August 2009, that Nicaragua provide the
] technical information onthe project, particularly in lightthe grave statements attributedto two
12
Nicaraguan officiais in charge of the project.
]
J 24. Finally, on 12 July 2010, following the announcement that dredging works were
13
] scheduledto begin shortly, Costa Rica requestedthe technical studies for a third time.
J
25. Nicaragua states that the exi~te ofncneBIS was ''hardlya secret" since the document
was made available to the public by means of public notices in Nicaraguan territory for a period
J
of 7 days, and that it is thus "dif:ficultto imagine that Costa Rica....was not aware of...the
.1
study". However, according to the Nicaraguan press, the BIS was kept a "secret of State". 14In
)
any event, basic "awareness" of the existence of an BIS is not suf:ficient:Costa Rica requested
J
that it be provided with a copy of anBIS, andNicaragua refused to provide it.
J.
J 12 Tab 22, Judges' Polders for Costa Rica's presentation, Il January 2011.
See PMl, Diplomatie Note sent by Bruno Stagno l)garte, Minister ofPoreign Affairs and Worship, Costa
J 13ca to Samuel Santos L6pez, Minister ofPoreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 27 August
14 Tab 25, Judges' Polders for Costa Rica's presentation, 11 January 2011.
J La Prensa, Nicaragua, 28 Octob 2010 "Estudio Ambiental Avala Dragado" available at:
http://www.laprensa.com.nV2010/28/nacionales/41965. See Attachment CR4.
J
J
J
J Questions poséespar M. le juge Bennouna
26. Judge Bennouna asked three questions.
Est-ce que le Nicaragua entreprend actuellement des travaux sur le canal dit «First
.J Caiio»y compris ceux relatifs à la construction et à l'élargissementde ce canal,
J l'abattage d'arbres,l'enlèvementde la végétationou de.la terre, et le déversementdes
] sédiments?
27. Nicaragua asserts that there "à l'heure actuellany work being undertaken on the
J
so-called ''Firstio"1tis important to note the disclaimer: Nicaragua does not undertake that
J
no works will be undertaken on the construction or enlargement of the canal in future. Nicaragua
l
refers to its Agent, who stated that: so far as [the dumping of sediment] refers to any
J 15
operations during the cleaning of the channel, these are over and finBut of the other
]
works - the expansion of the canal, the felling oftrees; andmost significantly, the undertaking of
dredging works through the new canal- Nicaragua was, and remains, silent.
J
J 28. Costa Rica observes that there is clear documentary evidence to suggest that the works
] undertaken by Nicaragua for the construction of the "cafio" are far from complete. The permit
··e··tension-issu.eâ..by MARENA. müctohe2009 16-authori Nsaesi~otnhel1~ort (.eAuthority.
J
State-owned company undertaking the construction and dredging works) to construct a canal
J
1,560 metres long and 30 metres wide, and in sorne places, 6 metres deep.The permit
18
J extension expressly notes that there will be work performededge. No such work has yet
occurred on the "cafio", which at present 1metre deep and approximately ten metres wide
J (although this increases every day as the banks are washed away by new water flow). As such,
further work is to be anticipated.
J
J 29. This documentary evidence is supported by press statements made by the head of the
19
dredging works,Mr.Eden Pastora, inparticular his statement of 9 January 2011 that:
J
J
15
J CR 2011/4, p. 37 (para. 18) (Argüello). See also CR 2011/2, p. 16 (para. 36) (Argüello), where the same
16rases repeated.
J 17 Documents Republic ofNicaragua, 4 Jan. 2011, Doc. 13: EAnn.9, last page.,
18 Documents Republic ofNicaragua, 4 Ann.8, doc. No. 13.
J Ibid.
19 CR2011/3 p. 28 (paras. 25-26) (Crawford).
_)
J
J
_) i
J
]
l
"With a fourth [dredge], that will come at the end ofFebruary, opening the channel
l
on the sea and the sand bar where the San Juan River will empty. What would have
l taken us three to four years, we are going to do in one year".0
-l
Such statements are clearly indicative of an intention to pursue further works of construction and
l dredging in the Isla Portillos region, for sornetime to come: at least one year; and with additional
] dredges.
J 30. There is a real risk that work related to the construction or enlargement of the "cano" is
] scheduled to continue at sorne time and will continue without the Court's order for Provisional
J Measures.
J 31. Finally, Nicaragua says that the felling oftrees is linked to the building of the "cano", but
J many trees were eut down on Isla Portillos although they were not in the direct path of the canal.
The question remains unanswered: why did Nicaragua eut down those trees if there were not
l
necessary for the "cafio"? Again, this suggests that there are further works scheduled to take
J
place in that area.
J
32. Judge Bennouna's second question was as follows:
J
Est-ce que le Nicaragua maintient sur la portion du territoire dénommée«l'île de
J Portillos» des troupes arméesou d'autresagents, quels qu'ilssoient?
J 33. Nicaragua's response in this respect is unsatisfactory. Nicaragua does not say that it does
not maintain military personnel in the area. Nicaragua states only that no troops or other agents
.J are"stationed" in the relevant area and that there is no intention to establish a military post in the
region. It can only be presumed that Nicaragua means a permanent military post, as this was
.J
emphasised during the oral proceedings.Z In fact Nicaragua maintains a permanent military post
J
in the localityof San Juan de Nicaragua, on the left bank of the San Ju~ River and a mere one
J kilometre from the occupied area. It is aUtoo easy for Nicaragua, if not prevented by way of an
J order for Provisional Measures, to send troops to the relevant area at any time.
l _
_)
J
J 20
La Prensa, Nicaragua, 9 Janua2011: "Another three dredges to the [San Juan] river"80,Vol. I,
] 21dges' folders, 11 J2011(emphasis added).
CR201lll, p. 13 (par28) (Argüello)CR20ll/4, p. 37 (para. 15) (Argüello).
J
J
J
J ]
]
1
_1
34. And indeed it continues to do so, whatever the Agent of Nicaragua may say. In its
1 22
response, Nicaragua claims, as it did during the course of the ora"Aucune troupe
-1
nicaraguayenne ne stationne actuellement dans la zone en question." Costa Rica is able to
l provide the Court with clear evidence to the contrary. In a flyover conducted by the Costa Rican
policen 19 January 2011, photographs were taken that indicate not merely the presence of
l
Nicaraguan troops on Isla Portillos, but a marked ith~size of their encampment since
]
October01 O.The photographs are provided at attacbment CRS.
J
35. Costa Rica notes that although Nicaragua claims (contrary to the facts) that no armed
J
troops or other officiais are present on Isla Portillos at the present time, it is currently acting as
J
though it were the State having authority over the territory. For these reasons, an order for
J Provisional Measures is still required in order to ensure that the status quo ante is maintained
-] pending the Court's judgment on the merits. Nicaragua bas, by establishing a military camp and
] planting the Nicaraguan·flag ·on the right bank of the San Juan River, bas demonstrated an
intention to claim the region, by force if necessary. The entirety of Isla Portillos bas hitherto been
J
expressly recognised by both States as the territorya Rica. Before the occupation by
J Nicaragua, the State exercising jurisdiction over the relevant area in accordance with the
J .internatio_u~lyr~~ QQ-!~mÇi§s~!_~.!.____>UQ!3J:.~!l_Q~l)'
~~--.~·-----· ···~------
J 36. An order for Provisional Measures is required to ensure that Nicaragua is not in a
J position to maintain or re-establish a military presence on Isla Portillos or to exercise State
J activities through its agents there.
J 37. Judge Bennouna's third question was as follows:
J
Est-ce que le Nicaragua s'engage à nepas entreprendre de tels travaux, ni à envoyer ses
troupes arméesou d'autre agents sur «l'île de Portillos»,jusqu'à ce que la Cour rende
J
] sonjugement aufond?
38. Judge Bennouna's question aslŒNicaragua to undertake- i.e. to commit- not to perform
]
any of the relevant acts in the period prior to fmal judgment on the ln response,
J
Nicaragua says twice that it bas no intention of sending troops or other agents to the area. It says
J
nothing at aU as to the future undertaking of works, a subject expressly mentioned by Judge
J
_1 22
CR 2011/2, p. 13, para. 38 (Argüello) CR 2011/4, p.37, para. 15 (Argüello)..
J
J
J
] J Bennouna. Even as to the sending of troops or other agents, Nicaragua declines to make any
commitment whatsoever. In effect, its answer to Judge Bennouna is: No. Nicaragua announces
its intention tofairerespecter la loi, de lutter contre le trafic de la drogue et le crime organisé
l et pour la protection de l'environnement" in the relevant area, even as it announces that it is
possible to do so through the watersf the river. As it made clear during its oral observations,
23
J Nicaragua considers that the watersf the artificial canal are NicaraguanClearly, Nicaragua
announces that it will continue to exercise authority within the relevant area.
J
-) 39. In the circumstances, Nicaragua's repeated refusai to make any commitmentorto enter
into any engagement in relation to the sendingf armed troops or other persom1elpower:fully
l
reinforces the case for Provisional Measures.
]
40. Furthermore, far from disowning the "White Book", Nicaragua actually annexes it toits
]
response. The Court is entitled to take into account the vitriolic statements ofNicaragua, which
J suggest that it has a particular agenda informing its conduct in relation to the construction
J canal. Taken together with the statements ofMr. Eden Pastora,24 there are clear grounds for
J considering that Nicaragua intends to carry out further dredging and construction works as soon
as it can. An order for Provisional Measures is required to ensure that Nicaragua will refrain
J
from imposing afait accompli before the Court can reach the merits stage.
J
J Questions put by Judge Greenwood
J 41. Judge Greenwood'sfirst question was:
J
First, at what date did Nicaragua first form the opinion that what it has described as the
J "First Cano" was the boundary between itself and Costa Rica in accordance with the
] First Alexander Award?
J 42. Nicaragua responds that in its opinion the "First Cafio" (that is to say, the canal built in
J late2010) goes back to the First Alexander Award: this has been "a settled matter since the time
the Umpire-Engineer found that the border followed 'the first channel met' until reaching the
River proper". This fails to answer the Judge's question, which is not what the First Alexander
J
Award said but when Nicaragua first formed the opinion that this is what it said. The answer to
J
23 CR 201112, p. 45, paras. 42-43 (Reichler).
J 24 CR201113 p. 28 (paras. 25-26) (Crawford).
J
J
J
J J
l
]
1
j
Judge Greenwood's question is: the second half of 2010, whenMr Pastora persuaded the
J Presidentf Nicaragua to support his thesis. Nicaragua effectively concedes this in its response
1 to JudgeSimma's first question, when it refers to the White Book, published on 26 November
] 2010, after the present proceedings were commenced.
] 43. In any event the Nicaraguan thesis :findsno support in law, in logic or in the evidence at
J the disposai of the Court.
] 44. As a matter of law, the boundary was settled by the terms of the first Alexander Award of
] 1897, including its annexed sketch map which is unequivocal but which Nicaragua simply
ignores.
]
l 45. As a matter oflogic, either there was a "ca:fio"in existence in 1897 where Nicaragua now
claims the "First Ca:fio",or there was noAlexander, who carefully surveyed the Laguna,
J
:n~it m ,ntionsnor~~o wne there. If there was one, he deliberate1y ignored it. If there was
J
not, he could not possibly have intended it as the boundary. Alexander clearly designated where
J the true first canallinking the Lagoon with the San Juan River was and consequently determined
J where the boundary was in the relevant area. The idea that, whenever another "ca:fio"formed or
J was constmcted, it would become the boundary (a) is inconsistent with the principle of finality of
..b..~~c1-~ a.tiu!e.~(rbyAlexan<fer,·-(Or-ooas-nosuppon-whatsoever-m the Award·or·in··the-
J
practice of the Parties, and (c) also fmds no support as a fact in the evidence produced by
]
Nicaragua.
J
46. As an evidentiary matter, not a single map, official or unofficial, Nicaraguan or Costa
J
Rican, has ever depicted Nicaragua's recently-builtio"as that referred toby Alexander. If
J
one thing is clear, it is that the map attached to Minute X in the records kept by the Demarcation
J Commission 25 entirely contradicts Nicaragua's assertion. Indeed, Nicaragua is unable to say
J when this alleged ca:fiocame into existence.
J 47. To Costa Rica's knowledge, Nicaragua first formed the legal opinion that what it has
J described as the "fust cano" was the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua during, orjust
] prior to, the oral proceedings, and in any event, not earlier than October 2010. During the course
of the oral hearings, Nicaragua presented no evidence about when it formed this opinion, and
J
J 25 Tab 40, Vol. II,judges' folders, 11 Jan. 2011, p. 33.
_]
J
J
J 1
J
none can be found in its official records or in diplomatie correspondence with Costa Rica. Until
l November 2010, the Nicaraguan website for INETER showed that aUNicaraguan official maps
1 were consistent with the Alexander records and Costa Rican cartography. This website was taken
down shortly before commencement of the oral proceedings. It was listed as "under
26
1 construction" during last week's oral hearings; and now has a brand new section dedicated
entirely to "Harbor Head".27 The former INETER website rema archived, and is available on
l
the internet.Ail of the maps on the archived website correspond to the documentary evidence
J
produced by Costa Rica. That is, each shows Isla Portillos as Costa Rican territory. Costa Rica
l attaches screen shots of the archived INETER website and copies of the relevant maps taken
1 from that website.28
l 48. Even the maps attached to Nicaragua's EIS of 2006, which was approved in December
l 2008, show clearly that the border in the relevant area reflects the border agreed by the
l Demarcation Commission and Alexander, and that there were no "cafio", where Nicaragua has
built it. As a legal matter, it appears that Nicaragua only developed the idea of a "fust cafio"
since proceedings were brought against it by Costa Rica.
J
] 49. Finally, Nicaragua is reduced to relying on a1906 report filed by a Costa Rican official
on an entirely unrelated matter. Whether or not "canôs" are "easy to clog up" is entirely
]
irrelevant to the questionof whether or not Nicaragua had ever previously formed the opinion
J
that the alleged "fust cafio" formed the international boundary.
J
50. Judge Greenwood's second question was as follows:
J Second/y, did it noti.fYCosta Rica of that opinion? And ifso, when and by what
J means?
J 51. Nicaragua has never notified Costa Rica, either officially or unofficially, of any change to
J its viewsor opinion regarding of the position of the international boundary, in particular changes
J to the boundary in the specifie area of Isla Portillos. Costa Rica only came to learn officially of
}
27 CR 2011/1, p. 23, para. 15 (Brenes). See Attachment CR6.
l See website ofiNETER, available at:
http://www.ineter.gob.ni/index.php?optiocontent&view=article&id=9l&Item….
J 28e Attachment CR6.
See archived website ofiNETER., available at:
J http://web.archive.org/web/200712703/http:l/ineter.gob.ni/.
See Attachment CR7.
J
J
J
J _j
l
this opinion during Nicaragua's fust presentation of its case to the Court on the afternoon of 11
l
January 2011.
l
52. Nicaragua adroits as much. In the first paragraph to Judge Simma's second question,
l Nicaragua states the following:
"]
''Nicaragua considers that there was no need to negotiate a new course of the
]
boundary since this is clearly spelled outn the Alexander Awards".
]
And in fact, there have in fact been no such negotiations, within the framework of the bilateral
J Commission or othetwise.
J
53. Thus, the simple answer to Judge Greenwood's second questions is: No. Prior to 11
]
January 2011, Nicaragua never communicated to Costa Rica by any means, officially or
J unofficially, the opinion that what it has recently- and wrongly- described as the "fust cano"
l constitutes the boundary bet\;veenCosta Rica and Nicaragua.
J
Maps submitted by Nicaragua on 18 January 2011
J
54. Finally, Costa Rica will comment on certain maps submitted by Nicaragua which are said
J
tosho_w"the dispute4 a~beang located inNicaragua".
-~---~---~-~~--~- -------~-----~-----------------·~-- ---~--------
J
55. Costa Rica first observes that maps 1 and 2 are irrelevant, as they do not show the Isla
J Portillos region. Map 3 has been addressed in paragraph 14, above. Otherwise, Costa Rica notes
J that not one of the maps numbered 4 to 13 is an official map of Nicaragua or Costa Rica. In that
respect, their probative valuen relation to the location of an international boundary is zero.
J
J 56. Nonetheless, Costa Rica makes the following observations in relation to each of the
J maps:
• Maps 4,5 and 9: These maps indicate not the international boundary or course
J
of the San Juan River, but the intended placement of an inter-oceanic canal that
]
Nicaragua wished to construct, to compete with the Panama Canal. The Court
J
will observe that in maps 4 and 5 there is a box marked "San Juan del Norte"
J on each map, in which no "cano" is visible on Isla Portillos.
J
• Map 6: This map also shows the location of a planned inter-oceanic canal. The
J
line intersecting"Harbor Head Lagoon" and extending into the Caribbean Sea
J
J
J
J J
indicates only the placement of the maritime boundary. In any ev"cano"o
l is visible on Isla Portillos.
• Maps 7, 8, 10 and 13: These maps do not even show Laguna Los Portillos, let
l
alone any"cano",and are erroneous geographically.
l
• Map 11: ln addition to being geographically unsound, this map in fact colours
J ali of Isla Portillos white, to indicate Costa Ricrui territory, in spite of the
J uncertain boundary line (which for the mosttis placed sorne way inland of
l the right bank of the San Juan river). The only visible body of water is the Bay
J of San Juan del Norte.
J • Map 12 was produced by petroleum corporation Texaco and for that reason
alone cannot be considered by the Court as a genuine demarcation of an
J
international boundary.n any event, the map is demonstrably incorrect
l geographically, and marks the boundary a significant distance below the right
J bank of the San Juan River.
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
}
.J
J
J
J
J
J
J List of Attachments:
l CRl. San Juan de Nicaragua, scale 1:50,000, INETER, 2011
1 CR2. Original and English translation of note prepared by the acting Director of IGN, Costa
l FUca
CR3. Official Map of Costa FUca,scale 1:50,000, IGN, 1970
CR4. Original and English translation of extract of La Prensa, Nicaragua, 28 October 2010,
1 "Estudio Ambiental Avala Dragado" available at:
1 http://www.laprensa.com.ni/20 10/10/28/nacionales/41965
1 CRS. Five photographs taken on 19January 2011 ofNicaraguan troops on Isla Portillos
] CR6. Screen shot ofiNETER website ''underconstruction", 9 January 2011
"]
J CR7. Screen shot of new INETER 'website"Harbor Head" section, 19 January 2011
J CRS. Original and English translation screen shots from former INETER website together with
] maps taken from website, 15 October 2007
]
J The undersigned Agent certifies that the above !}ttachmentsare true copies and conform to the
] original documents and that the translations into English made by Costa FUca are accurate
J translations.
J
J
J
J
J Ambassador Jorge Urbina
J Co-Agent of Costa Rica
J 20 January 2011
J
J
J
J l
l
l _]_
+ +
l
l
"]
l
"]
]
J
]
]
]
J 1:50000
. .-..' ~'·
J ,__.. .. ,.._··--·- ~~""..: .=:. ~~~~LJU
... ..--~-·---·- .. ___ .....,..,_,w o,_,,..,.,......,...,....,.,....,.,.,,"'""..,
SIMDOLOCO'H'V'El.f<::TONALU.S I'R.INC1PALES
_] •m -.~t...,"" •.._... 'O'"~"'"""""t'"'EJ·--• .. ~-
.......l:.-...... ·••<·-..·'"'"-· ~~~=""'' .... MANAGUA-· ..
D~a•'D-~~-·•....,. .,...,.....,,.,,_,ru"""'""'"""~~l;:E:-::~ ~,...,.,noo~l-.,,LIIUD _.,.,~,~~--
J .d:.:.&:."'""'-••-•.,._.·,.,..,,,.7)J·....lr .,ll......':.n~""""" ~::;,;.;:.,1_
..:-·""'·-····...... ~ :::..:~:.::-;~:::~:'~!=•fla..-oi.'>I'OI!.
J ,. --~..-....... ~ ~~uE~=~~·- ~:JE~:]·-.""'PIIo~lo ~:".ZO~L·;:~;...._,UD
•..•===..:::::--.:.:::· ~~~·.-. :.~th":i~111 l':l;l:·:.:".."~e:::.:''....,hu
- .,..~-~~-~~~-llo<.W·Itt ~..,,.,.~,....,..~u· ··-· ....~~.-.
J ....,..... ~==~~ ~;::::,;::, .';:,:O:.::,~';.':.':;_
•t.,.::: ..._....1..-1, ~' t:""~r't':"~:Œ:-:~:::::.·:;:~··-,.1
+
+
J
J
_]
J
J
J lnstituto Geogrâfico Nacional
Apdo Postal2272-1000- San José,Costa Rica
Teléfono: 2523-2619- Fax: 2221-0087
San José,18 de enero de 2011 OFICIO No. 11-0042
A Quien lnterese
Por medio de la presente el lnstituto Geografico Nacional, se refiere al Mapa Fisico - Politico a
escala1:500.000, que en su Edici6n Provisional de 1971, conüene un error en el trazado donde se
muestra el limite entrea Rica y Nicaragua en el sector de Punta Castilla (Isla Portillos/lsla
1 Calero) y que fue presentado por Nicaragua como el Mapa N° 3.
l
Es importante recalcar que este mapa como bien se refleja en la leyenda de la parte superior
l derechadel mismo, claramente indica que se trata de una Edici6n Provisional, por tanta sujeta a
revision, actualizaciones, cambios, majoras, etc., en pocas palabras, es un borrador del mapa.
1 Segun las consultas e investigaci6n realizadas en nuestra instituci6n, relacionados con esta
situaci6n, se determinansiguientes aspectas:
]
Las bases cartograficas de este mapa fueron preparadas por el IGN. Sin embargo, dado
-] que en aquel tiempo el pais no contaba con una imprenta adecuada al tamafio de
impresi6n de este tipô de mapas, estos mapas se enviaban a imprimir fuera del pais, por lo
que errorescorno~I:-ITI!3 Q..:Çi!Qr.ltldl_)c)l. ~~iulaci6y.alteraci6n, no
podfan detectarse hasta qüe së rëcibièra el total déimpresione··········· ··········
l El método que se emplea para la elabo.raci6n de los mapas es el conocido
] tradicionalmente como separaci6n de color, el mismo consiste en la preparaci6n de
diferentesaminas que componen el mapa segun su color de impresi6n. El material que se
] emplea paraeldis~f eiola lamina correspondiente al trazado del lfmite internacional, es
una pelfcula que contiene una retfcula o trama, la cual es un material positivo o negativo en
pelfcula flexible adherida con cera, la que se debe colocar en una lamina de pelfcula
] transparente. Porlo, dicho material adhesivo se puede ver afectado por la temperatura o
por una inadecuad.amanipülacion, facilitanâo su ctesplazamiento--.---------·--··---·--·--
] Es necesario agregar que una vez que 9icho error fue detectado, los mapas fueron
reürados de su venta y circulaci6n, no obstante, yadistribuido algunos de ellos.
J
Sin embargo, el trazado oficial del limite fronterizo en el sector de Isla Porüllos 1Isla Calera es el
que se muestraen la 1 Edici6n de la hoja Punta, Castilla (3448-1) a escala 1:50.000, que
] precisamente data delo 1970 y es en efecto la base cartografica y fuente del mapa de Costa
Rie ~: 500.000 del afio 1971. La escala 1:50.000 es la de mayor detalle y constituye la cartografia
Basica Oficial de nuestro pais paralos efectos de planificaci6n, legales, toma de decisiones,
etc.
l
INSTITUTO GEOGRÂFICO NACIONAL
J
J !f,,·d a Ar!.,, (
J Ge6g. Marta E. Aguilar V.
Encargada Direcci6n General
J Cc: Archiva
J
J
J Equidad..\kt/orolas capacldno las dlferenclas.
Preguntemosantede ayudar:.
J
J
J lnstituto Geogrâfico Nacional
-, Apdo Postal 2272-1000- San José,Costa Rica
1
Teléfono: 2523-2619- Fax: 2221-0087
J
-.1 San José, 18 January 2011 OFICIO No. 11-0042
l
To Whom lt May Concern
ln this note, the National Geographie Instituts refers to the Physical- Political Map 1:500.000 scala,
which in its 1971 Provisional Edition, contains an error in the contour of the boundary between
Costa Rica and Nicaragua in the Punta Castilla sector (Isla Portillos /Isla Calero) and that was
submitted by Nicaragua as Map No. 3.
J lt is important to emphasize that this map, as is weil reflected in the legend at the top right, clearly
indicates that this is avisional edition, therefore subject to revision, updates, changes,
improvements, etc., in other words, this is a draft map.
J
Based on inquiries and research performed in our institution in relation to this situation, it was
J possible to determine the following:
J
• The cartographie bases of this map were prepared by the IGN. However, since at that time
the country did not have a printer suitable to print maps of this size, they were sent to be
J printed outside the country, so errors like the above or any ottypeof manipulations and
alteration could not be detected until the IGN received ali the printed versions.
J • The method of preparation of such maps is traditionally known as color separation, which is
the preparation of the different layers that make up the map in accordance with the color to
J be printed. The material used in the design of the layer corresponding to the international
border is a film containing a grid, which is a positive or negative material on a flexible film
J that is attached with wax to a sheet of transparent film. Therefore, the adhesive can be
affected by temperature or by inadequate handling, facilitating its movement.
J • lt should be added that once the error was detected, the maps were withdrawn from sale
and circulation, however, sorne of them had already been distributed.
J
However, the official drawingf the border limit in the area of Isla Portillos /Isla Calero is shown in
the First Edition of the Punta Castilla sheet (3448-1)at 1:50.000, which precisely dates from 1970
J and is in fact the cartographical base and the source of the 1971 Costa Rica 1: 500,000 map. The
scale1:50.000 is the most detailed one and is the Official Basic cartography in our country for
J
purposes of planning, legal, decision making, etc.
_j
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE
J
J
J 'Ge6g. Marta E. Aguilar V.
Encargada Direcci6n General
_, Cc: Archive
_j
J Pregunten1osVantesde ayudar..cidadno las diff!Jrencfas.
J
J
J'--- l_COSTARICA1:50.000- '--- 1-E.DIt-IGHCR-- '--- '--' --1 -JHOJA-;,1~\a
L-Jififï>u:N C'lfSATlLL ~ A ~ t l~r.r:-r~J
l L#llll:$C,OOO
~t.QICI:tm l"'I10lil1- ZCCO~~ 4lio,_,..._•.....
-~cr...l·~---..~-....-~..-.Wrii:IIIMilolloll,.
INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO NACIONAL
~-·-.._..._---"""' l SAN JOSE. COSTA RICA
--·------- 1CUf!Y~A:=~~~:nN.;rtos0 WET!IOS.C.OH
,_._. _._ _ __
--·-------- "!:t~~r~:
-------· ··-® -9 -.:..........
1-1'1....a..-=-. r----~ .:~=~w.::.oW:lal-·~..:~~:":';::.;:.:::tru
-~--"'"'"" ........., .--- ..,,.UI.J.WICIL~tciJ.I.a.lli**~
_ M,__________..___ -::-..:...-::::.!"-;::.:::=
••..-.._.__--•101~.. , ___oJ J . , . . _ o l ~-:g~;..:r.=~:l::;:E::::.~-·
---·-----·~-·_.....,___tu., :::::U...L":.~-== ~:~
PUNTACASTILLAC,OSTARICA;NICARAGUA 1
•
LA PRENSA.corn.m Managua, 28 de octubre, 2010
http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/10/28/nacionales/41965
Nacionales
Estudio ambiental avala dragado
Nicaragua dice que Costa Rica invadi6
DEP6SITO D SEAliNA
Ilt ra gelSanuacontcârt
2dtpôsdesrede.totdl42 llill8l~liIIUUIUHI"'\
previavintaliElstuooo
impaambielmt!lureodos 1
esteterrinroce~. !
esparinosolti4sil6metrls l
rn(Ouoolaudal 1
'
~~nadull
'Depôs leorena
ll!IBiili!lolI!toatfc
J RÎO·SANJUAN
1 • •
J
]
J
J
_]
}
m
Delta·uaanlllo OJOm
J SaJuanillo-Bocana l.)Omj
Bocan Sa-uadNlil.e
J l.SOm3
Ver infografia completa
) Por Wilder yJosuéBravo
J
J
l 1
El dragado del do San Juan es como una operaci6n dolorosa pero necesaria. Al menos asi lo indica el
estudiode impacta ambiental, realizado par varias lnstltucionesa fin de causar los menores
l dafios en la zona.
Dicho estudio todavia·"un secreta de Estado" para el Gobierno de Nicaragua, pero a pesar de toda
l LA PRENSAtuvo acceso al mlsmo.
) Cuando uno le echa un vlstazo a los recuadros que Indican la lntensldad de los daflos, ldentlficados en
roja los peorysazullos mfnimos, se observa que durante el dragado casl todos los valores estan
"colorados",ero cambian al final del proceso. ·
l
En las conclusiones del mismo se indica que el impacta ambiental en la zona del dragado "se considera
1 de gran intensidad, compensable, produce un efecto puntual, su permanencia es en el tiempo es
.tf;!meora.l, su rl1ël,n~seinmediatél,lël, restallrad6n. traf,! be.nefëltTl~i.ente"~i(),
~) Respuesta a Costa Rica
~l
Nicaragua·aseguro que mas bien ha sida Costa Ricael pais que ha violado su territorio con la incursion a
) · suelo nicaragüense de tropas de las fuerzas armadas costarricenses y exige que estos hechos no se
repitan.
l . Tai afirmacionparte de la respuesta que ayer mlércolesNicaragua entrego en la Cancillerfa
costarricense, en la que ademas propane "se retomen a lo inmediato Jasacciones de densificacion y
: sefialamiento de los hitos fronterizos (amojonamiento), conforme a los derechos establecidos en·eltratado ·
1 •de limites Jerez-Canas y sus instrumentas lauda Cleveland y laudos Alexander''.
) La nota esta firmada par el canciller por ley de Nicaragua, Manuel Coronel Kautz, y fue entregada par el
embajador Harold Rivas al también canciller par la ley de Costa Rica, Carlos Roverssi.
J En la nota Nicaragua rechaza los argumentas de la protesta de Costa Rica de la semana pasada, en la que
asegura que la labores del dragadoa San Juan afectaban su territorio porque "el sedimento esta
isiendo expulsado y depositado en suelo costarricense a través de una tuberia que ingresa al interior de
J dicha fin( Aragon)~·-·- ..--·--~·--·-·-.-.~--~-·-~..--·-·· ...-~----~~---~--~~·
.1 Seglin la nota de ayer, las labores realizadas por Nicaragua en su frontera sur son de limpieza de su rio
San Juan y Juchacontra el narcotrafico.
J "Al respecta, el Gobierno de Nicaragua rechaza categoricamente las afirmaciones contenidas en dicha nota
diplomatica (la enviada por Costala semana pasada), ya que todas las actividades dirigidas a la Jucha
' contra el narcotrâfico, asf como la limpieza del rfo San Juan, se han realizado en territorio nicaragüense",
J afiade la nota.
..Y "El Gobierno de Reconciliaciony Unidad Nacional por este media expresa su mas enérgicaprotesta por las
· reiteradas violaciones de tropas de las fuerzas armadas costarricenses a territorio nicaragüense. El
J · Gobierno de Nicaragua exige que hechos coma este no vuelvan a repetirse", afiade.
J .. Camo elementos adicionales para demostrar violaciones a su territorio, Nicaragua recordo que en dias
· pasados incursionaron a territorio nicaragüense dos oficiales armadas del Organismq de Investigacion
· Judicial, quienes fueron detenidos durante actividades de vigilancia fronteriza y devueltos a las autoridades
J costarricenses.
Seglin los analisis, la draga removera aproximadun mi116nde metros cubicos de arena, que
J sera depositada en 21 sitios despalados en la ribera norte del rio San Juan, en areas que juntas
suman casi media mi116nde manzanas de tierra.
J
Lâ ruta del dragado sera de 42.0 kilometras desde Punta Petaca hasta San Juan de Nicaragua, sin
embargo hay sitios que no sera necesario tocar, por lo que el area de intervencion real aparentemente
sera menor.
J
J
J
.J
l l La idea es formar un canal con una profundidad de dos metros, con 30 metros de ancho en la parte
superior y un fondo de 20 metros de ancho.
l
Con esto se cumplirian los objetivos de aumentar la profundidad, el caudal y la libre circulacion de
animales acuaticos de la zona, como el manat!, el tiburon y el pez sierra, especies llamativas que
l fueron perjudicadas hace 60 anos, cuando la salida de este cuerpo de agua fue obstruida en beneficia
, del rioColorado, de Costa Rica.
j
A pesar del nerviosismo que el dragado ha provocado en Costa Rica, el estudio indica que, a lo sumo,
el mayor impacto que sufriria el pais del sur es la reduccion del caudal del rio Colorado, que seria
minima.
J "No perjudica de manera sustancial el caudal del rio Colorado, ya que unicamente tomaremos un cinco
por ciento del caudal total para que fluya, garantizandonavegacion del rio San Juan de manera
] permanente", indica.
Pesea esto, la semana pasada el finquero Marco Reyes, un joven de unos 23 anos que posee doble
J nacionalldad, denunclo queEdénPastora, quien dirige las labores de dragado en el rfo San Juan,
incursiono violentamente aFinca Aragon en compania de oficiales del EjércitCost ~ica, que no ha
-·' podido verificar la Incursion militar, afirma que hubo danos ambientales en la mencionada finca, la
cual reclaman como que esta dentro de su territorio ambos paises.
NICARAGUA RESPONDE A PROTESTA TICA
La Cancilleria tica confirmo que recibio a las once de la manana de ayer una respuesta a la nota de
protesta que el 21 de octubre pasado remitio al Gobierno de Nicaragua, por medio del embajador
] Harold Rivas Reyes.
_] Un comunicado despachado desde la oficina de prensa dice que el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores
"ha iniciado de manera inmediata el ana!isis del texto con sus equipas jurfdicos, de diplomaticos y
J autoridades de otras dependencias del Estado, para en su momento responder con determinaci6n en
ellnlclo de este eplsodlo, ha emprendldo todas las acclones para concertar una s611daposlc16nde desde
Estado", anade la informacion.
J
En la respuesta entregada por Rivas en la Cancilleria costarricense Nicaragua rechaza los
J senalamientos de haber violado la soberania de Costa Ricay a la vez rechazo reiteradas violaciones de
tropas de las fuerzas armadas costarricenses a territorio nicaragüense.
J
Nicaragua también solicit6 a Costa Rica retomar acciones para delimitar la frontera de acuerdo con
1 tratados internacionales y asegur6 que seguira dragando el rio San Juan.
.1
La respuesta de Nicaragua a los reclamas de Costa Ricadice en parte que "Nicaragua, respetuosa de
J los principios del Derecho Internacional, continuara las labde limpieza en el rio y resguardarâ los
limites y soberania de Nicaragua establecidos en el tratado de limites Jerez-Canas, y sus instrumentas
J laudo Cleveland y laudos Alexander. De igual manera, Nicaragua continuara resguardando y
defendiendo loslimites y soberania en todo el territorio nacional".
J De cualquier manera, el estudio de impacto ambiental avala las acciones de dragado del rfo San Juan,
aduciendo que la mayoria de los impactas ambientales seran temporales, y la fauna sera la mayor
J beneficiada con estas obras.
} Esto ya lo habfan expresado algunos de los bi61ogosmas conocidos en Nicaragua, como Jaime Incer
Barquero y Kamilo Lara, asf como el Instituto Nicaragüense de Estudios Territoriales (Ineter), que
éoincidieronen que el pals lo que hace es restablecer los ecosistemas que existian antes de que el rio
J Colorado fuera dragado en Costa Rica.
J Ver en la version impresa las paginas: 1 A ,12 A
_j
J
]
J
J "Estudio Ambiental Avala Dragado"
La Prensa, 28 October 2010
Available at: http://www.laprensa.com.ni/20 10/10/28/nacionales/ 41965
[..]
The dredging of the San Juan River is like a painful but necessary operation. At least so it
is described in an Environmental Impact Study, prepared by several State institutions, so
as to cause the least damage in the zone.
1 Said study is still a "secret of State" for the Government of Nicaragua, but in spite of this
LA PRENSA had access to it.
l
[..]
1
)
J
l
]
_]
]
J
J
_}
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
l
J. 1
1
.1
1
l
l
l
}
1
.1
l
l
l
J
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
.J
J 1
. 1
l
l
"]
1
l
l
.l
J
"]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
.l
.J )
l
l
l
l
.·l
.1
J
)
]
J
J
J
J
J
.1
J·
J
J
J
J
j
)l
"]
J
J
_)
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j 1
l
l
l
l
l
1
l
1
l
l
l
.1
.]
l
J
J
J
J
J
1
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
.J ~ ·Estlmados,'Usuarien· lA INSTITUCION
.agradecemossucomprensiôn.
...·~.............................................................1............ ••:............. :.......~..aQuienes:somos..................................
Bajo Co111struccion • Marco' egal
--···--·~-·--------··----·---------~-~--- ---+--------.-·-----~~------·--------~-------10rganigrama
··········
·······•·
·····•··
········
········
LO SENTIMOSI uDirectorioTelef6nico
Elarea que intento acceder esta bajo
1PreguntasFrecuentes
·1Contâctenos
r:!l HORA OFICIAl
HORA OFICIAL
09 de Enero del 2011
03:28:17 am'--- '--- '--- '--- '--
L,- '- L. L,_ L._, L..J __, L,_,j L-i L.._i ,___j ;_j < <
,___j ..___; .- ....,._, --1
~.~~Usuarlos~el.1:~09m«ri~mto5nue$trupaglnawebeul\en~natf:u~CJôn~;:Jo-Qû~.pedllno~
·dl~iâY,aôfo(feèeÎito.aW·~~femslô·l·.1
...................................-.-.·.·..-.·.····················.l
Mapas Actuallzodos
Mapa del Mapa de la Divisiôn
Departamento de Polltlca Mapa Topogrâftco Mapa TopogrAflco
Rio Slln Juan Admlnlstratlva
E1>cala1:750,000
Eaeala1:250,000 verolônescolar EseaL'1l:50,000 Escala1:250,000
OescargaernAh OescargnernAII:a Oes.carguenAlla
Resolucl6n:;!. Resolu<:l:;!. RMoiuc16 n;l. ~ L-..-~ \..._l._l ......;...,L-....__; --i ...._; ___j --!
L- L- L- L-...L- i,_..!- L-
Ustedes.t-e6nJn1cio EnglishVersion fJIJ'i(.H\1ftdby
0 6uscaren el 0eb6uscaren ineter.oob.ni
. 1
XXVI'Anlversaiiodê·INETER
Infonnacl6n Actual i ·GeodesyCartograffa
·Sismldcledents Eoctubrede1981 se INETERI,nstltuciônGeodeNicaragua. -catastroF'!Sico
-WebCam• Volcanes ·Meteorologfa
de 2007, INETERcelebrarâsu XXVIa. eersarloS
·EstadônLlu(2007) ldios visualesl,os.relevantesde tecnologfasssidrlcos
-ImagenMeteorolôg!ca lasâreastécnlcasde IN, emostradonesso-Geoffslca
Reclente la estaclônfotogramétrlcad:igital, o-Ordenamleoerritorial
-Pron6sdeTlempo SICn y CUOOC;detaUessobresumlnlstrode
sobre procesosvolcânlcos,tsunamis,slsmos,
-Pron6sHldrolôg!co comunlcadôndiWf.Nobtendonde ilmigenes
-Pron6sdeMareas aly sobreel monitoreoconstantey tie-Sismosde
Infonnacl6n Bâslca hldrometeorol{s'reclplyN'!Vel~dseenlosrios)
-Caracterlnqrâfica -Vofcanes
-FaDseolôg!cadseManagua -Desllzamlentos
,i -Tormentasy Huracanes
-AmenazapsorDeslizamlentos AudltorlodeINVerprogracompfeto
-Amenazsaturales deInformad6ndeINETER
·SIG·INETER
-Mapas
-FotoscanonSomoto
TareavProductos -Descargas
-AcercadeINETER -Enlaces
-servlclosalpûbüco
·CatâldeProductos
HORAOFICIAL
·Metadatos 15 de Octubre del2007
·Proyectos2007
·NotasdePrensa2007 2:21:40 pm
·Memor2002-2005
NICARAGÜESEESTUDTERRITORIAlE·SINETER
' Oriental.Apdo.Postal2110,Managua,Nicaragua.
http:{f~~:~~·ll!'!if~~n~~ @;l_l,:~Ü.:5;~,~.r1:L~.:.~...~,..';~:-C,:L. .c:· .. ·. ··'······-~.~·•..•.. -l
L- L-.J L.J L....i ..__j L- -l -l -l ___, -,--J -l -l
L-.. l-... :L-.. L- l~ l-... L-.. L- '---
Ustedesta en lNETER > M•pas r- ---~fhi~Cùr p....roal>:r
0 Buscaren el web ® Buscaren ineter.oob.ni
PORTAL.DEMAPASEIMAGENES
• MapasTopograflcos
• MapasdeAmenaza,vulnerabllldades y Rlesgos
• FarosAéreas(l'ronto)
© 2005 INSTITUTO N!CARAGÜENDSE EESTUO!OS TERRITORIAL-E!SNETER
FrenteaPolldi'11cOariental.Apdo.Postal2110,ManaouaN , icaraoua.
Done> "· .: ::.- ·.:.;:..:::.··~·..::,·· .:-.'.L· ~·,._::J:··,;,,:.;•:·•· - - '-.:.-· ,·.~ .....__,! _j _, _j _j
L- L- '--- L- L- L- '---L- L- L.....:
lX ·-:.:-·
..f)fii!D~!iJ~-~/:Uc~~~-
Usted estâ en Geodesiay Cartografia> Mapas
powao,-
'--------+, ----' BuscaCor.gle
0 Buscaren e®waJscar enineter.gob.ni
indice de Mapas
-indice de Mapasrâficos 1:50, 000
-Visor de Mapas Topogrâficos 1:50.000
Mapas deNicaragua
-Division Politico-Administrativa
-MapaFisico-Geogrâfico
-Mapa del Relieve deNicaragua
Mapas Departamentales
-Boaco
·Carazo
-Chinandega
-Chontales
-Esteli
-Granada
-Jinotega
-Leon
-Madriz
-Manap:ua
-Masava
-Matagalpa
-Nueva Segovia
-Rio SanJuan
-Rivas
MAPAS
i
Nota: Muchos de los limites DepyMunicipalesapare ecess mapas topogrâlicos a escala 1:50,000 fueron modilicados en el
sfio 1995. '
-indice de Mapas.- Muestra entamafio carta, un indice de mapas topogrâficos, que puede ser guardado en su disco duro o impreso, usando las herramientas
que brinda el exd~inteo~et i @JJ
~ -. ,.:..:,:._-:-_;~~-:ii:;:.:;.-;:-·:~-:-"-~;._.~L;-=:~-:-~:;.1-~-~::~:r_:::_-.,-:·::-~:.-~.~·~:;_.i-~. :...__; ....._J___; ---1 ....._J .--.J .__j_j
L- '-- L- '-- :__. '-- l..-.....i '---'
tt zr a ~ ~ •• » n u tt M
...
NICARAGUA t ""' ..,,_,._,,,, ··--~--"--J~__ ,.,,I)
INOΠCEMAf'ASTOPOGAAFICOS
ESCALA 1:51).{100
1 rn~ -ri 1 --· ··r-,< '- ~.,~~•--•-~:-~lli§J 1 ..
""" ~~j{ __:.:_~-~-L- ~..:-.-:j:'.-.~:._:==J:.:::~
iol -1 ~~ 1n;:sg..lUI--,)...j~-~"·r---\.1..'-..~---.-<- 1 --t·
1 l"~-~ "'"'ji ;_.1~~!;.._. !"~"'-.1...,. 1 Z..Jf
Ir
1..
lU
ID
..
... -
Œ
c ..
0
·.:'1•(, .......
..
.. a: 1~
...
c
00 ii
.... 1"
"'o ,.
·.,
c.,
•, ..
,,. "o
..
COOTA lUCA 1·~~, 1
... .,.. ... ... .... .,. ..
~1
\*tJ'if~}~·~èat!~'~H1@p;t(iu)~:gol <>•:~:.:.~;_~;,~'..:~-!~-l:,0.>1
l
1
l
w 8 u v
•
.,, ·~
.f. ~.
QI.•-'
.t
]
1
l
_j c
0
J Cl
] c i
..
_1 0
.J •
J
_1
J
J
J
J
_j
_1
-]l
l
l
}
l
J
J
J
Jl
l
l
l
1
.1
.l
l
J
l
l
J
l
\
J
]
J
J
J
1
J
J
J
J
.J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J .,._; .__.J _j
....__ '---- L- ..........'--- '-----" -.--"
'---- '-- '----
Don•·
~· ' 1
l
1
l
"l
1
"l
l
l
J
]
)
J
J
}
J
j
J
J
J
.l
J
"1
j
J
J
J
JJ
1
l
J
_j
J
J
J
l
J
Jl
l
l
l
]
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
_j
J
J
j
j
j
J
~~
J ~'
J
J
J
j __j __j -.~ ......__; __j ____;
L__ L__ L- '----- L- L__ L- L.J l_; '---... - •----'
~
LE Yî! Il 0 A
"\.;r _..........._
....
""-···-1
l
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
)
_]
J ___! __j
\,_.,..... L- L- i.._, L.J L.J L_....J~ i..-.J L..-1 .__; __j '---' ___! .......~.) ---'
·.__ L- L_.. L- \,_.,..... L-
+- .,..; G:.i© web.arch1Ve.org/web/20071023062703,ihttp://llleter.gob.ni/ ______ 'fk__'\,.
_.;.: ._. _ ~ -~- ··-·--~-.---·- -~-:---. --
VouarelnHome InglésVersion CJ
L --- -) Seürch !p~~dbYl
0 Searchthe web 0 Searchineter.gob.ni
XXVHNETER Annlversary
current Information - GeodesyandGartography
- Recent5alsmlclty
ln October1981 hefoundedINETERGeosclence InstituteofNicaragua. - Physlcl adastre
- Webcam - Volcanoes - Weather
- Ralnyseason(2007) On Friday,October5, 2007,INETERhold its XXVI annlversary.Is presentedthrough - WaterResources
- RecentWeatherPicture vlsualmedia,therelevantaspectsof domain-specifietechnologiesln thetechnlcalareas
of selsmometers,cartographieproductiondemonstrationsln digital photogrammetrie - Geophyslcs
- WeatherForecast workstatlon,operationof CadastralInformationSystems,CIIIandcuooc; detailson -Land
- Hydrological orecast
- TideForecast supply early warnlng Information on volcanlc processes, tsunamis, earthquakes,
landslldes,Wt>Nd.igitalcommunicationnetwork,procurementofNOAA satelliteImages
BasleInformation ln real tlme,and constantmonitoringandreal-time hydrometeorologicadlata (ralnfall
- GeographieCharacterizatlon and water Javelslnrlvers) - Earthquakes
- Geological aultsManagua - Volcanoes
Program: - Landslldes
- LandslldeHazards 8:00 OpenlngbyDr.AlejandroRodrlguez,ExecutiVeDlrector
- NaturalHazards 8:15 CUlturalProgram - StorrnsandHurricanes
- SIG·lNETER
SclentifrcPreSentatios:00 to 12:30, AuditoriumlNETERVlewfullschedule
- Map 9:00 to 12:30 ExhibitionsI,NEInformationCenter
Tasksand Products - CanyonSomotoPhotos
- AboutINETER Are lnvitedto attend collages, unlverslties and the general public.
-Downloads
- PublicServices -Links
- Productcatalog
- Metadata
- Projects2007 HORAOFICIAL
- 2007PressReleases 15 de Octubre del2007
- Report2002-2006 2:22:09 pm
NOTE: Youcanseesomanewsof selsmometershere.
© 1999 NicaraguaInnstitutsof Territl tudies- INETER
FacingEastPolyclinicP.OBox2110,ManaguaN, icaragua. ____j ..._j
L- L- L-..i l_.l L-l ..___; L-1 ~ ~ ;,___j ____j ----' --'
L- L- '--.... L- L- L- L-
Youare ln1NETE RMaps p~J~Yeredby
Search ,--ii---~
0 search the web 0 Searchlneter.gob.nl
MAP.AND IMAGEPPRT:AL
• Topographie Maps
• Mapof Hazard,Vulnerabllltles and Rlsks
• AerlalPhotos(Soon)
1
@ 2006f'.Hcaragualnnstitl.lteofTerritorialStl.ldies- INETER
FadngEastPolyclinlcP. 6 Box 2110,Managua,Nicaragua.
1 'L__. i.__ L__. L._.; L____ .____.L.- ~ L- L._; L.._: L_..i L-....L-J ~ ~ ~ L.....:_j ~ ""---''--i ,'---'-;-' ---1 __j _j '--'
You areinGeodesy and Cartogrnphy> Maps
poweredbr
~-----~-----' Search· Gocgle 1 1
0 Search the we0 Search ineter.gob.ni
IndexMap hi Map Index.000
• 1:50To_pOgt'l!lLC
- 1:50Topogrnphic Map Viewer,000
MapofNicaragua
•PoU!icai-AdminislratiDveivision
-Peysicai·Geogrnphica Mlap
•ReliefMl!pofNicat'l!gua
DepartmentalMaps
::..J1Q.l!QQ.
• C!!fllZQ
•Nuevl! S~via
- SanruanRiver
~
MAP
Note:Many of the depm.1mentaland mmdcipalboundaries shown in tltese topographie maps at 1:50,000 scale were modified in1995.
Map-Index .- Samplelettersize,an in~e oxtopographiemaps,whichcanbe storedonyourharddiskorprinted,usingthetoolsprovidedbyyourInternetbrowser:
1;~ &{~~L:~:I
Oncethemap screen,you canclickonit andviewitindetailyou cansaveonyourharddrive,andthenuse apiottertoprinl
- Maps Depm.1mental.-By clickingonthemapimageis boundto alargerimagewhereyou canappreciatebetterthedetails,thisimagecanbeprinteddirectlyand
youneedapiotterto do, butyou candownloadtoyourharddisk.Theseimagesarenotto scaleinthissection.
l'ai L...,..., L.._.l L........lL.....J_j '----'~ __j ----'.___j __j ~
L...- L...-'--- L...-L- L...- L...- L...- L-.: L..l '--- '---' '---'
~~,;(•,!!l!t:utlnM•1 fl i l'f,, G,~:•,I't,~,n,,'l,m,j,l1!~n-,-1,:::,,-o,,j,,p_,,ol,-,-s,•', , i,ll- n-F-i:m-f~nI~BID~
e!I·t:-i.it~,";;:-..;.t;,:;U.T~"··:·-- ·.;-~·>--~~ :.;··-:-.;...·.··c"..L ~·..::.:·:-···.:-.-::-~--<::·..-;·' ·-:-.-~_.:-~
..
" n "' » J1 .. u " ... ..
NICARAGUA 1 .. t:-v.o.----.::t~~---à.....~~~-'ùu--- 1 .,
iNCXDe MAPASTOPOGAAFJCOS
ESCALA 1!50.000
HOIIDURAS lut!--- -"'- -!---<!"-;--4"'--j--·ill'§ 1 ..
~f-; 'j_ '-d··~···'~ ;-~ l-~ '~~ -·-,-~ ..(;
• - --.----;---~---- -----·--:---·q.r:---
rn l --- ....... .~j -.~..:. ;:..,z:''"•-~1-1~-~.,_,..,_ 1 •
Ill 1 ..
•
-
K
c 1:
~
.._,~...,,
•
9 K 1:
c
0(> a ltt
...
+o
.. ~-~-~·i•r .•~=·iD!h-~~Jl~=l t,--Jt'.~----•!----~ 1 ..
.,..
'~
''-'o ,.
..
... f>' ... ... 1
l
-1
-]
-l
l
l w 0 » w
"
l 1i'
-+,1 '
l t:'~..,\
.t
l
]
]
l
]
]
]
1
] c
0
] 1:
c
J ..
J 0
0
J
J]
]
J
]
]
]
]
J
J
J
]
J
J
_j
J
J
J
J
J
J
_j 1
l
ll
l
l
l
J
J
J
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
.1
J
J
J
J
Jl
-J
]
-1
-~
]
]
]
J
J
J
]
J
J
_j
J
J
J
.J
J
_j
J
J~1
f
.~!
J
]
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
-
J
J
1 1
l
]
J
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
_]
J
J
Jl
l
.)
J
J ;
. '
J
J
]
J
J
J
J
J
J '.·if, .f.
·.'~"_
J
J
J
_)l
J
"]
]
1
J
J
J
J
J
J
_j
_j
J
J
J
J
J
_j
J
JJ
]
J
1
J
J
J
J
]
J
_]
·.:.
]
J
J
J
J
J
J
\
.J,,
Comments of Costa Rica on the replies of Nicaragua to the questions put to that Party by Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwood