Declaration of intervention of Croatia

DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE
STATUTE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF füSTICE
In the case of
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian
F ederation)
13 October 2022
To the Registrar, International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly authorized by the
Government of the Republic of Croatia:
1. On behalf of the Republic of Croatia, I have the honour to submit to the Court a
Declaration of Intervention pursuant to Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court
in the Case conceming The Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime ofGenocide (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 it 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 those provisions for which it contends;
(d) a List of documents in support, which documents shall be attached.
3. Those matters are addressed in sequence below, following some preliminary
observations.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
4. On 26 February 2022, Ukraine instituted proceedings against the Russian Federation in
a dispute conceming the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (the "Genocide Convention").
5. In paras. 4-12 of its Application instituting proceedings, 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 Genocide Convention.
6. On substance, Ukraine claims that the Russian Federation's declaration and
implementation of measures in or against Ukraine in the form of a "special military
operation" declared on 24 February 2022 on the basis of alleged genocide, as well as the
recognition by the Russian Federation of so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" and
"Luhansk People' s Republic" that preceded the military operation, is incompatible with
the Convention, quoting Articles 1-lll thereof {paras. 2 and 26-29 of the Application).
7. Following a request for provisional measures from Ukraine, the Court ordered on 16
March 2022 that:
(1) the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operation that it
commence on 24 February 2022 in the terri tory of Ukraine;
(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 person which
may be subject to its control 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 Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
8. As of date of this Declaration, Russian Federation has fai led to comply with the Order,
has intensified and expanded its military operations on the terri tory of Ukraine and has
thus aggravated the dispute pending before the Court.
9. On 30 March 2022, as contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court, the Registrar duly notified the Republic of Croatia as a party to the Genocide
Convention that by Ukraine's application the Genocide Convention "is invoked both as
a basis for the Court's jurisdiction and the substantive basis of [Ukraine's] claims on the
merits". The registrar also noted that:
" Ukraine seeks to found the Court 's jurisdiction on the compromissory clause contained
in Article IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not
committed a genocide as defined in Articles Il and III 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 [the Genocide
Convention} will be in question in this case" 1
•
1 O. lt is the understanding of the Republic of Croatia that the Genocide Convention is of
utmost importance to prevent and punish genocide. Any acts committed with an intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethnical, racial or religious group constitutes a crime
under international law. The prohibition against genocide is a jus cogens norm in
international law2
. The rights and obligations enshrined by the Convention are owed to
the international community as a whole (rights and obligations erga omnes partes)3. ln
such a situation, when the treaty embodies matters of collective interest, the late Judge
Cançado Trindade called upon ail State Parties to contribute to the proper interpretation
of the treaty as sort of a "collective guarantee of the observance of the obligations
contracted by the State parties".4
1 Letter from the Registrar of the Court of 30 March 2022 - see Annex A.
2 Case 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.
16 1-162.
3 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Provisional Measures, Order of23 January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 3 with further references;
Application of the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
4 Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, attached to Whaling in the Antarctic (Austra/ia v. Japan},
Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 33, para 53.
419
11. By this present Declaration, the Republic of Croatia avails itself of the right to intervene
conferred upon it by Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute. This Court has recognized
that Article 63 confers a ·'right" of intervention5. 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 deal with any other aspect of the case be/ore the Court; and whereas
such intervention cannot affect the equality of the Parties to the dispute ··. 6
12. Consistent with the restricted scope for interventions under Article 63 of the Statute, the
Republic of Croatia will present its interpretation of the relevant Article of the Genocide
Convention in line with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
which represents the codification of customary international law7. It notes that Article 63
of the Statue does not make a distinction between provisions in a Convention, which
relate to jurisdictional issues and those, which relate to substantive provisions. According
to Judge Schwebel "intervention in the jurisdictional phase of a proceeding is within the
scope of rights with which States are endowed by the terms of Article 63"8. Indeed, in
both situations, States may offer their assistance to the Court in the construction of a
particular Convention and the wording in Article 82 of the Rules to file a declaration "as
soon as possible" confinns that the filing of an Article 63 declaration is admissible at this
stage of the proceedings.
13. At present, the Republic of Croatia focuses on the construction of Article IX of the
Convention on the jurisdiction of the Court.
14. The Republic of Croatia does not seek to become a party to the Proceedings and accepts
that the Genocide Convention's construction given by the judgrnent will be equally
binding upon it. Its intervention will not address issues of application of the Convention.
15. The Republic of Croatia also wishes to assure the Court that the intervention was fil ed
"as soon as possible and no later than the date fixed for the opening of the oral
proceedings" as stipulated in Article 82 of the Rules of the Court. It requests to be
provided with copies of ail pleadings filed by Ukraine and Russia, as well as any annexed
documents, in line with Article 85, paragraph 1, of the Rules of the Court. It further
informs the Court that it is willing to assist the Court in grouping its intervention together
5 Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru), Jutlgment, I.C.J. Reports 195 1, p. 76; Continental Shelf(Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Pennission to Intervene, Jutlgment, I.C.J. Reports 198 1, p. 13, para. 21.
6 Wha/ing in the Antarctic (Austra/ia v. Japan), Dec/aration of Intervention of New Zealand, Ortler of 6 February
2013, I.C.J. Reports 20 13, p. 3, at p. 9, para. 18.
7 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanma,), Jutlgment of22 July 2022, p. 31, para. 87: "The Court wi/1 have recourse to the ru/es of customa,y
international law on treaty interpretation as rejlected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
ofTreaties of23 May 1969 "; see also Application of the International Convention On the Elimination of Ali Forms
of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Preliminary Objections, Jutlgment of 4 February 202 1,
p. 24, para. 75 with further references.
8 See Opinion of Jutlge Schwebel in Mi/ita,y and Paramilita,y Activities in and againsl Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
United States of America) (Dec/aration of intervention of El Salvac/01), Ortler of 4 October 1984, I.C.J. Reports
1984, p. 223, at pp. 235-236.
51 9
with similar interventions from other EU Member States for future stages of the
proceedings, if the Court deems such a move useful in the interest of an expedient
administration of justice.
BASIS ON WHICH THE REPUBLIC OF CROATlA IS PARTY TO THE CONVENTION
16. The Republic of Croatia is the party to the Convention on the basis of the notification of
succession, which it deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 12
October 1992, with effect from 8 October 1991 , the date on which the Republic of Croatia
assumed responsibility for its international relations.
PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION IN QUESTION IN THE CASE:
17. Article IX of the Genocide 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
Statefor genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted
to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute."
18. The Republic of Croatia contends that the notion of "dispute" is already well-established
in the case law of the Court and supports the current interpretation. Accordingly, it
concurs with 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.9 In order for a dispute
to exist, " [i}t must be shown that the claim of one party is positive/y opposed by the
other".10 The two sides must "hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of the
performance or non-performance of certain international obligations ".11 Moreover, "in
case the respondent has failed to reply to the applicant 's claims, it may be inferred /rom
this silence, in certain circumstances, that it rej ects those claims and that, therefore, a
dispute exists "12.
19. The Republic of Croatia hence concentrates on the interpretation of the other parts of
Article IX, namel y that the scope of such disputes must be "relating to the interpretation,
application or fui filment of the present Convention" . lt con tends that Article IX is a broad
jurisdictional clause, allowing the Court to adjudicate upon disputes conceming not only
the application and interpretation but also alleged fulfilment by a Contracting Party of its
obligations under the Convention. As Judge Oda noted, the inclusion of the word
9 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
10 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.
11 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of Ail Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar
v. United Arab Emirates), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 July 20 18, I.C.J. Reports 20 18, p. 406, at p. 4 14,
para. 18; ICJ, Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.
Co/ombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 201 6, p. 3, at p. 26, para. 50, citing Interpretation
of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hunga,y and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p.
74.
12 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Cambia v.
Myanma,), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 27, para. 7 1.
619
"fulfilment" is "unique as compared with the compromissory clauses found in other
multilateral treaties which provide for submission of the International Court of such
disputes between Contracting Parties as relate to the interpretation or application of the
treaties in question" 13•
20. The Republic of Croatia's interpretation of Article IX m general and of the phrase
"relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention" in particular,
is based on Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties which paragraph
1 reads as follows:
'·A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to
be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its abject and
purpose."
2 1. With regard to the phrase "relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention" its ordinary meaning may be divided in two sub-categories.
22. The first point ("relating to") establishes a link between the dispute and the Convention.
23. The second point ("interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention")
encompasses many different scenarios.
24. There can be a dispute about the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention when one State alleges that another State has committed genocide14• In that
scenario, the Court verifies the factual basis for such allegation, that is whether genocide
has been committed or not.
25. While this scenario of (alleged) responsibility for acts of genocide constitutes an
important type of dispute on the " interpretation, application or fulfilment" of the
Convention, it is not the only one. For example, in The Gambia v. Myanmar (pending),
the applicant claimed that the defendant was not only responsible for prohibited acts
under Article III, but that it was also violating its obligations under the Convention by
failing to prevent genocide in violation of Article I; and failing to punish genocide in
violation of Articles I, IV and V15
• ln that example, one State alleges that another State
is not honouring its commitment to "prevent" and "punish" genocide, because it grants
impunity to acts of genocide committed on its territory. Therefore, there can also be
disputes about "non-action" as a violation of the substantive obligations under Article I,
IV and V.
13 Application of the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bos nia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Preliminary Objections, Declaration of Judge Oda, I.C.J. Reports 1996
(II), p. 627, para. 5 (emphasis in the original).
14 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.
15 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanma,), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 12, para. 24, Points ( 1) (c), d) and (e).
26. The ordinary meaning of the phrase ("relating to the interpretation, application or
fulfilment of the Convention") in Article IX makes it clear that there is no need to
establish genocidal acts as a basis to affirm the Court's jurisdiction. In addition to
establishing genocidal acts the Court also has jurisdiction over the question whether
genocidal acts have been or are being committed or not. 16 Hence, it also has jurisdiction
ratione materiae to declare the absence of genocide and the violation of a good faith
performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of the law. In particular, the
jurisdiction of the Court extends to disputes conceming the unilateral use of military
force for the stated purpose of preventing and punishing alleged genocide17•
27. The context of the phrase ("relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the
Convention") further confirms this reading. In particular, the unusual feature of the words
" including" in the intermediate sentence indicates a broader scope of Article IX of the
Convention when compared to standard compromissory clause 18• Disputes relating to the
responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article
III are therefore only one type of dispute covered by Article IX, which are "included" in
the wider phrase of disputes "relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment" of
the Convention 19•
28. Moreover, Article IX expressly provides for ICJ jurisdiction "at the request of any of the
parties to the dispute" ( emphasis added). This language suggests that a State accused of
committing genocide has the same right to submit the dispute to the Court as the State
making the accusation. In particular, such a State may seek a "negative" declaration from
the Court that the allegations from another State that it was responsible for genocide are
without legal and factual foundation.
29. Finally, the object and purpose of the Convention gives further support to the wide
interpretation of Article IX. The Court noted that "[ a} Il the States parties to the Genocide
Convention [thus} have a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and
punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to ful.filling the obligations contained
in the Convention"20
. Famously, in its 1951 Advisory Opinion, the Court held21:
16 Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, p. 10, para. 43 and p. 11, para. 45; Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of23
January 2020, I.C.J. Reports 2020, p. 14, para. 30.
17 Allegations of Genocide un der the Convention on the Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order of 16 March 2022, p. 10 para 43 and p. 11, para. 45;
18 Case 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. 75, para. 169.
19 See also the Written Observations of The Gambia on the Preliminary Objections raised by Myanmar, 20 April
2021, pp. 28-29, para. 3.22 ("The inclusion of disputes "relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide"
among those that can be brought before the Court unmistakably means that responsibility for genocide can be
the object of a dispute brought before the Court by any contracting party").
20 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), Judgment of 22 July 2022, p. 36, para. 107.
21 Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 195 1, I.C.J. Reports 1951 , p. 23.
"The abjects of such a convention must also be considered. The Convention was
manifestly adopted for a pure/y humanitarian and civilizing purpose. I t is indeed difficult
to imagine a convention that might have this dual character to a greater degree, since its
abject 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. In such
a convention the contracting States do not have any interests of their own; they merely
have, one and ail, a common interest, namely, the accomplishment ofthose 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 al! its provisions. "
30. The Convention's object to protect the most elementary principles of morality also
prohibits any possibility of a State Party to abuse its provisions for other means. 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 the victim of such abuse to tum to the Court. The purpose of the Convention
hence speaks loudly in favour of a reading of Article IX, according to which disputes
relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment include disputes about the abuse
of the Convention's authority to justify a State's action vis-à-vis another State party to
the Convention.
31. In conclusion, the construction of Article IX of the Convention shows that the Court's
jurisdiction goes beyond disputes between States about the responsibility for alleged
genocidal acts, but also covers disputes between States about the absence of genocide
and the violation of a good faith performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of
the law. lt also confirms that a dispute regarding acts carried out by one State against
another State based on false claims of genocide falls under the notion of "dispute between
Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present
Convention". Accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction to declare the absence of genocide
and the violation of a good faith performance of the Convention, resulting in an abuse of
the law. Therefore the jurisdiction of the Court ex tends to disputes conceming the
unilateral use of military force which is based on the false claims that act of genocide
have occurred.
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DECLARATION
32. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Declaration, which documents
are attached hereto:
(a) Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63, paragraph l of the Court's
Statute;
(b) Notification of succession by the Republic of Croatia to the Genocide Convention.
919
CONLCUSION
33. On the basis of the information set out above, the Republic of Croatia avails itself on the
right conferred upon it by Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Statute to intervene as a nonparty
in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation in this case.
34. The Republic of Croatia reserves the right to supplement or amend this Declaration as
may be necessary.
35. The Government of the Republic of Croatia has appointed the undersigned Ms Gordana
Vidovié Mesarek, Director-General for European and International Law, Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs, as Agent for the purposes with this Declaration, together
with Ms Anamarija Valkovié, Head of Sector for International Law, Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs, as Co-Agent. The Registrar of the Court may channel all
communication through them at the following address:
Embassy of the Republic of Croatia in the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Surinamestraat 11
2585 GG
Den Haag
Respectfull y,
Gordana Vidovié Mesarek
Agent for the Republic of Croatia
Annex A: Letter from the Registrar sent pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Court' s
Statute
Annex B: Notification of succession by the Republic of Croatia to the Genocide Convention
Cü l'R INTCRNATIONALE
DE JlJS f!CE
INTERNATIONAi. couru
or /lJSTICf
156413 30 Marc!, 2022
I have the honour lo rcfcr to my letter (No. 1 S62S3) dated 2 March 2022 informing your
Govemmc11t that, on 26 February 2022, Ukra ine filed in the Registry of the Court an Appl ication
,nstituting proceedings against the Republic of the Russian f ederation in the case concern ing
Allegations of Oenocide under the Conven.lÎQ!LOn \he Prevent ion and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocidc (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). A copy of the Application was appcnded to that letter.
The text of the /\pplication is also avai lable on the website of the Court (www.icj-ci i.org).
Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court providcs that:
[ w]henevcr the construction of a convention to which States othcr than thosc concemed
in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify ail such States forthwith".
rurther, unùcr Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Ru les of Court:
"Whcncvor the construction of a convention to which States other than those
conccmed in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of Article 63,
paragraph 1, of the Statu te, the Cou11 shall considcr what directions shall be given to the
Registrar in the matter."
On the instructions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Ru les of
Court, T have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
l11 the above~mentioned Application, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime ofGenocidt: (hereinaRer the "Genocide Convention") is invoked both as a basis of 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
Aniclc IX of the Genocide Convention, asks the Court to declare that it has not committed a genocide
as defined in Articles li and Lli of the Convention, and rai ses questions conceming the scope of the
duty to prcvcnt and punish gcnocide under Article I of the Convention. lt thcrefore appears that the
construction of this instrument wi ll be in question in the case.
fLeller to the States parties to the Genocide Convention
(except IJkrnine and the Russian Fedcration)]
Peacc Palace, Car11cgicpkn1 2
2517 KJ 1 hc Hague • Ncthc rlands
.1.
l'a1in1s de la Paix. Carncg1cplc1n 2
2 517 K J La l!a; c • l'a>~•Oa,
l't'lé p'mnc • 31 (Ol 70 102 n n • i:ncs11111lé • 31 (0) 70 ,M 99 2S
Site lnt~ rnct 1\\\\1' 1CJ•c1jm~
T~!cphon(' ... 31 (0) 70 J07. 23 2J • Tclcfa.x· - ) 1 (0) 70 364 9918
Wcbsitc. ",, w icj-cij °'!l
COUR 1:--/T[RNAl IONALt
Of JUSTICE
1 N rrnNATIONAI. COURT
or JUHJCF,
Y 0111 cou ntry 1s included in the lisl of pa rt ies to lhc Ge11ocidc Convention. The present le ller
should accmdingly be regarded as the nolification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph l, of the
Statute. 1 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 Cou,t may later be called upon to determ ine in
Lhis ca!>e. ·
Accept, Exccllcncy, the assurances ofrny highest considcration.
- 2.
L
Philippe Gautier
Registrar
UNITED NATIONS • NATIONS UNIES
,01fAL AOOftlel- AOltl'SIC .. o,TAl.l UHIT ■O ... ATIONI, N v . 1001)
CAl\.l AOOIUtlt--AOAaa,c Yll.CO"""HIOUI UNATtONI NSWVOlltK
C. N.362.1992.TREATIES-4 (Oepoaitary Notification)
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHM.ENT
OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ON 9 DECEMBER 1948
~UCCESSION ex CROATIA
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in hie
capacity as depositary, communicates the following:
On 12 October 1992, the notification of succession by the
Government of Croatia to the above-mentioned Convention was deposited
with the Secretary-Oeneral, with effect from 8 October 1991, the date
on which Croatia assumed reeponaibility for its international
relations.
Attention,
1 April 1993
Treaty Services of Ministriea of Foreign Affaire and of
international organizations concerned
(IV. 1)