Declaration of intervention of Portugal

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE
PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
(UKRAINE V. RUSS/AN FEDERATION)
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC
UNDER ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly
authorized by the Government of the Portuguese Republic.
1. Right to lntervene
1. On behalf of the Government of the Portuguese Republic, 1 have the honor to submit
to the Court a Declaration of Intervention pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice in the case Allegations of Genocide under
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide {Ukraine
v. Russian federation) .
2. Article 82, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that a declaration of a
State's desire to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon by Article 63
of the Statute shall specify the case and the convention to which it relates and shall
contain:
a) particulars of the basis on which the declarant State considers itself a party to
the convention;
b) identification of the particular provisions of the convention the construction
of which it considers to be in question;
c) a statement of the construction of th ose provisions for which it contends;
d} a list of documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. Those matters are addressed below.
2
Il. Case and Convention to which this Declaration of Intervention relates
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings againstthe Russian Federation
in a dispute concerning the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (the "Convention").1
5. ln paras. 4-12 of its Application, Ukraine contends that there is a dispute between
Ukraine and the Russian Federation within the meaning of Article IX relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention.
6. Ukraine states that its Application «concerns a dispute between Ukraine and the
Russian Federation relating to the interpretation, application and fulfillment» of the
Genocide Convention. lt contends that: « ... the Russian Federation has falsely
claimed that acts of genocide have occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of
Ukraine, and on that basis recognized the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" and
"Luhansk People's Republic", and then declared and implemented a "special
military operation" against Ukraine with the express purpose of preventing and
punishing purported acts of genocide that have no basis in fact. »2
7. Ukraine's Application further contends that: «Russia's actions erode the core
obligation of Article I of the Convention, undermine its abject and purpose, and
diminish the solemn nature of the Contracting Parties' pledge to prevent and punish
genocide.»3
8. Following a request for provisional measures from Ukraine, the Court ordered on
16 March 2022 that:
(l)The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operation
that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine;
1 Application instituting proceedings, filed in the Registry of the Court on 27 February 2022.
2 Application instituting proceedings, filed in the Registry of the Court on 27 February 2022, S. 1, Para. 2.
3 Application instituting proceedings, filed in the Registry of the Court on 27 February 2022, S. IV Para. 28.
3
(2)The Russian Federation shall ensure that any military or irregular armed
units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations
and persans which may be subject to its contrai or direction, take no steps in
furtherance of the military operations referred to in points (1) above; and
(3)Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend
the dispute before the çourt or make it more difficult to resolve.
9. As of the date of this· Declaration, the Russian Federation has failed to comply with
the Order of the Court, has intensified and expanded its military operations on the
territory of Ukraine and has thus aggravated the dispute pending before the Court.
10. On 30 March 2022, in accordance with Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court, the Registrar duly notified the Government of the Portuguese Republic of the
proceedings as a party to the Convention.4 The registrar noted that:
ln the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( ... ) is invoked both as a basis for the
Court's jurisdiction and as a substantive basis of the Applicant's claims on the
merits. ln particular, the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on the
compromissory clause contained in Article IX of the ( .. .) Convention, asks the
Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide as defined in Articles Il
and Ill of the Convention, and raises questions concerning the scope of the duty
to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. lt therefore
appears that the construction of this instrument wi/1 be in question in this case.
11. lt is the firm conviction of the Portuguese Republic that the Genocide Convention is
an instrument of the utmost importance to prevent and punish genocide, one of
the most serious acts against the very notion of hum an dignity. Any acts committed
with an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnical, racial or religious
groups constitute a crime under international law. The prohibition against genocide
4 Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador of the Portuguese
Republic to the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 30 March 2022 (ref. no. 156413).
4
is a jus cogens norm in international law.5 The rights and obligations enshrined by
the Convention are rights and obligations erga omnes. 6
12. The interpretation, application and fulfillment of the Convention and of its
provisions is therefore of interest to all its parties, including the Portuguese
Republic. As the Court has noted, «The abjects of such a convention must also be
considered. The Convention was manifestly adopted for a purely humanitarian and
civilizing purpose. lt is indeed difficult to imagine a convention that might have this
dual character to a greater degree, since its object on the one hand is to safeguard
the very existence of certain human groups and on the other to confirm and
endorse the most elementary principles of morality. ln such a convention the
contracting States do not have any interests of their own; they merely have, one
and all, a common interest, namely, the accomplishment of those high purposes
which are the raison d'être of the convention. Consequently, in a convention of this
type one cannot speak of individual advantages or disadvantages to States, or of the
maintenance of a perfect contractual balance between rights and duties. The high
ideals which inspired the .Convention provide, by virtue of the common will of the
parties, the foundation and measure of all its provisions.»7
13. As a Party to the Genocide Convention and in line with its active commitment to a
rules-based international order, the Portuguese Republic has thus a direct interest
in its interpretation by the Court.
14. Accordingly, by the present Declaration of Intervention, the Portuguese Republic
avails itself of the right to intervene conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of
5 Cose Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p.
111, paras. 161-162.
6 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia
v. Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020, I.CJ. Reports 2020, p. 3 with further
references; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
{The Gombia v. Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
7 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory
Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23.
5
the Statute of the Court. The Court has recognized that Article 63 confers a "right"
of intervention.8 The Court has also underlined that an intervention
is limited to submitting observations on the construction of the convention in
question and does not allow the intervenor, which does not become a party to
the proceedings, to dea/ with any other aspect of the case before the Court; and
( ... ) such intervention cannot affect the equality of the Parties to the dispute. 9
15. The Portuguese Republic confirms that it does not seek to become a party to the
Proceedings and that it accepts that the construction given to the Convention by
the judgment in the case will be equally binding upon it.
m. Basis on which the Portuguese Republic considers itself a Party to the Convention
16. The Portuguese Republic acceded to the Convention and deposited its instrument
of accession in accordance with Article XI, paragraph 4, of the Convention on 9
February 1999.
IV. Provisions of the Convention the Construction of which is in Question in the Case
17. The Portuguese Republic's intervention is limited to the matters relating to the
construction of the provisions of the Convention that arise in this case. This case
raises questions concerning different provisions of the Convention, including those
on the jurisdiction of the Court as welf as those relevant for the merits of the case.
18. lt should be noted that Article 63 of the Statute of the Court does not make a
distinction between provisions in a Convention which relate to jurisdictional issues
and those which relate to substantive provisions. lndeed, States may offer in both
8 Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 76; Continental Shef/
(Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to lntervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1981,
p. 13, para. 21.
9 Whaling in th.e Antarctic (Australia v. Japon), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6
February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18.
6
situations their assistance to the Court in the construction of a particular
Convention.
19. Accordingly, the Portuguese Republic will focus its intervention on the construction
of the following provisions:
a) Article IX of the Convention concerning the jurisdiction of the Court; and
b) Article I of the Convention, concerning the obligation of States Parties to prevent
and punish the crime of genocide, which must be interpreted also in light of
Articles Il, 111 and VIII.
20. The intervention on the construction of the abovementioned provisions will follow
the timings and procedural moments established by the Court's Statute, the Rules
of the Court and the corresponding decisions by the Court.
V. Statement of the Construction of the Provisions for which it Contends: Jurisdiction •
21. Article IX of the Convention reads as follows:
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to
the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated
in Article Ill, sha/1 be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request
of any of the parties to the dispute.
22. The notion of "dispute" is already well-established in the case law of the Court,
which considers the meaning given to the word "dispute" as «a disagreement on a
point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests» between parties.10 ln
order for a dispute to exist, «[i]t must be shown that the daim of one party is
10 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
7
positively opposed by the other».11 The two sides must «hold clearly opposite views
concerning the question of the performance or nonperformance of certain
international obligations».12 Moreover, «in case the respondent has failed to reply
to the applicant's daims, it may be inferred from this silence, in certain
circumstances, that it rejects those daims and that, therefore, a dispute exists».13
23. The Portuguese Republic will thus focus on the interpretation of the other elements
of Article IX, namely that the scope of such disputes must be «relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention». The
Portuguese Republic is of the view that Article IX is a broad jurisdictional clause,
allowing the Court to adjudicate upon disputes concerning the interpretation,
application and fulfilment by a Contracting Party of its obligations under the
Convention.
24. The usual meaning of the phrase «relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfilment of the Convention» may be divided in two sub-categories:
a) The first element («relating to») establishes a link between the dispute and the
Convention;
b) The second element {«interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention») encompasses d ifferent scenarios.14
25. Regarding the first element, the Portuguese Republic considers that an allegation
by a State Party to the Genocide Convention that another State Party to the
11 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment
of 21 December 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 319, at p. 328.
12 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ali Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 July 2018, I.C.J. Reports 2018, p. 406,
at p. 414, para. 18; ICJ, Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea
{Nicaragua v. Cofombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 3, at p. 26, para. 50,
citing lnterpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 74.
13 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia
v. Myanmar}, Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 71.
14 As Kolb has observed, Article IX of the Convention is «a model of clarity and simplicity, opening the
seizing of the Court as largely as possible» - R. Kolb, "The Compromissory Clause of the Convention", in:
Paola Gaeta (ed.), The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary, {OUP 2009), p. 420.
8
Genocide Convention has committed genocide establishes a link between the
dispute and the Convention, since the Convention contains essential elements that
both Parties to the Convention have accepted to assess whether a genocide has
been committed.
26. Regarding the second element and the above-mentioned different scenarios, there
is a dispute about the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention
when one State Party alleges that another State Party has committed genocide15• ln
that scenario, the Court has to verifiy the factual basis for such allegation and
whether it is or not satisfied that there were any acts of genocide committed in
violation of the Convention.16
27. There can also be disputes about "non-action" or omissions to prevent genocide as
a violation ofthe substantive obligations under Article 1, IV and V.
28. The Court also has jurisdiction ratione materiae to declare the absence of genocide,
when a State makes false allegations that are not based on existing facts, and that
there has been a violation of performance in good faith of the obligations under the
Convention resulting in an abuse of its provisions.
29. The Convention's abject and purpose and the high values and principles it protects
also prohibits any possibility of a State Party to abuse its provisions for any other
ends or purposed than those foreseen in the Convention. lt would undermine the
Convention's credibility as a universal instrument to outlaw the most abhorrent
crime of genocide if its authority could be abused by any State Party without a
possibility of review by the Court.
15 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 75, para. 169.
16 Case Concerning Legafity of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Portugal), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June
1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 656, at pp. 669-670, paras. 35-40. Later, the ICJ declined its jurisdiction on
the ground that Serbia and Montenegro did not have access to the Court, at the time of the institution of
the proceedlngs, under Article 35 of the Statute (see ICJ, Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Serbia
and Montenegro v. Portugal), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 15 Oecember 2004, I.CJ. Reports 2004,
p. 1160).
9
30. As it was discussed in the Court's Provisional Measures Order of 16 March 2022, the
substance of the disputed between these two parties to the Genocide Convention
relates to two main questions: «whether certain acts allegedly committed by
Ukraine in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions amount to violation of its obligations
under the Genocide Convention, as well as whether the use of force by the Russian
Federation for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocide is
a measure that can be taken in fulfillment of the obligation to prevent genocide
contained in Article I of the Convention.» 17
31. lt is therefore the view of the Portuguese Republic that a dispute exists between
the parties to the case regarding the application, interpretation, and fulfillment of
the Genocide Convention, and that the Court has jurisdiction under Article IX of the
Convention.
VI. Statement of the Construction of the Provisions for which it Contends: Merits
32. The Portuguese Republic will submit to the Court, in due course, more detailed
views on the interpretation of the different provisions of the Convention relevant
to the merits of the case, in particular with regard to Article 1, which must be
înterpreted also in light of Articles Il, Ill and VIII. At this juncture, the main points
regarding the interpretation of such provisions will be outlined.
33. Article I of the Convention reads as follows:
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of
peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake
to prevent and to punish.
17 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russ/an Federation), Order of the Court of 16 March 2022 on the Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures, para. 45.
10
34. According to Article I of the Convention, all States Parties are obliged to prevent and
punish genocide by employing «all means reasonably available so as to prevent
genocide as far as possible».18 However, in fulfilling their duty to prevent genocide,
States Parties must act within the limits permitted by international law.19
35. ln carrying out their duty under Article I States Parties must also act in good faith.20
As «one of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal
obligations»21
, it follows from the obligation to act in good faith that a Party to the
Convention shall abstain from undermining the abject and purpose of the
Convention underlying Article I or abuse its provisions. Failing to do so may result in
an abuse of the law and a consequent breach of the Convention.
36. Whether or not certain specific facts amount to genocide that would trigger Article
1 of the Convention is not a matter left to the subjective determination of one
interested party. Article Il of the Convention deals with the definition of genocide
and Article Ill lists five modes of committing genocide, which shall be punishable.
The elements of genocide are already well-established in the case law of the Court.
ln particular, in order for genocide to occur, there is a requirement to establish,
based on compelling evidence, both genocidal action and a (specific) genocidal
intent next to the mental elements present in the acts listed in Article 11.22
18 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 221, para. 430.
19 Cose Conceming Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbio and Montenegro), Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p.
221, para. 430; Allegotions of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, para. 57.
20 Articles 26 and 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; Gabéikovo-Nagymaros Project
(Hungary/Slovakia}, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7, at p. 79, para. 142.
21 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253, at p. 268, para. 46.
22 Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Henegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (1), p. 43, at
pp.121-122, paras. 186-189.
11
37. Furthermore, when the dutyto prevent genocide is invoked, the Contracting Parties
to the Genocide Convention must be prepared to present compelling evidence that
genocide has or is about to occur.23
38. Moreover, Article VIII of the Genocide Convention provides that:
Any Contracting Party may cal/ upon the competent organs of the United Nations
to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider
appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the
other acts enumerated in article Ill.
39. The prevention and suppression of genocide is therefore not purely a domestic
matter but it concerns the international community as a whole. States Parties may,
for that reason, call upon competent organs of the United Nations to take action
under the Charter for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide. Both the
Security Council and the General Assembly are "competent organs" who may take
collective action, either by a non-binding General Assembly resolution or by Security
Council enforcement action under Chapter VII. ln addition, Article IX of the
Convention confers the right to seize the Court regarding disputes under the
Convention.
40. The duty to prevent genocide is not exhausted by Article Vlll,24 including when the
competent organs of the United Nations have manifestly failed to act. However, the
legality of any unilateral measure must always be assessed against the obligation
set out in Article VIII and other applicable international law obligations, including
those enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The obligation to prevent
genocide provided for in Article I of the Convention does not provide by and in itself
a legal basis for the use of force in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter
of the United Nations.
23 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 57, para. 422.
24 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, at p. 219-220, para. 427.
12
41. ln addition, as the Court emphasized in its Order of 16 March 2022, 25 there is a
collective dimension of the obligation to prevent genocide and that collective
dimension is related to Articles VIII and IX and the preamble of the Convention. As
a consequence, the fulfilment of the obligation of prevention of genocide in good
faith would require favoring cooperation, in particular in the context of the United
Nations organs and of peaceful settlement of disputes, over any unilateral military
action.
VII. Documents in Support of the Declaration of Intervention
42. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Declaration, certified
copies of which are attached hereto:
a) Letter from the Registrar of the International Court of Justice to the Ambassador
of the Portuguese Republic to the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 30 March
2022, ref. no. 156413 (Annex A);
b) Instrument of accession of the Portuguese Republic to the Convention
(Annex B);
c) United Nations Depositary Notification confirming the Portuguese Republic's
accession to the Convention (Annex C).
VIII. Condusion
43. On the basis of the information set out above, the Portuguese Republic avails itself
of the right conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court
25 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of the Court of 16 March 2022 on the Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures, para. 56.
13
to intervene as a non-party in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the
Russian Federation in this case.
44. The construction contended for in this Declaration of Intervention is relevant for
the proceedings in what concerns the Court's jurisdiction and the merits of the
daims.
45. The Portuguese Republic reserves its right to am end or supplement this Declaration
of Intervention, and any observations submitted with respect to it, as it may
consider necessary during the proceedings.
46. The Government of the Portuguese Republic has appointed the undersigned as
Agent for purposes of the present Declaration, together with His Excellency Antonio
de Almeida Lima, Ambassador of Portugal to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as
Co-Agent.
47. lt is requested that all communications in this case be sent to the following address:
Embassy of the Portuguese Republic to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Zeestraat 74 - 2518 AD
Den Haag
The Netherlands
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Galvao Teles
Director of the Department of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Portuguese Republic
14
1 NÏERNATIONAL COURT
Of JUSTICE
156413 30 March 2022
I have the honour to refer to my letter (No. 156253) dated 2 March 2022 informing your
Govermnent that, on 26 February 2022, Ukraine filed in the Registry of the Coùrt an Application
instîtuting proceedfogs against the Republic of the Russian Federation in the case conceming
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appended to that letter.
The text of the Application is also available on the website of the Court (www.icj-cîj.org).
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Courtprovides that:
[ w Jhenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those concemed
in the case are parties is fo question, tbe Registntr shall notify an such States forthwith'' .
. Further, under Article 43, para_graph 1, of the Rules of Court
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concemed in the case are parties may be in question within the meanîng ofArticle 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court-shaH consider what directions shall be given to the
Registrar in the marter."
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance wîth the said provision of the Rules of
Court, I have the honour to notify your Govemment of the following. ·
In the above-mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide {hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of the
Court'sjurisdiction and as a substantive basis ofthe Applicanes clairns on the merits. ln particular,
the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurîsdiction on the compromissory clause contained in
Article lX .of the GenocideConvention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles II and III of the Convention, and raises questions cohcemîng the scope of the
duty to prevent and punish genocide under Article I of the Convention. It therefore appears that the
construction of this instrument will be in question in the case.
(Letter to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except Okraine and the Russian Federation)]
Pcacc Palace, Camcgie_plein i
2517 KJ The Hague • Netherlands
./.
Palais.de la Paix, Camegieplein:2
2$17 KJ La Haye - Pay.s-Bas
Téléphone : +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 -Facsimilé : +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet : www .icj-cij.or:g
Tclèphone: +31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - TelefB)!.: +31(0) 70 364 99 28
Website: www.icj-cij.org
COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE )USTICl:
INTERNATfONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE
Y our country is included in the list of parties to the Genocide Convention. The present letter
should açcordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph l, of the
Statu te. I would add that this notification in no way prejudges any question of the possible application
of Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute, which the Court may later be called upon to determine in
this case,
Accept, Excelle11cy, the ass_urances of my highest consideration.
-2-
Philippe Gautier
Registrar
UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES
P'O&TAL ADDIIS&S-ADIIESSIE. P'OSTALE: UNITl:0 NATIONS, H , Y , 10017
CA.LE ADDllll:SS-A.DflESSIE TELIEGIIIA,.HlOUlt· UNATIONS N&wvo•uc
Reference: C.N.110.1999.TREATIES-1 (Depositary Notification)
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME
OF GENOCIDE
NEW YORK, 9 DECEMBER 1948
PORTUGAL: ACCESSION
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary,
communicates the following:
The above action was effected on 9 February 1999, with:
Declaration (Translation) (Original: French)
(IV.1)
The Portuguese Republic declares that it will interpret article Vil of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as recognizing the obligation to grant extradition
established therein in cases where such extradition is not prohibited by the Constitution and other
domestic legislation of the Portuguese Republic.
The Convention will enter into force for Portugal on 10 May 1999 in accordance with its
article XIII (3) which reads as follows:
"Any ratification or accession effected subsequent to the latter date [ ... the date of deposit of
the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession] shall become effective on the ninetieth day
following the deposit of the instrument ofratification or accession."
22 F ebruary 1999
Attention: Treaty Services ofMinistries of Foreign Affairs and of international organizations concerned.

9~~c/9~
th,d,, ~_A/abna,
ONU/1999/~<Z
Tne Pennanent RepresenLative of Portugal to the United Nations
presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the
honour to enclose herewith the instrument of ratification by Portugyi~ of tn~_:Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genociden, adopted by the General
'\ • -------• • • • •• • •••••-- --• ••_ ,. _____ ,. •• v •--••--•- •-•• k •- • •••·-- • , _ .., _ _ - • -• » • •"'' •~•••--•
· Assembly of the United Nations on the 9th of December of 1948.
The Pennanent Repre_sentative of Portugal to the United Nations
avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
l
FEB 10 1999
LCG Nv c9,g 9

REPÛBLICA PORTUGUESA
JOR6E FERNANDO BRANCO DE SAMPAIO
PRESIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE PORTUGAISE
JE FAIS SAVOIR QUE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA
RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE, ADOPTÉE PAR L'ASSEMBLÉE
GÉNÉRALE DES NATIONS UNIES À NEW YORK LE 9 DÉCEMBRE 1948,
APPROUVÉE POUR ADHÉSION PAR LA RÉSOLUTION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE
.DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE N° 37/98 DU 30 AVRIL 1998, PUBLIÉE AU JOURNAL
OFFICIEL I SÉRIE A, DU 14 JUILLET 1998 ET RATIFIÉE PAR LE DECRET
N°33/98 DU 14 JUILLET, PUBLIÉ DANS LA MÊME ÉDITION DU JOURNAL
OFFICIEL, EST PAR LE PRÉSENT INSTRUMENT DE RATIFICATION
CONFIRMÉE ET TENUE POUR FERME ET VALABLE POUR PRODUIRE
SES EFFETS ET ÊTRE INVIOLABLEMENT APPLIQUÉE ET OBSERVÉE,
AVEC LA DÉCLARATION SUIVANTE:
( LA RÉPUBLIQUE PORTUGAISE DÉCLARE QU'ELLE INTERPRÈTERA
L'ARTICLE 7 DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA
RÉPRESSION DU CRil\.OE DE GÉNOCIDE DE FAÇON À RECONDUIRE
L'OBLIGATION D'EXTRADITION Y PRÉVUE AUX CAS OÙ LA
CONSTITUTION DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE PORTUGAISE ET LA RESTANTE
LÉGISLATION NATIONALE NE L'INTERDISE PAS.
v
EN FOI DE QUOI LE PRÉSENT INSTRUMENT DE RATIFICATION PORTE
MA SIGNATURE ET LE SCEAU DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE PORTUGAISE.
PALÂCIO NACIONAL DE BELÉM, AOS TREZE DIAS DE JANEIRO DE
MIL NOVECENTOS E NOVENTA E NOVE.
•