el
°
~
2273'2
Yi'
..
s
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
INTERVENTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 63 OF THE STATUTE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
19 JULY 2022
19 JULY 2022
AS ADJUSTED ON 24 JULY 2024
AS ADJUSTED ON 24 JULY 2024
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly
authorized by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania:
To the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, the undersigned being duly
authorized by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania:
1. On 19 July 2022, the Republic of Lithuania submitted to the Court a Declaration of
Intervention pursuant to the right to intervene set out in Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute,
in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) (General List No. 182).
2. Lithuania's Declaration contained a statement of the construction of Articles I, VIII
and IX of the Convention, thereby indicating that Lithuania sought to intervene at the
preliminary objections stage and at the merits stage of the proceedings.
3. By an Order of 5 June 2023, the Court decided that Lithuania's intervention was
admissible at the preliminary objections stage of the proceedings, in so far as it concerned the
construction of Article IX and other provisions of the Genocide Convention that are relevant
for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court.
4. By a Judgment of2 February 2024, the Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the
basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to entertain submission (b) in paragraph 178
of the Memorial of Ukraine, whereby Ukraine had requested the Court to " [ a ]djudge and declare
that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsible for committing genocide in
violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine", and that
such submission was admissible.
5. By a letter dated 18 June 2024 (n°162412), the Registrar informed Lithuania that
"States which sought to intervene at the preliminary objections stage and at the merits stage are
invited to indicate, by 2 August 2024, whether they maintain their declarations of intervention.
1. On 19 July 2022, the Republic of Lithuania submitted to the Court a Declaration of
Intervention pursuant to the right to intervene set out in Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute,
in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) (General List No. 182).
2. Lithuania's Declaration contained a statement of the construction of Articles I, VIII
and IX of the Convention, thereby indicating that Lithuania sought to intervene at the
preliminary objections stage and at the merits stage of the proceedings.
3. By an Order of 5 June 2023, the Court decided that Lithuania's intervention was
admissible at the preliminary objections stage of the proceedings, in so far as it concerned the
construction of Article IX and other provisions of the Genocide Convention that are relevant
for the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court.
4. By a Judgment of2 February 2024, the Court found that it had jurisdiction, on the
basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, to entertain submission (b) in paragraph 178
of the Memorial ofUkraine, whereby Ukraine had requested the Court to "[a]djudge and declare
that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsible for committing genocide in
violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine", and that
such submission was admissible.
5. By a letter dated 18 June 2024 (n°162412), the Registrar informed Lithuania that
"States which sought to intervene at the preliminary objections stage and at the merits stage are
invited to indicate, by 2 August 2024, whether they maintain their declarations of intervention.
If deemed necessary, they may adjust by the same date their declarations of intervention in light
of the Judgment of 2 February 2024."
6. Lithuania hereby confirms that it maintains its Declaration of Intervention as
adjusted below and considers that it should also be declared admissible at the merits stage.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, Lithuania considers that all paragraphs of its
Declaration of Intervention of 19 July 2022 remain relevant at the merits stage, including
paragraphs 23-25. While those paragraphs concerned the interpretation of Article IX of the
Convention on the basis of which the case will proceed on the merits, some of the interpretative
contentions made by Lithuania about the said provision remain relevant at the present stage.
If deemed necessary, they may adjust by the same date their declarations of intervention in light
of the Judgment of 2 February 2024."
6. Lithuania hereby confirms that it maintains its Declaration of Intervention as
adjusted below and considers that it should also be declared admissible at the merits stage.
7. For the avoidance of doubt, Lithuania considers that all paragraphs of its
Declaration of Intervention of 19 July 2022 remain relevant at the merits stage, including
paragraphs 23-25. While those paragraphs concerned the interpretation of Article IX of the
Convention on the basis of which the case will proceed on the merits, some of the interpretative
contentions made by Lithuania about the said provision remain relevant at the present stage.
2
2
This is notably the case of the last sentence of paragraph 23 and of paragraph 24, in so far as it
relates to the jurisdiction of the Court for breaches of the obligations embodied under Article I.
This is notably the case of the last sentence of paragraph 23 and of paragraph 24, in so far as it
relates to the jurisdiction of the Court for breaches of the obligations embodied under Article I.
8. While finding that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain Ukraine's
claims concerning allegedly unlawful measures by the Russian Federation, the Court
recognized in the Judgment of 2 February 2024 that the "Respondent took [those] measures in
and against Ukraine with a stated purpose of preventing and punishing genocide allegedly
committed in the Donbas region".
This determination was essential "[i]n assessing the
admissibility of Ukraine's request contained in submission (b) of its Memorial".
1
8. While finding that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain Ukraine's
claims concerning allegedly unlawful measures by the Russian Federation, the Court
recognized in the Judgment of 2 February 2024 that the "Respondent took [those] measures in
and against Ukraine with a stated purpose of preventing and punishing genocide allegedly
committed in the Donbas region".
1
2
This determination was essential "[i]n assessing the
admissibility of Ukraine's request contained in submission (b) of its Memorial".
2
9. Having found that it has jurisdiction to entertain submission (b) in paragraph 178
of the Memorial of Ukraine and that such submission is admissible,3 the Court will have to
determine whether, as Ukraine contends, "there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is
responsible for committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk
and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine."
10. While the existence of evidence is a matter of fact, the evaluation of the credible
9. Having found that it has jurisdiction to entertain submission (b) in paragraph 178
of the Memorial of Ukraine and that such submission is admissible, the Court will have to
determine whether, as Ukraine contends, "there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is
responsible for committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk
and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine."
10. While the existence of evidence is a matter of fact, the evaluation of the credible
character of evidence-when it exists-is a matter of judicial assessment, and therefore a matter
of law as it is inseparable from the construction of the underlying obligations under the
convention for which such evidence may be relevant.
11. Lithuania contends that, when acting "with a stated purpose of preventing
genocide"-as the Court has concluded was exactly what was done by the Russian
Federation, States parties to the Convention have the obligation, pursuant to Article I, to act
diligently to collect credible evidence from independent sources either that genocidal acts are
being perpetrated or that there exists "a serious risk that genocide will be committed".
Put
differently, and as already argued in paragraph 20 of its Declaration of 19 July 2022, Lithuania
contends that the obligation to act with due diligence to prevent genocidal acts from occurring
entails a due diligence obligation to collect such credible evidence before taking any further
action in fulfilment of Article I. Article I is manifestly breached when a Contracting Party fails
to do so.
5
character of evidence-when it exists-is a matter of judicial assessment, and therefore a matter
of law as it is inseparable from the construction of the underlying obligations under the
convention for which such evidence may be relevant.
11. Lithuania contends that, when acting "with a stated purpose of preventing
genocide"-as the Court has concluded was exactly what was done by the Russian
Federation, States parties to the Convention have the obligation, pursuant to Article I, to act
diligently to collect credible evidence from independent sources either that genocidal acts are
being perpetrated or that there exists "a serious risk that genocide will be committed".
5
Put
differently, and as already argued in paragraph 20 of its Declaration of 19 July 2022, Lithuania
contends that the obligation to act with due diligence to prevent genocidal acts from occurring
entails a due diligence obligation to collect such credible evidence before taking any further
action in fulfilment of Article I. Article I is manifestly breached when a Contracting Party fails
to do so.
1
1
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 February 2024, para. 108 (emphasis
added).
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 2 February 2024, para. 108 (emphasis
added).
2
2
Ibid., para. 107.
Ibid., para. 107.
3
Ibid., para. 151 (8) and (9).
Ibid, para. 151 (8) and (9).
4
4
Ibid., para. 108.
Ibid., para. 108.
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. 221, para. 431.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina • Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (!), p. 221, para. 431.
3
3
12. Therefore, Lithuania contends that a finding that there is no credible evidence that
Ukraine is responsible for committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine necessarily requires and entails finding that the
Russian Federation acted in breach of Article I, as the latter State has purported to prevent such
alleged genocide while having failed to gather diligently such evidence.
12. Therefore, Lithuania contends that a finding that there is no credible evidence that
Ukraine is responsible for committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine necessarily requires and entails finding that the
Russian Federation acted in breach of Article I, as the latter State has purported to prevent such
alleged genocide while having failed to gather diligently such evidence.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
d~
~
(en" of the Republic of Lithuania
2·"of the Republic of Lithuania
,·c\�
$?
_
.-
-
4
4
Adjusted declaration of intervention of Lithuania