Comments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the replies given by the Republic of Uganda to the questions put by Members of the Court at the close of the first round of oral argument (translati

DEMOCRATie REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

Comments on the replies given by Uganda to the questions put by Judges Vereshchetin,
Kooijmans and Elaraby during the oral proceedings in the case concerning
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo

(Democratie Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)

13 May 2005

1. The Democratie Republic of the Congo has few comments to make on the replies given by
Uganda to the questions put by Judges Vereshchetin, Kooijmans and Elaraby during the oral
proceedings in the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratie
Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). In effect, Uganda seized this opportunity to repeat yet again the

same scenario so often described to the Court, first in the written pleadings and then in the oral
proceedings. lt is the Democratie Republic of the Congo's view that Uganda thus confuses
responding to the judges' questions with pursuing oral argument in the present case. For its part,
the Democratie Republic of the Congo will refrain from addressing and disputing Uganda's replies

point by point. The Court need simply refer to the Congo's written and oral pleadings to find ali
the points in response which Uganda has still not succeeded in identifying.

2. As for Uganda's reply to the question asked by Judge Kooijmans, the Democratie
Republic of the Congo would however like to point out that no source is given for the nine maps
presented, which therefore merely set out Uganda's unilateral position. The question put to
Uganda afforded it the opportunity to provide to the Court, and to the Democratie Republic of the

Congo, specifie information on the location of its army, information which could have been
obtained from military sources furnished by UPDF staff. Uganda has obviously chosen not to
disclose this information, which would in all probability be detrimental to the credibility of its
argument. Instead, Uganda has unilaterally drawn up maps which merely illustrate the position

taken by its counsel and advocates in the present proceedings. Maps based on absolutely no
tangible evidence. By contrast, the Democratie Republic of the Congo has supported its maps
based on the cities conquered by the UPDF Uudges' folder, tab 18), on neutra] sources like IRIN
Uudges' folder, tab 3) and on the Harare Disengagement Plan Uudges' folder, tab 41). In respect of

this last point, Uganda's desperate attempt completely to disassociate its occupation from that by
the rebel movements it controlled in the Congo (particularly the MLC) is obviously at variance
with the Harare map. That map designates "Area 1" as being under the control of the UPDF and

the MLC, not the MLC alone. The DRC has already explained how, given the regional
topography, control over the main towns in the north and northeast of the Congo resulted in an
occupation within the meaning of international law (Mr. Corten's statement, 25 April 2005,
CR 2005/12).

3. As for Uganda's reply to Judge Elaraby's question, the Democratie Republic of the
Congo takes note of the long discussion which Uganda devotes once again to interpreting the

Lusaka ceasefire agreements. Specifically, the Democratie Republic of the Congo observes that
Uganda argues that the legal validity of its presence in the Congo after expiry of the 180-day period
derived from the violation by the Democratie Republic of the Congo of the timetable laid down in
that agreement. In other words, Uganda daims that its presence was justified by the preceding

violation of the agreement by the Democratie Republic of the Congo. However, as the Democratie
Republic of the Congo has already pointed out, the counter-claim whereby Uganda requested the
Court to find that the Congo had violated the Lusaka Agreement was dismissed by the Court in its
Order of 29 November 2001. In the view of the Democratie Republic of the Congo, the lack of a

connection between the question of a violation of the Lusaka Agreement and the subject of the - 2 -

Congo's claim, i.e., essentially the lawfulness of the entry of Ugandan forces into Congolese
territory and their continued presence there, can mean only one thing. The lawfulness of the
presence of Ugandan troops in the Congo is simply not determined, one way or the other, by the

Lusaka Agreement. The Agreement aims at putting an end to the conflict, without passing
judgment on the responsibility borne for starting or pursuing it. That is the position which the
Democratie Republic of the Congo has always taken and which it stands by, more than ever, in

response to Uganda's reply.