Declaration of intervention of Slovenia

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION UNDER ARTICLE 63
OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
In the case of
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT
OF THE CRllvfE OF GENOCIDE
(THE GAMBIA v. MYANMAR)
22 November 2024
1. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia has the honour to request
permission of the Court to intervene in the case concerning the Application of the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (I'he Gambia
v. Myanmai). The present Declaration of intervention is made pursuant to Article 63,
paragraph 2, of the Comi's Statute.
I. Introductory Remarks
A. Procedural history
2. In its application submitted on 11 November 2019, The Gambia instituted
proceedings against Myanmar concerning violations of the Genocide Convention.
3. The Gambia notably states that,
"from around October 2016 the Myanmar military (the 'Tatmadaw') and other Myanmar
security forces began widespread and systematic 'clearance operations' - the tenn that
Myanmar itself uses -against the Rohingya group. The genocidal acts committed during
these operations were intended to destroy the Rohingya as a group, in whole or in part,
by the use of mass murder, rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as the
systematic destruction by fire of their villages, often with inhabitants locked inside
burning houses. From August 2017 onwards, such genocidal acts continued with
Myanmar's resumption of 'clearance operations' on a more massive and wider
geographical scale."1
4. In particular, The Gambia contends that Myanmar has breached its obligations
under the Genocide Convention, notably, but not limited to, by "committing genocide
in violation of A1iicle III(a); conspiracy to commit genocide in violation of Article
III(b ); direct and public incitement to commit genocide in violation of Article III( c );
attempting to commit genocide in violation of Article III( d); complicity in genocide in
violation of Article III( e ); failing to prevent genocide in violation of Article I; failing to
punish genocide in violation of Articles I, IV and VI; and failing to enact the necessary
legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Genocide Convention and to provide
effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the acts enumerated in
Article III, in violation of Article V. "2
1 Application, pp. 2-3, para. 6.
2 Application, p. 3 7, para. 111.
5. Because of the risk of irreparable prejudice and the urgency of the situation, The
Gambia submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures together with its
Application dated 11 November 2019. After having concluded that the conditions
required by its Statute for indicating provisional measure were met, the Comi
unanimously indicated, in its Order dated 23 January 2020, the following provisional
measures:
"(1) [ ... ] The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall, in accordance with its
obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, in relation to the members of the Rohingya group in its
territory, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts
within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group;( c)
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and ( d) imposing
measures intended to prevent bi1ihs within the group;
(2) [ ... ]The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall, in relation to the members
of the Rohingya group in its territory, ensure that its military, as well as any
irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it and any
organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or
influence, do not commit any acts described in point (1) above, or of conspiracy
to commit genocide, of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, of
attempt to commit genocide, or of complicity in genocide;
(3) [ ... ]The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall take effective measures to
prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to
allegations of acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(4) [ ... ]The Republic of the Union of Myanmar shall submit a report to the Court
on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within four months, as from the
date of this Order, and thereafter every six months, until a final decision on the
case is rendered by the Court. "3
On the same day, the Court fixed the time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of The
Gambia and Counter-Memorial ofMyanmar4, which were later extended to 23 October
2020 and 23 July 2021 respectively.5
3 !CJ, order, 23 January 2020, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Request for the indication of provisional measures, Rep. 2020, pp. 30-31,
para. 86.
4 See !CJ, Order, 23 January 2020 fixing the time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of The Gambia and CounterMemorial
of Myanmar to 23 July 2020 and 25 January 2021.
5 See !CJ, Order, 18 May 2020.
6. On 20 January 2021, Myanmar raised preliminary objections concerning the
jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application. By an Order of 28
January 2021, the Court, noting that the proceedings on the merits were then suspended,
fixed 20 May 2021 as the time-limit within which The Gambia could present a written
statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by
Myanmar. The Gambia filed its written statement on 20 April 2021, within the time limit
thus fixed.
7. By letters dated 6 October 2021 and considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the
Parties were informed that the Comi had decided to postpone the hearings to the week
of2 l February 2022, and a revised schedule of the hearings was communicated to them.
8. Following public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Myanmar on
21, 23, 25 and 28 February 2022, the Court delivered a quasi-unanimous Judgment
finding "that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article IX of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to entertain the Application filed
by the Republic of Gambia on 11 November 2019, and that the said Application is
admissible". 6
9. By an Order dated 22 July 2022, the Comi set 24 April 2023 as the deadline for
Myanmar to submit its Counter-Memorial. At the Respondent's request, the Court
issued further Orders on 6 April 2023 and 12 May 2023, extending the deadline first to
24 May 2023 and then to 24 August 2023. Myanmar's Counter-Memorial was submitted
within the extended time limit.
10. By an Order of 16 October 2023, the Court permitted the submission ofa Reply
by Gambia and a Rejoinder by Myanmar, setting 16 May 2024 and 16 December 2024
as the respective deadlines for these written submissions.
6 ICJ, Judgment, 22 July 2022, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (The Gambia v. ivfyanmm), Preliminary objections, Rep. 2022, p. 518, para. 115(5) - Vice-President
Xue appended a dissenting opinion.
11. On 15 November 2023, the Republic of the Maldives submitted a declaration of
intervention in the case within Article 63 of the Statute of the Court. On the same day,
a joint declaration of intervention was submitted by Canada, Denmark, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nmthern
Ireland (hereinafter referred to individually as "Canada", "Denmark", "France",
"Germany", "the Netherlands", and "the United Kingdom" and collectively as the "Joint
Declarants"), also invoking Article 63 of the Statute. In accordance with Article 83,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar immediately forwarded certified copies
of the Maldives' declaration and the Joint Declarants' declaration to Gambia and
Myanmar, notifying them that 15 January 2024 had been set as the deadline for
submitting written observations on these declarations. Myanmar and Gambia both filed
their observations within the allotted time frame.
12. In letters dated 24 January 2024, the Registrar informed the Parties, the
Maldives, and the Joint Declarants that, given Myanmar's objection to the admissibility
of the intervention declarations, the Comt was required, under Atticle 84, paragraph 2,
of its Rules, to hear arguments from both the States seeking to intervene and the Parties
regarding the admissibility of the declarations. The Court opted to conduct this through
a written procedure, and the Registrar further stated that the Court had set 26 February
2024 as the deadline for the States seeking to intervene to submit their written
observations on the admissibility of their declarations, and 26 March 2024 as the
deadline for the Parties to submit their responses.
13. By letters dated 24 January 2024, the Registrar informed the Pmties, the
Maldives and the Joint Declarants that, in light of Myanmar objection to the
admissibility of the declarations of intervention, the Court was required, pursuant to
Article 84, paragraph 2, of its Rules, to hear the States seeking to intervene and the
Parties on the admissibility of the declarations of intervention, and had decided to do so
by means of a written procedure. The Registrar further stated that the Court had fixed
26 February 2024 as the time-limit within which the States seeking to intervene could
furnish their written observations on the admissibility of their declarations and 26 March
2024 as the time-limit within which the Parties could furnish their written observations
in response.
14. The Maldives filed its written observations on the admissibility of its declaration
ofintervention on 21 Febrnary 2024, and the Joint Declarants filed theirs on 26 February
2024. The Parties subsequently submitted their responses on 26 March 2024.
15. By an Order of3 July 2024, the Court
(I) Unanimously,
Decides that the declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute
submitted by the Republic of the Maldives is admissible in so far as it concerns
the construction of provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(2) Unanimously,
Decides that the declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute
submitted jointly by Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic,
the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is admissible in so far as
it concerns the construction of provisions of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
B. The factual context of the case
16. The facts underlying the dispute object of the present case have been duly
documented. Despite Myanmar's lack of cooperation,7 investigation efforts have been
conducted and a number of reports produced under the auspices of the United Nations.
17. For decades, Myanmar has denied the Rohingyas their human rights. Already in
1993, the UN General Assembly expressed its concerns regarding the human rights
situation of the Rohingyas in Myanmar. 8 In 20 I 7, confronted with the deterioration of
the situation of the Rohingya minority, especially in the Rakhine State, the United
Nations Human Rights Council decided to create "urgently an independent international
fact-finding mission[ ... ] to establish the facts and circumstances of the alleged recent
human rights violations by military and security forces, and abuses, in Myanmar, in
particular in Rakhine State, including but not limited to arbitrary detention, torture and
inhuman treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence, extrajudicial, summary or
7 See General Assembly Resolutions 73/264, 22 December 2018: 74/246, 27 December 2019; 75/287, 18 June
2021; 77/227, 15 December2022; 78/219, 19 December 2023.
8 Resolution47/144, 1 March 1993, paras. 5-6.
arbitrary killings, enforced disappearances, forced displacement and unlawful
destruction of prope1iy". 9
18. In its first report, dated 12 September 2018, the UN Fact-Finding Mission found
that "[ o ]n the basis of the body of information collected, the mission has reasonable
grounds to conclude that serious crimes under international law have been
committed", 10 and added that, "[t]he crimes in Rakhine State, and the manner in which
they were perpetrated, are similar in nature, gravity and scope to those that have allowed
genocidal intent to be established in other contexts. Factors pointing to such intent
include the broader oppressive context and hate rhetoric; specific utterances of
commanders and direct perpetrators; exclusionary policies, including to alter the
demographic composition of Rakhine State; the level of organization indicating a plan
for destruction; and the extreme scale and brutality of the violence committed."11
19. One year later, in its last Repmi, the Mission found that "the evidence that infers
genocidal intent on the part of the State [ ... ] has strengthened, that there is a serious risk
that genocidal actions may occur or recur, and that Myanmar is failing in its obligation
to prevent genocide, to investigate genocide and to enact effective legislation
criminalizing and punishing genocide." 12 It affirmed that it "has reasonable grounds to
conclude that there is a strong inference of continuing genocidal intent on the part of the
State, that there is a serious risk of genocidal actions recurring, and that Myanmar is
failing in its obligation to prevent genocide, to investigate genocide and to enact
effective legislation criminalizing and punishing genocide." 13 And the Mission firmly
concluded that "Myanmar incurs State responsibility for committing genocide". 14
20. In 2024, pursuant to its resolution 52/31, the United Nations Human Rights
Council (UNHRC) requested "all United Nations mandate holders and human rights
mechanisms and international and regional coutis, tribunals and human rights bodies to
9 UNHRC, Resolution A/HRC/RES/34/22, 24 March 2017, para. 11.
10 Repmt of the detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar -
A/HRC/39/CRP.2, 18 September 2018, para. 83.
11 Ibid., para. 85.
12 "Detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar", 16 September 2009,
A/HRC/42/CRP.5, para. 667.
13 Ibid., para. 667.
14 Ibid., para. 213.
independently monitor the situation of human rights" and international humanitarian
law violations in Myanmar. The Report highlights massive violations of international
law since April 2023 including regarding conscription, as well as killings, arbitrary
atTests, and displacement, primarily due to military violence against civilians. 15 The
Report also stresses that members of the Rohingya group are systematically tmgeted by
the army of Myanmar, which deliberately burns down the buildings in which they take
refuge and shoots at them. 16
21. The United Nations General Assembly has echoed d the findings of the various
experts bodies and the serious concerns of the international community of States
regarding the situation of the Rohingyas in Myanmar:
• Following the first report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, 17 and
"the outbreak of violence in Rakhine State in August 2017 that has caused
hundreds of thousands of Rohingya civilians to flee", 18 the General Assembly
adopted Resolution 72/248 denouncing the "the unlawful use of force by nonState
actors and the excessive use of force by the military and security forces,
including extrajudicial killings, rape and other forms of sexual violence,
arbitrary detention and the unexplained disappearance of Rohingya civilians in
Rakhine State, and by reports oflarge-scale destruction of homes and systematic
evictions in northern Rakhine State, including the use of arson and violence". 19
• In its Resolution 73/264 adopted on 22 December 2018, the General Assembly
expressed "grave concern at the findings of the independent international factfinding
mission on Myanmar that there is sufficient information to warrant
investigation and prosecution so that a competent court may determine liability
for genocide in relation to the situation in Rakhine State, that crimes against
humanity and war crimes have been committed in Kachin, Rakbine and Shan
States, including murder, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, rape,
sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence, persecution and enslavement,
15 HRC, Situation of human rights in Myanmar, Report of the UNHCHR, A/HRC/57/56, distrib. 4 September 2024,
para. 8.
16 Ibid., paras. 19-20.
17 See above para. 18.
18 Resolution 72/248, 24 December 2017, preamble, para. 6.
19 Ibid., preamble, para. 11.
that children were subjected to and witnessed serious human rights violations,
including killing, maiming and sexual violence, that there are reasonable
grounds to conclude that serious crimes under international law have been
committed that warrant criminal investigation and prosecution and that the
military has consistently failed to respect international human rights law and
international humanitarian law" and "[ s ]trongly condemn[ ed] all violations and
abuses of human rights in Myanmar, as set out in the report of the fact-finding
mission, including the widespread, systematic and gross human rights violations
and abuses committed in Rakhine State, including the presence of elements of
extermination and deportation and the systematic oppression and discrimination
that that the fact-finding mission concluded may amount to persecution and to
the crime of apartheid". 20
• In its Resolution 78/219 of 19 December 2023, the General Assembly once again
reiterates its grave concerns regarding the massive use of force by the Myanmar
army and the massive violations of the rights of the Rohingya people, takes note
of the order of the International Court of Justice of 23 January 2020 indicating
provisional measures and urges Myanmar, in accordance with the Court's order
in relation to members of the Rohingya in its territory, to take all measures within
its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article 2 of
the Convention.21
C. Motives of the Republic of Slovenia's Intervention
22. Although an intervention under Article 63 of the Statute is as of right, the
Republic of Slovenia deems it appropriate to explain the reasons that prompted it to
intervene in the present case. They reflect its attachment to the integrity of the Genocide
Convention, to which it gives particular importance, both as a member of the
international community of States, all of which are concerned with the prevention and
punishment of genocide, and for more specific reasons of its own.
20 Resolution 73/264, 22 December 2018, paras. 1-2.
21 Resolution, 78/219, 19 December 2023, para. 11.
(i) All members of the international community of States are concerned by
safeguarding the integrity of the Convention
23. In the above-cited resolutions, the General Assembly of the United Nations
encouraged and welcomed the assistance and suppmi of the "international community"
in the crisis.22 In this regard, the well-known dictum of the Comi in Barcelona Ti·action
must be kept in mind:
"In pmiicular, an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations
of a State towards the international community as a whole, and those arising visa-
vis another State in the field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature the
former are the concern of all States. In view of the impmiance of the rights
involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their protection; they
are obligations erga omnes."23
24. The obligations enshrined in the Genocide Convention undoubtedly have an erga
omnes character. 24
25. Slovenia, as a member of the international community of States as a whole, as a
Member State of the United Nations that voted for the resolutions mentioned above, and
as a party to the Genocide Convention, has an interest in the correct interpretation,
application and fulfilment of the Genocide Convention, both in respect of Myanmar's
obligations and of its own rights and obligations.
26. The Court has made clear that the Genocide Convention contains obligations
erga omnes, and that the prohibition of genocide has the character of a peremptory norm
(jus cogens).25
22 See General Assembly Resolutions 72/248, 24 December 2017, paras. 23 and 26; 73/264, 22 December 2018,
paras. 8, 12-13, 15 and 17; 74/246, 27 December 2019, paras. 5-6; 77/227, 15 December 2022, para. 19; 78/219,
19 December 2023, para. 19.
23 ICJ, Judgment, 5 February 1970, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain)
(New Application: 1962), Second Phase, Rep. 1970, p. 32, para. 33.
2•1 See below para. 27.
25 !CJ, Judgment, 3 February 2006, Armed Activities on the Territo,y of the Congo (New Application: 2002)
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application,
Rep. 2006, pp. 31-32, para. 64; !CJ, Judgment, 3 February 2015, Application of the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment Q(lhe Crime of Genocide (Crnatia v. Serbia), Merits, Rep. 2015, p. 47, para. 87.
27. In its Order dated 23 January 2020,26 the Court recalled that in its Advisory
Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention, it observed that:
"In 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'etre 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. ,m
The Court added that:
"In view of their shared values, all the States parties to the Genocide Convention
have a common interest to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented and that, if
they occur, their authors do not enjoy impunity. That common interest implies
that the obligations in question are owed by any State party to all the other States
parties to the Convention. In its Judgment in the case concerning Questions
relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), the
Court observed that the relevant provisions in the Convention against Tmiure
were "similar" to those in the Genocide Convention. The Comi held that these
provisions generated "obligations [which] may be defined as 'obligations erga
omnes partes' in the sense that each State party has an interest in compliance
with them in any given case" (Judgment, lC.J Reports 2012 (II), p. 449, para.
68). It follows that any State party to the Genocide Convention, and not only a
specially affected State, may invoke the responsibility of another State patiy with
a view to ascertaining the alleged failure to comply with its obligations erga
omnes partes, and to bring that failure to an end."28
28. By accepting the Genocide Convention, the Contracting Patiies have committed
themselves to prevent genocide doing "their best to ensure that such acts [referred to in
Article III of the Convention] do not occur"29 and "and that, if they occur, their authors
do not enjoy impunity."30 These obligations "implies that the obligations in question are
owed by m1y State party to all the other States patiies to the Convention". 31 They of
course bear upon Israel as well as Slovenia and all other Patiies to the Convention.
26 ICJ, Order, 23 January 2020, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Request for the indication of provisional measures, Rep. 2020, para. 41.
27 Ibid, para. 41 quoting !CJ, Advisory Opinion, 28 May 1951, Reservations to the Convention on the Preventfon
and Punishment qf the Crime of Genocide, Rep. 1951, p. 23.
28 Ibid.
29 ICJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 223, para. 432.
30 ICJ, Order, 23 January 2020, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Request for the indication of provisional measures, Rep. 2020, para. 41.
31 Ibid.
29. It is with an awareness of these rights and obligations that Slovenia wishes to
30.
31.
intervene in the case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar in order to be able to
present its views on the interpretation of the Convention.
(ii) Slovenia's specific interest in the present case
In addition to these general considerations, which also inspired the joint
intervention of six States and that of the Maldives, there are more specific reasons why
Slovenia wishes to intervene in this case.
(i)
Slovenia has long expressed its concern about the fate of the Rohingya people:
Slovenia has repeatedly issued statements at high governmental levels
condemning the mistreatment and suffering inflicted on the Rohingya
people;32thus,
(ii) Slovenia has sponsored and approved a number of resolutions of international
bodies, including the UN General Assembly, concerning the Rohingya people;33
(iii) It has co-shaped a number of initiatives for the well-being of the Rohingya
population at the European or international levels;34
(iv) It has approved and implemented the EU sanctions following the abuses of the
Myanmar military against the Rohingyas in 2018;35 and, more generally,
32 See e.g.: Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the 39th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Geneva,
18 September 2018, available at: https://www.gov.si/assets/predstavnistva/Zeneva/Dokumenti/izjave/SCP-39-
SL0/20 l 80918 Mjanmar.pdf; Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the 37th Session of the UPR Working
Group Review of Myanmar, Geneva, 25 January 2021, available at:
https://www.gov.si/assets/predstavnistva/Zeneva/Dokumenti/izjave/UPR-37-ENG/23015 48 _ UPR3 7-Statementby-
Slovenia-Myan.pdf; Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the UN Security Council briefing on the situation
in Myanmar, New York, 4 April 2024, available at: https://buildingtrust.si/statement/statement-on-the-situationin-
myanmar/; Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the Arria-formula meeting on Myanmar, New York, 29
May, 2024, available at: https://buildingtrust.si/statement/statement-on-the-situation-in-myanmar-2/.
33 See e.g.: Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the 39th Session of the UN Human Rights, Geneva, 18
September 2018; Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the 4 l'' Session of the UN Human Rights Council,
Geneva, 3 July 2019, available at: https://www.gov.si/assets/predstavnistva/Zeneva/Dokumenti/izjave/SCP-41-
ENG/ltem 4 Final.pd f. See also Resolutions A/C.3/73/L.5 I, 31 October 2018 and A/C.3/75/L.34, 30 October
2020, sponsored by Slovenia; Statement by the Republic of Slovenia at the UN Security Council briefing on the
situation in Myanmar, 4 April 2024.
3
'
1 The European Union humanitarian assistance to Myanmar has amounted to €414 million since 1994, helping to
provide notably food and healthcare (See: European Commission, European Civil Protection and Humanitarian
Aid Operations, Myanmar/Burna, available at: https://civil-prot~ction-humanilarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/asiaand-
pacific/myanmarburma en?prefLang=el).
35 See e.g. Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Myanmar/Burma and
Decision 2013/184/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma.
(v) Slovenia is committed to preventing and punishing acts of genocide, regardless
of where it occurs or who is responsible.
32. There are also two more specific reasons, not directly related to the Rohingya
case, which justify the particular interest of Slovenia to request pe1mission to intervene
in this case:
- Firstly, Slovenia, informed by its experience as a former Yugoslav republic in
a region scaiTed by the Srebrenica genocide, the first genocide recognized by the Court
in its Judgment of 11 July 1996, can hardly remain indifferent to The Gambia v.
Myanmar case;
- Secondly, Slovenia is deeply committed to the effective sanctioning of
international crimes. This commitment is clearly demonstrated by Slovenia's
instrumental role in the negotiation and conclusion of the Convention on international
cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of the crime of genocide, crimes against
humanity, war crimes and other international crimes. This landmark Convention, signed
in Ljubljana on 26 May 2023, represents a significant step towards achieving the same
objective of accountability that drives Slovenia's request for pe1mission to intervene in
the case concerning The Gambia v. Myanmar.
II. Object and Purpose of tbe Republic of Slovenia's Intervention
33. Article 63 of the Court's Statute reads as follows:
"1. Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those
concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such
states forthwith.
2. Every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings; but if it
uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding
upon it."
Slovenia was informed by the Court's Registrar on 24 January 2020 about the filing of an
Application by The Gambia to institute proceedings against Myanmar. 36 This notification was
made because The Gambia's Application is based on the Genocide Convention, to which
36 Letter of24 January 2020 from the Registrar of the Court sent to the Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia
to the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Court's Statute (Annex I)
Slovenia is a party, and whose all the substantial provisions are subject to construction in the
present case.
A. The Republic of Slovenia is a Party to the Genocide Convention
34. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the
Convention on 11 December 1948 and 29 August 1950, respectively. Slovenia has
succeeded the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as of25 June 1991 as a
Party to the Genocide Convention.
35. The act of notification of succession in respect of United Nations Conventions
is published in the Official Gazette of Slovenia - M P, n. 35/92. The declaration on the
succession of the UN conventions was deposited in the UN Secretariat on 6 July 1992.
The UN Secretary-General confirmed the succession of Slovenia in a note dated 22
October 1992, with the effect of the declaration as of25 June 1991.37
36. As a State Party to the Convention, in accordance with Atiicle 63, paragraph 1,
of the Statute of the Court, the Government of Slovenia has been duly notified by a letter
from the Registrar dated 11 November 2019, that "the construction of Articles I, III, IV,
V and VI may be in question in the case".
3 7. By this Declaration, Slovenia avails itself of its right to intervene under Article
63 of the Statute prior to the filing of its Rejoinder by Myanmar.
B. The interpretation of virtually all the substantial provisions of the
Convention is in question in the present case
38. Atticle 82 of the Rules of Comi provides the procedural framework for
applications to intervene under A1iicle 63 of the Statute of the Court:
1. A State which desires to avail itself of the right of intervention conferred upon
it by At·ticle 63 of the Statute shall file a declaration to that effect, signed in the
manner provided for in A1iicle 38, paragraph 3, of these Rules. Such a
37 See The declaration on the succession of the UN Conventions by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia
(Annex 2).
declaration shall be filed as soon as possible, and no later than the date fixed for
the filing of the Counter Memorial.
2. If the Court has authorized futiher written pleadings either under Article 45,
paragraph 2, or under Article 46, paragraph 2, or if a counter claim has been made in
accordance with Article 80, paragraph 2, of these Rules, a declaration of intervention
shall be filed as soon as possible, and not later than the date fixed for the filing of the
last written pleading.
39. In accordance with Article 82, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, Slovenia
40.
identifies hereafter "the pmiicular provisions" of the Genocide Convention "which it
considers to be in question" and specifies the "provisions for which it contends".
(i) The particular provisions of the Genocide Convention in question
The Gambia's Application focuses on Articles I, III, IV, V and VI of the
Genocide Convention.38 In the written proceedings on the merits, The Gambia
redesigned its submissions including by claiming
"(!) That the Republic of the Union of Myanmar is responsible for violations
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:
(a) in that members of its armed forces, police and other security forces, and
also persons for whose conduct it is responsible, committed genocide against
members of the Rohingya group on its territory by:
[ ... ]
(iv) imposing measures intended to prevent bitihs within the group;
with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in pmi, contrary to Atiicle
II of the Convention". 39
41. As confitmed by the Court, "Atiicles I, II, IV, V and VI of the Genocide
Convention( ... ) are in question at the merits stage of the proceedings. In particular, and
contrary to Myanmar's contention,40 the construction of A1iicle II is concerned at the
current stage. Atiicle II is a key provision of the Convention, since it defines the acts
and specific intent constituting genocide and informs several other provisions of the
38 ICJ, Application instituting proceedings and Request for the indication of provisional measures, 11 November
2019, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v.
Myanmar), pp. 56-57, paras. 111 and 112.
39 ICJ, Judgment, 22 July 2022, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (The Gambia v. lvfyanmmy, Preliminary objections, Rep. 2022, pp. 487-489, para. 24.
40 ICJ, Order, 22 July 2022, Applicatfon of the Convention on the Preventfon and Punishment of the Crhne of
Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmmy, Admissibility of the declarations of intervention, Rep. 2022, p. 8, para. 37.
42.
Convention, such as A1ticles I, III, IV, V and VI, the violation of which is alleged in the
Application.
(ii) Statement of the relevant provisions for which Slovenia contends
Slovenia states below its interpretation of Articles I, II, III, and IV to VI of the
Genocide Convention. This statement is made in accordance with Article 31 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "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 object and purpose" considering also pertinent subsequent international law
agreements or practice. The preparatory work for the Genocide Convention will also be
taken into account, in accordance with Article 32 of the Vienna Convention. Slovenia
reserves its right to develop and complement the proposed interpretation in subsequent
phases of the proceedings.
Article I
43. Article I of the Convention on Genocide provides that "[t]he Contracting Patties
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."
44. This is undoubtedly one of the most basic provisions of the Convention. It
introduces the fundamental idea that genocide is a crime under international law and
that there is a general prohibition to commit genocide. As affirmed by the Court "taking
into account the established purpose of the Convention, the effect of Article I is to
prohibit States from themselves committing genocide".41 This requires States not to
commit genocide through the acts mentioned at Article III of the Convention.
45. Fundamentally, Article I must be read bearing in mind that the prohibition of the
crime of genocide has acquired the status of a norm of jus co gens in international law. 42
41 ICJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convenhon on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
a/Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 113, para. 166.
42 !CJ, Judgment, 3 February 2006, Armed Activities on the Terri/my of the Congo (New Application: 2002)
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application,
Rep. 2006, p. 32, para. 64; !CJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime a/Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbfo and A4ontenegro), Rep, 2007, p. 111,
46. Moreover, Article I sets out two other distinct obligations ansmg from the
prohibition on committing genocide: States also unde1iake to prevent and to punish the
crime of genocide.
47. States have an obligation to prevent genocide under Article I of the Convention.43
As the Comi has pointed out, the obligation to prevent "arises at the instant that the State
learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that
genocide will be committed."44 The State in which the genocide is taking place is in the
best position to be aware of the existence of a risk of genocide. Contextual elements
such as reports from international organisations highlighting a risk of genocide are also
likely to alert it to the existence of a crime of genocide.
48. The risk existing,45 States have "to employ all means reasonably available to
them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible".46 States have to take measures which
are "within [their] power".47 Again, it should be kept in mind that the State which has
jurisdiction over the territory where genocide is committed is the best placed to prevent
genocide. The commission of genocide by agents of the State as well as public
incitement to commit genocide by these agents is sufficient in itself to constitute a
breach of the obligation to prevent the commission of genocide or genocidal acts.
49. Article I also establishes the obligation to punish genocide. This obligation is
developed elsewhere in A1iicles IV and VI of the Convention and requires at least the
State to incorporate into its domestic law the prohibition of genocide as a crime.
Article II
50. Alticle II of the Genocide Convention reads as follows:
para. 161. See also Draft conclusions on identification and legal consequences ofperempt01J1 norms of general
international law (Jus cogens), with commentaries, Article 23 and Annex, A/77/10, p. 16.
43 !CJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment ~(the Crime
a/Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 113, para. 165.
44 Ibid., p. 222, para. 431.
45 Ibid.
'16 Ibid., para. 430.
47 ICJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
a/Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 221, para. 430.
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
( c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destrnction in whole or in part;
( d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
This provision is fully applicable in the present case.
51. As defined by Article II genocide implies the intention (i) to destroy, in whole or
in pati, a group of individuals (ii) by carrying out acts, which must be understood
broadly (iii).
The "intent" to destroy
52. Realisation of a genocide or of genocidal acts necessitates the determination of
a specific intent ("do/us specialis"). This intent aims the destruction of a protected
group.48
53. While the existence of genocidal intent is necessmy to demonstrate the existence
of genocide, this intent must be assessed in the light of the definition of genocide set out
in Article I.49 As provided in Resolution 96(1) of the General Assembly of 11 December
1946, expressly mentioned in the Preamble of the Genocide Convention, genocide is "a
denial of the right to existence of entire human groups". Still in the Preamble, genocide
is prohibited to avoid "great losses on humanity". It was also acknowledged by the Comi
that the object of the Convention is to safeguard "the very existence of ce1iain human
groups".50 As affirmed by the Court, when treaties are interpreted, "[it] must be given
48 ICJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convention on the Preventfon and Punishment of the Crhne
of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 113, para. 166 and p. 121, para.
187. See also !CJ, Advisory opinion, 8 July 1996, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Rep. 1996,
p. 240, para. 26; ICTY, Judgment, 2 August 2001, Krstic, para. 571.
49 See above, para 43.
50 ICJ, Judgment, 3 Februaiy 2015, ApplicaNon of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
a/Genocide (Croatia v, Serbia), Merits, Rep. 2015, p. 64, para. 139 mentioning "Reservations to the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, Rep. 1951, p. 23, and Application
their maximum effect in order to ensure the achievement of their underlying
purposes".51 Too narrow an apprehension of genocidal intent would not allow the
Genocide Convention to achieve its purpose.
54. Moreover, the genocidal intention cannot be envisaged then as a requirement that
an official or an institution of the State, or an individual or a group of individuals,
carrying out genocide state it expressis verbis. Such an interpretation would turn the
Convention into an empty shell, as those responsible for genocide and genocidal acts
typically conceal their true intentions. The existence of this intentional element - "to
destroy, in whole or in part" a group -, without being assimilated to the material acts,
can be deduced from them.52 It is therefore possible to consider all the acts together to
demonstrate the existence of genocidal intent.53 For example, a large-scale operation to
kill members of a group, within the meaning of Article II, is often the most obvious
manifestation of the intention to destroy that group. 54
-A group, in whole or in part
55. Regarding the definition of the protected group aimed, it should be defined
according to both objective and subjective criteria. The recognition of the existence of
a group in the domestic law of the State responsible for genocide is an element which
indisputably establishes the existence of a group in the sense of Article II.
56. A protected group does not have to be exterminated or subject as a whole to an
intention of extermination for the existence of genocide to be established. It is sufficient
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment oft he Crime a/Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia
and Montenegro), Judgment, Rep. 2007 (!), p. 125, para. 194".
" ICJ, Judgment, 18 July 1966, South West Afi'ica (Ethiopia v. South Afi'ica), Rep. 1966, p. 48, para. 91.
52 ICJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Conventfon on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 122, para. 189; ICTY, Judgment,
12 December 2012, To!imir, para. 745.
53 JCTY, Judgment, 12 December 2012, To/imir, para. 745 mentioning ICTY, Appeal Judgment, 22 March 2006,
Stakic Appeal Judgement, para. 55. See also ICTR, Appeal Judgment, 8 May 2012, Hategekimana, para. 133;
ICTR, Appeal Judgment, 28 September 20 I I, Munyakazi Appeal Judgement, para. 142 (holding that an accused's
intent to participate in a crime may be inferred from circumstantial evidence).
54 ICJ, Judgment, 3 February 2015, Application of the ConvenNon on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Merits, Rep. 20! 5, p. 64, para. 139; !CJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia
and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 125, para. 194.
for a substantial part of the group to be affected. 55 The substantial part of the group does
not mean that a large part or a majority of the group must be targeted. As highlighted by
the preparatory work, the acts must be aimed at more than a small number of
individuals. 56 Moreover, determining whether a group is substantial always depends on
the circumstances of the case. 57 In short, the acts suffered, even by only substantial pmi
of the group, must be intended to harm the group as a whole. 58
- The list of material acts mentioned in Article II should be inte1preted broadly
57. Article II sets out a list of material acts that may constitute acts of genocide. In
light of the hmTific acts still committed nowadays, Slovenia considers that subparagraph
(c) should be interpreted broadly. Considering the object and purpose of the Convention
and the chapeau of Article II, any act that embodies an intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a protected group can constitute the material element of genocide. This includes,
among other things, but not limited to, forced and repeated displacements of populations
and/or the deprivation and/or destruction of essential goods in such a way as to put an
end to life-sustaining conditions. The latter have to be envisaged with regard to
fundamental human rights, as defined by the rest of the body of international law.
Article III
58. Atiicle III provides that
"The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
( c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
( d) Attempt to commit genocide;
55 ICJ) Judgment, 26 February 2007) AppUcation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Rep. 2007, p. 126, para. 198; ICTY, Judgment,
19 April 2004, Krstic, para. 12; ICC, Pre-trial Chamber I, Judgment, 4 March 2009, Al Bashir, para. 146.
56 UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Coutt, Report
of the PreparatmJ' Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court) 14 April 1998,
A/CONF.183/2/Add. l, 11, fn I.
57 ICTY, Judgment, 19 April 2004, Krstic, paras. 12-14. See also lCTY, Judgment, 11 July 2013, Karadzic,
paras. 66-68.
58 ICJ, Judgment, 26 February 2007, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment oft he Crime
of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro}, Rep. 2007, p. 121, para. 187.
( e) Complicity in genocide.
59. This atiicle lists some of the punishable acts related to preparing, aiding, and
permitting the commission of the crime of genocide. Considering these acts as
punishable offenses linked to genocide reinforces the obligation to prevent genocide, as
provided in Articles I and IV to VI of the Genocide Convention. The list mentioned in
Atiicle III shows that the Genocide Convention addresses situations more broadly than
the direct commission of genocide.59 Excluding subparagraph (a), the other acts
mentioned inAtiicle III can be established and punished regardless of whether genocide
was actually committed. 60
Articles IV to VI
60. Articles IV to VI of the Genocide Convention provide that
Atiicle IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III
shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public
officials or private individuals.
Atiicle V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective
Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the
present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons
guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in atiicle III.
Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III
shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act
was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction
with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its
jurisdiction.
59 C.J. TAMS, L. BERSTER et B. SCHIFFBAUER, Convention on the Prevention and Punfahment of the Crime of
Genocide, A CmmnentaJJ', London, Beck/Hart, 2014, A11icle III, p. 159, para. 3 mentioning in fn 9: "UN Doc.
E/AC.25/SR.87, 254" ..
60 See for example UN Economic and Social Council, Ad hoe committee on Genodde, Summary Record of the
Sexteenth Meeting, 22 April 1948, UN Doc. E/AC.25/SR.16, p. 3; see also Eighty-Fourth Meeting, Continuation
of the consideration of the draft convention on genocide [E/794]: report of the Economic and Social Council
[A/633], UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.84, p. 214 and Eighty-Five Meeting, Continuation of the consideration of the draft
convention on genocide [E/794], UN Doc. A/C.6/SR.85, p. 222.
61. These provisions echo Article I, which sets out the obligation to punish the crime
of genocide. They organise the procedures to ensure that public and private persons
responsible for the crime of genocide or genocidal acts are effectively punished:
regardless of the individual's position, they must be prosecuted for 'crime of genocide'
and face penalties consistent with such a qualification before the competent
jurisdictions.
62. The obligation to prosecute those responsible for the crime of genocide applies
to all persons. This article must be interpreted in the light of developments in
international law, in particular the provisions of other international agreements. Notably,
the existence of immunities, including for heads of State, does not preclude prosecutions
when conducted by either the State of nationality of the person or international
jurisdictions.61
63. The prohibition and punishment of genocide must be formally introduced into
the national legislation of States. This obligation is not a superficial or formal one. Its
purpose must be "to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in
particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the
other acts enumerated in atiicle III." (Article V) Accordingly, punishing the acts referred
to inAtiicle III without taking account of the fact that they are aimed at genocide would
be insufficient to satisfy the obligation contained in Atiicle V of the Convention.
III. Conclusion
64. By the present Request, Slovenia respectfully requests the Comi to permit its
intervention, by virtue of A1iicle 63 of the Statute, in the proceedings brought by Gambia
against Myanmar concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Slovenia reserves the right to present
supplementary argument and observations in writing and orally as and when the
procedure ordered by the Comi offers it the occasion to do so.
61 ICTY Statute, Article 7(2); ICTR Statute, Article 6(2); Rome Statute, Article 27. See also !CJ, Judgment, 14
February 2002, Arrest Warrant of I I April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Questions of
jurisdiction and/or admissibility, Rep. 2002, pp. 25-26, para. 61.
65. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia has appointed the undersigned as
Agent for the purposes of this Declaration, together with Mr. Helmut Hartman and Ms.
Barbara Granda, as Co-Agents for the Republic of Slovenia. The Registrar of the Court
may channel all communication through them at the following address:
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia in The Hague
Anna Paulownastraat 11
2518 BA The Hague
The Netherlands
Respectfully,
Dr Marko Rakovec
Agent of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia
IV. Annexes
The following documents are attached in support of this Declaration:
1. Letter of24 January 2020 from the Registrar of the Comt sent to the Ambassador
of the Republic of Slovenia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to
Alticle 63(1) of the Court's Statute;
2. Declaration of 1 July 1992 on the succession of the UN Conventions by the
Government of the Republic of Slovenia.

--
'
CO\Jlll.\1 1l·ltt-lldl(JC-.J1\!I . INIIRN1\llllMAl 1·\lllll\'
Dl'HI\IH.I (llftl.',!lU
153168 24 January 2020
~ VELEPOSLANISTVO REPUBLIKE SLOVENIJt
,, HAAG
,-~-------
Si(J. w;-,1<
' ,..,f1C:./f_:1r1 2 8 JAN. 2020
·,;~.;;;-,-;---·-·--1 Pu10,w •• V ved\\iJ,._,,,/_.._.o.
I have the honour to refer to my !lf.tteT(N6:·T~167)aare·ct I November 2019 informing
your Government that the Republic of The Gambia filed in the Registry of the.Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Republic of the Union of Myanmar in the case concerning
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(The Gambia v. Myanmar). 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-cij.org),
Article 63, paragraph I, of the Statute of the Court provides that:
[w]henever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such
States forthwith".
Further, under Article 43, paragraph l, of the Rules of Court:
"Whenever the construction of a convention to which States other than those
concerned in the case are parties may be in question within the meaning of Article 63,
paragraph I, of the Statute, the Court shall c01isider what directions shall be given to
the Registrar in the matter."
On the instrnctions of the Court, given in accordance with the said provision of the Rules of
Court, I have the honour to notify your Government of the following.
In the above-mentioned Application, the Applicant seeks to found the Court's jurisdiction on
the cornpromissory clause contained in Article IX of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the "Genocide Convention") and alleges that the
Respondent has violated Articles I, III, N, V and VI of the Convention. It therefore appears that
the construction of this instrument will be in question in the case
H.E. the Ambassador
of the Republic of Slovenia
lo the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia
The Hague
Palais de la Paix, Camegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye- Pays-Bas
TCICphone +31 {0) 70 302 21 23 - Facsimile: +31 (0) 70 364 99 28
Site Internet : www.icj-cij.org
Peace Palace, Camegieplein 2
2517 KJ The Hague - Netherlands
.I.
Telephone: + 31 (0) 70 302 23 23 - Telefax: + 31 {0) 70 364 99 28
Website: www.icj-cij.org
COUR INTrnMATIONALE
nr 11.rn1cr
INTfRNATIONAL COU[tl"
OF JIJSTlCL
Your country is included in the list of parties to the Genocide Convention. The present letter
should accordingly be regarded as the notification contemplated by Article 63, paragraph 1, of the
Statute. 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, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
I
- 2 -
L
Philippe Gautier
Registrar
REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Your Excellency,
Ljubljana, 1 July 1992
I have the honour to inform you on the position of the
Republic of Slovenia concerning international treaties
concluded by SFR Yugoslavia.
When declaring independence on 25 June, 1991 the Parliament
of the Republic of Slovenia determined that international
treaties which had been concluded by the SFRY and which
related to the Republic of Slovenia remained effective on
its territory (Article 3 of the Constitutional Law on the
implementation of the Constitutional Charter on the
Independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Slovenia -
Official Gazette of the R.S. No.1/91). This decision was
tal1:en in consideration of customary international law and of
the fact that the Republic of Slovenia, as a former
constituent part of the Yugoslav Federation, had granted its
agreement to the ratification of the international treaties
in accordance with the then valid constitutional provisions.
The Republic of Slovenia therefore in principle aclmowledges
the continuity of treaty rights and obligations under the
international treaties concluded by the SFRY before 25 June,
1991, but since it is lilcely that certain treaties may have
lapsed by the date of independence of Slovenia or may be
outdated, it seems essential that each treaty be subjected
to legal examination.
The Government of the Republic of Slovenia has eirnmined 55
multilateral treaties for which Your Excellency has assumed
the depositary functions. I have the honour to inform you
that the Republic of Slovenia considers to be bound by these
treaties by virtue of succession to the SFR Yugoslavia in
respect of the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. Please
find a list of these treaties attached to this letter.
Other treaties, for which the Secretary-General of the
United Nations is the depositary and which had been ratified
by the SFRY, have not yet been examined by the competent
authorities of the Republic of Slovenia. We will inform you
on our position concerning these treaties in due course.
61000 Ljubljana, GregorCiCeva 25, Slovenia
Phone ++38 61 15 03 00, Pax ++38 61 21 33 57
Please accept, Your Excellency, the assurances of my highest
consideration.
His Excellency
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
Secretary-General of
the United Nations
New Yorl,
Dr. Dimi trij Rupel
M i n i s t e r
''
!\Ef'UBLIC OP SLOVENIA
Mi11is11y lor 1:on:ign Affairs
L:jubJjana, 1 July 1992
LIBT OF MULTILA~l'EHi\L 'J.'ltEA'.I'IT~S l(EFE:nnED 'l'O IN 'l'IlE LErru.r]~R
DN.l.'J•:D 1 ,JULY 19~12
1.. Convention on the P.rivi1egcs and Irnmuniti0s of t.he
United. Nat:·ions of 13 Feln:TlC:1ry J~)//.6;
2~ Convention on t.hG P.:civile9os nncl. Immunities of the
[~pecit•.li::-~ed Agenci'r.~s of 21 NovcrnbeJ:- 194 7;
rrlv~~ Republic of ,S1 ove:n:i.2:. ~:Ll.) 1 n.pply the ConV'ent:Lon to
ILO, F/\0, OME.SCO, Uff, JHIIJJ, Hl\O, UPO, ITU, lfaJMO, IP.AD
Drtd \t/lPO .
.3 ~ Vienn,::i. Conventj 011 on DJ.r, I. oHtriL.ic He li:\ t.ionf--.i 'Of lU Apr11
1961;
4 ., Opt:j_or1a.l Pr:oLocol to the Vi_crn10,· c,.1n'1cntion on Diplomat:Lc
H.ela.tJ_on::1 conc(·Jrn:Lns, the:! C~1Ji'.fHtJ.c;ocy ;.;;e::!ttlcrnent o[
I)ispu·tes of 10 nprJ.l 1961;
Ei .. \Ji(?JJ.nn Convention on ConDnl.;•-r· H0.J1:~t~_J.011s of 11 l\pril
J..9631
G G Cor,.vent:Lon on Spoclri.l Mir::rd.cn~~ of O Dccentb81' 1969;
7 ~ Convention on. the P.--ceV(::".!n.t:i_1n· ani} Ptn.1.ishr_nf';!t\t of Crime::;
ugaj.r1s·t It1ternut:ionally Prr>t:ectsa P0rsons, inclttdiny
Diplorno.t5.c Ag~ntG of 1-1- .clcc1::1nbr::r 1973;
n ,. Vj_en.na Convention 011 t:ho Rep:c(•,r:::r-:·!.r:d:DJ·.J.on. oJ: Stnter.:i in
t.fLoir Rc;lat:i.onc \·titb I1.1·l·.1>1:n.,.1tinn.al O.t~s_t~u:d.zn.t..ions of D.
Ur.1:i..ve.eGnl Cl1.i::u::a.c-1:(-~X: of 1,1 f.,1:\I'Ch 19 7 S ;·
9 ,, Convent,ion on t.he Pr8v~:ntj or1 ;,1pc1 Pur1inhrncnt. of the Crime
of Gr::1noci.cle of ~~ December J. 1.!li n;:
10 .. Conve:n.t:i.on J:ox· t-:.lv:~ Snppret;.<:• .i.c,n uf fhe 'I'.raff ic Pernons
and of the E;:pJoit.nt.:i.on n[ tt.i_c Prrn:titnti.on of: Ol·J;.ers
[,·I' 2J tl"·c·•l• ·1~r,[J• ·- ., • . ·'.> •.• l.,., .1 • ·-'" I
11~ [:upplemcnt,3.1'.'Y Convent.i..ou on tl1e J\.bolit.:i.on of Sl<'J.very,
t:hf"-~ Slave T.ri:1de, o.'r.td :Cnf:;t:.J.t•~t-.:i_nns and P.ract.i..ces
SJ..mi1nr t.o SJ;:i.vt~;ry of 7 fi'::ptc;11.hD.c 1956;
(l!OOO_,Li11lJ!j;t11;1. tir••J!111t"i\1•v,1 '.!!,, !>lovl'nia
!•11<111,• '1 Ill r,j !r, !)'I !)11, (';p; I I"\/! (1f :~r ')"\ !ii
c1f naci.al l)iscri1ninati.cJn C)f 7 r1n1·•c:l1 J.966;
l."J. I1.iLernr.1t:-..inn0l Covcnt1nt 011 r•:c·u11nrnlc, Soc.i.<11 ancl CnlLuraJ
l{i.yhLr; ol:' 16 Ur2cc:tnb12c J<J(iti;
1 11'~ InternatinnaJ CovenunL 011 (:iv.i . .l. ;11id Polif:-..j_cill Riql1ts of
16 Oecei11ber 196G;
'l'h.e Parliarnent of tl10 Rr::-~putdic o:L" ,3.lovenia. adopted the
follo1;,rj_ng Decluration~ iin_epnbl.i:c of Slovenia, in
accordance with Article 41 of l:hR r:aid Covenant,
recogn.i.ZC-;?f3 t11e compct·.cncr! t)L 1·!1(: ltuma11 Higl1Ln Connn1Ll:.ee
to receive o.ncl cqnsid.er cou1nu.uLLcal.:.ions submitted by
another state Party to the effect that a State Party
claims that a11ottler· s·tatc Party is not.fulfilling its
obligations under the Covena.nt. 11
Convention on the Non·-·AppLi.cabil:i.l~.y or Statutory
Lirni·l:ai·.ion~J !:.o War Cri111e~; .:=11id ( '.r i.mc~r; n~Ja.i..n::; t Humani [.y
of 26 November 19GD;
16. In:t-.erna.ti1.1nn.] Convenl Jon on i.l1c Supp.cession and
Punishment: of l.hn Cr-Lrnc! nJ· /i.p111 I lie id of :H) t,.Jovc~rnbe1-.
l.~!'/J;
17. Convenl::ion on the F:limi'na-1-.. i.uo n[ All Fo.rms of Discrirni···
na I:. .I' .on nga.~• .nr:t: \'l\O llt~)n o 1_· .t 1·.•, IJ cccrn I ;er ·.l.'.l.l'.~l ,·
lll" Convention on t.h.12 Politi_c..:1.1 Ei9lYl.:t1 of Women of Jl March
19'.i3;
19. Co11vention on the Nationall.iy ,,f Married Women of 20
Feb:cuary 19~57;
;,o. convenr.ion on the rU.qhl:c: 01: 11,,, et, i.ld ot J.O November
.l9U9;
The Republ..i.c or. Sloven:i.a rc,;:cnn,.•: t.hc Li gl1I·. not to apply
fHJra9r,:1ph J of ArLir:Je ~) nf !·!1e Convent-.ion rd_nce the
·in!-..-~rn0.l lcq·ird.nt.i.on of !·!i(~ 1-tc•pnhl.ic or:· t)Jnvc?..n:in.
p1.·ovidns t()'.i:· t:llc~ 1:·J~Jl1t. oL cc)n11_1ct·.c~11{-. LlttLhor.i.ties
(cr~11tres for soc:i.al work) to 1l(:!-.c-:i:-mine on t;eparat-:ic.Jn of
a chJ.ld [rom hi.:-:.-:/IH::r pr:1r-e11L;: \,Ji_l'.houl: r-1 prev:i.011;~ judic.i.aJ.
rc:v ·i c~t•!:
21. Convent.ion r.ela.t::Lnq to the :::;tat·.iJ.;:i of llcfugel':!S .o'f 2a auly
l~J!.)l;
22. ConvAnL.ion relat.iJirJ ·r.o Uv-~ ra:,~11~_1.1:1 of .::::-t.atele:-Js Persons
of 28 September 1954;
2J. Protocol relat:L1yJ t.o tlu:: ::_:1·.r1t·.u;: of J:\e.fuqees of 31
,January 1967;
24. Vienna Conventi .. on on the r,:11,.1 n[ 'J'r·en.·l:ir-r: of 23 May J.969;
2.5 .. V.Lf:'.nna Convr~nl:jrH1 on .~:uc,·.:r:,;;::inn nf: Sl:<1l·.c.r; -Ln ret:q:J~c-t-. of:
'J'fT•,Tt·.ic~,c:._; of ~!.J /\1\C]ll}~l. 19'/H;
~ G ~ 1 n Ler:no. l'.ionnJ Coaven [- ion ACJi'l i It~: L l:.he '.!.'a K.i.ng 0£ Hos t.c1ges
of J.7 December 1979;
2.7 _ Convention on Lon9·-H.an<,:1c-. '.r:r·nn!';l1011nd;:i.ry Air Pollut~i.orl of
13 November 1979_;
?.B .. Pro-t--.ocol Lo '1-.he J.979 Convr:'1t1·:i.on nn J,onq··•.Range
'.l.'rant:>TJ01nir..'l.·)ry A:i.r PoJ. lu-1:.ion 011 Lo1.1'q····'l'e.rm Finuncin{]
of the Co-·Opera.t~ive Proqrn111rn0 {or f,•JcJn.it.oring and
Evuluai~.i on of the LOll(J--Rr.1ncJc 1J'ransm:i.ssion of l\ir
Pollutants :i.n Europe (EMEi.') ,,f if\ for,pl:.ernber· 19B1;
29. Vienna Con.'-!-t~ntion for {·_l)c 1:·rc,·!·.ccLi.on of the Ozone
r.ayer of 25'~~1arch 1985;
JO. Montreal Pr:ut·.oc,)J. un ~~ubr:;t ;111ct~:-_; !.11,:Jt. dcplc.~l:e U1e
Ozor1~~ I,ayer of ]_6 Septct1tb01: 198'7;
Conventin11 on Pcyhol·Tnr>:i c r;11,h:-;l :-1nc0f:; of 7.1 February
19?1;
32 .. Single Conven'l-.j_on on Narco!--_j_c ur·11qr;, J.9(j1, a.s nrne.nded
by 't:.l-1e Protocol of L.!3 t·-1a.1-:r•l_1 ]CJ'/~). ame:ndtng t\10 Sln~(le
Convent.ion on Narcol·ic ur1.1qn 1 1LJ(_)J or n J\i.llJU~it l9'7~'ii
3 :J. tJni tecl Nat.1011.::-; Co1rvcnt:.io11 }\(}rJ.i.n:=;t_ Illicit 'l'raffic in
Nar:·col:'i.c: Dt·t)(J;;
J9Hll;
itnd Pr;yl1ni- r·np i c S11hr: !·.anec-~::; o 1: "/() 1Jccc111h0.1--
34.
TI1e f.•/J.inist1.·y
the Republic
cer l:i f icc:1 t.e.s
fox· Health,
of Slovenia.
for· traffic:
1:,-n1t(i _i_y and S{JC ial Securi t·.y
i:-::; nu !--.horised to issue
w·i_1~h_r,a~cotic drugs.
Convent.ion on ·l:h0 Recovery /\ln:ofld of Mc1.intenance rif
20 ,"June J.9~)6;
o.l
'J'f-1(·} Gov0.rnmc~11t. or the 1-;r_:ri111--1 Ii<: oJ S l.nvr't1.i,-.\ cle:2;.L911.::1t.es
1'-.h0 Min.i.stry fo.r: Health, 11'<:-,nd .. l)'' r1nc\ ... ~::ocial .~;ccnrity as a
(_;01npentcnt nut1·1or.i.1·.y for th':'_:. purpof:ies envi.t;asrec1 i.n
l\rt.:Lcli::~ 7. nf ·IJ1c. Conv1:~111· ·i 011.
]!) " c,1.nvention concr-)rT1in9 Cn::;trn.11 i•t1f·,-i l i.\~ .i.es for 'l'ot1rin9 of
1 ,-J11ne 19 !~4;
Jti, Cn:Ji.:.om:-::; Convctll.Lon on t:h(-! '1.'•'1J1por·;-11 .. y .1.rn_pnJ t.;:-1tion of
Private Road Vehir:J.cr.1 of 11 ,-11uH:: J9!_J1;
.37. Cusi.:omr:; Conv<:!ll'L.i..on on U1e T11_1·_,---::r11a!:-.i.cn1c:1l 'l'runsport ot
Goods 1111.der Cover of 'J 1IH. ca.rn:::, 1- i.: ( TIR Conve:~ntion) o.E
14 November 1-97'.j;
lB ., Convention an(~l t;i~_r:1.tut.e o.tl v1-,:,0d()rn of 11'1:a11!=";;.i.t of 20
/\pi-.·j 1 19?.1;
' ,
39. Declaration 011 the Co11st~lict.ic)11 nf r1aj_n Ir1ternational
'l'raff.i.c Arte1.-:i.es of :1.6 f:~0pl-:.e1ul .. lr·•r· l lJ~it);
10. l-\qr·eernont. on Signs for H.nad \t.1()1·k::: ()[ JG Decr:)mber J.9!.)!j;
41. Convention on the Contract: fo1: U1e International
Carri.age of Goods by Road (CMll) of 19 May J.956;
42. European Aqreement concernin~J i.:)11_;; International Carriage
of Dangerous Goods by Road (AUR) of JO September 1957;
a) Protocol to the Convention on 1:1,e Contract for l:l1e
International Carriage of Goods by Road of 21 August
1975;
4.3. Convention on Road 'l'raf:Ej_c of n November 19GB;
In accordance TiJ:iLh para9rapl1 !J. of .l\rticJ.e _45 tlie
Government: of l-:.he Hepu l) J. :L c o l ::; l.oven.ia. has the honour to
infor:rn t.JH.l·I: l·llc d:i.f.:t-.ioq11ir;J1iiHJ r:i<_JJJ uf vc-~lLi.clc,c_:~
cc~9.i_r~t.c_->:r.f_'!d .i.11 Ll1e llc~rn1h/.Jc oi. t:ilovc~n.i.a .in :inl-.ernal.:.Lonal
traffic Js 11 SLCJ 11
•
1111-, r,;iirnpr.',:-:\H /\qn~r~n1<111!· r;u11plc•111c•Hl ir1q !·!ir·! f'.011vc•rJ"l·i.on on nnnd
'J.'ratJ:.i.c ope11c-d :Lor ..::JSjni.d .. 11.r.e .-,L V.i!~lt1H1 on ·n Nclvernber
19GB ~ Conclu.C!erl at Geneva 011 .I. M0.y 1971;
45 ~ European A9ree1t10nt on Mai11 Jntcrua.l:ional '11.ruffic
Arteries (AGR) of 15 Novem0er l97S;
46. European Agreement on Main International Rdilway Lines
of 31 May 1985;
47. International Convention on !:lle !Iarmoniza.t.i.on of
Frontier Control of Goods of Jl October J.902;
1J.O. Agreement 011 t.he Importat:i.on of l•:ducaUon,11, Scj_entiLLc
and Cultural Mal-.erials of 27. i,Jnve).n}x~r 19~0;
/J-9 ~ Prol".ocol t-..o l:hc~ /\9rr_~c•1nc:n!-. <)IJ I lie~ lrnpoi--1.,1\· .. i.on of
Ed11cal: . .io11i1J. 1 t:icJenl-...l.t.in i.l.Jld t:1111111 .. n.l. Mal-.cr.i.al:;: .oe
22 November 1950. Conclnde<'! c,r_ NCJ.i.rolJ.i 011 26 Nove1.nlx,r
1976;
50. Conventior1 c>n.tl1e Teiitoriftl Son and Cnntigt1otts Zorte of
29 April 195fJ;
52 .. Con.vent.ion on P:colliJJj_ i-_ion;:; or He,r:_:;trictions on the~ Use of
certain Conventional Wen.:r_Jun~~ \•ih.i c~h may be dee~nod to be
. e)\'.es::,ively injn.rio11F \n· -h~1 h;Jvr::' .i.nclisc.rimina{:e effects
of 10 October 1980;
ConvenLi.on on l·.:ht.': H.eco,Jnj ·l·.:i n11 ,01n1:l J~n fo.rcetnent of fr'o.rei9T1
/\cJJ1trr.'ll l\wn..ccl.s of .10 1-Jl11.1r) !. 1:i~)B,:
In accorda11ce with para~-1.r.;-=ipll . .1 nf ax!:.icle 1 the Republic
of Slovenia will apply i:J1e Co11vc11i:lon, on tl1e basj.s of
rcciproci l~.y, to the rPCCHJn ·U· .ion ru1d cnforcernenl:: of only
1-_hose award.•.; ;nade in (-.he !·.er.i:t l:c.,ry of ;-J.notl)er
Contraci:i11g State_ Tl1e Republic elf Slovenia will npply
U1e Convent.:i.on only t.o <'Li.:l'J:err-,nc,e,:s ilr.Lsing out of legal
relat:i.onE.:hips, whet.her co1i-l:._1 .. ,7cl·.u,1_] or not:, \lhich are
considered as corn1ncrcial under !.:bi?) national law of t-_hc
Republic of Slovenia.
!:i4~ J!:uropean Convc:!llt.ion on l11tc:r·11,1·( .ii.)nal Commercial
Arl:l.it:.rat:Lon of 21 i\pri.J. l.'Jt,J;
!:i5. International A<J~(·ecmcnt Lor 1·.he K'3Lnhlishrnenl-. of !:he
UnJvc::;rr:;ity for Peace of S Pccic:rnbc:r 19BO;

/
j 16.:.:!J. r TCL 212-779-15?1
I I
li'ilTED I'iATJO:\S
,.,;.,.T,\~ 11;•nko~-- .,,~.~~;;: ><'..,,;~~~:. ~1,1-t~ ,, .. ,;~•H. !l.f •1;~11
C:Ail~; ,.c~11c;,-,1,.:11cl~a: ri:::...i:c.,~•lll~Vt V!l).~:0111 1,~>'IVQ/1~
"'"'""· LA 41 TR/221/1 ( 3-1) (3-2) (3-3) (3-5), etc.
Tl,e Secretary-General of the UnitEd Nadons pr~sents
hh compliments to the Permanent Representative of the Republic
of Slovenia to the United Nations and has the honour. to confirm
the deposit, on 6 July 1992, of the notification of succession
by the Government of Slovenia to the following treaties:
1- Convention on the Privileges and tmmunities of the
United Nations, adopted by the General A$sembly of
the United Nations on 13 Febi:uary 1946;
2- Convention 011 the Privileges and lmrounities of the
Specialized Agencies, approved by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on
21 November 1947, in respect of ILO, FAO, UNESCO, IMF,
lBRD, vmo, UPU, ITU, WMO, IFC, IDA,··\HPD and IFAD;
3- Vi.enna Conventi.on on Diplomatic Relations, done at
Vienne on 18 April 1961;
4- Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention ~n
Diplomatic Relations concerning the Gomfulsory
Settlement of Disputes, done at Vienna on
18 April 1%1;
5- Vienna Conventio11 on Consular Relations 1 done at
Vienna on 24 April 1963;
6- Convention on Special Missions, adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on
8 December 1969;
7- CcnYenticn on t:he Prevenr:ion and PUI't.ishment of Crimes
a ainst lrn:8rnacicna.11y Procected Persons, inc.lud.ing
:..· ?lcma-cic. Agents, adopted by the General Assembly
o d:e lin~:2d N.ati.:ms on 14 D:acemi:::er 1973;
l: ti 11 E D ,i AT l O >I S
2
T~L 2·12-77~-l5·3t
11
8- 1/ienna Convention on the Repnsentation of States
in their Relations with Intarnation~l Organizations
of a Universal Character, conduded at Vienna on
14 March 1975;
9- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General As~embly
of the United Nations on 9 December 1948;
10- Inter~e.tional Conventton on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature
at New York on 7 March 1966;
11· Interuational Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 16 December 1966;
12- Intai;na t:ional Covenant on Ci vll and Poli t.ical Rights,
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
16 December 1966: Due note has been taken of the
declaration mada by Slovenia to the effect that it
recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Goll\Jllittee
under article 41;
13- Convention an the Non-Applical;iility of Statutory Limitations
to War Crimes and Crimes against flumanity, adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 26 November 1968;
14- International Convention an the Suppression and Punishmem:
of the Crime of Aparth~j 4, adopted by the General Ass.embly
of the United Nations on 30 November 1973;
15- Convention on tha Elirnins.cion of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women) adopted by the General Assembly oE th~
United Nations on 18 Decernb$r 19 79;
I<- Cor,venticn on the Rights of the Child, aduptod b cbe
G.;;;<;:"r.31 .1!.s3erubly of che L':!:'.ta<l ):a.i::io-n.s on 20 NoYenbel.:'
Dt:.e not>a has b~en t.Rken cf the rGBBrv.:1-:-.:.or, ~-J ar:icle
1989;
17- C:~ventioc relating to the St~c~s of Re£ugeas 1 s:gcecl a~
Gecava on 28 .July 1951;
F. 1!
L' N l TED I"lAT I O c·I S
18- Convention relating t:o the Status of Statal,ess Persons,
done at New York on 28 September 1954;
19, Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, done at New York
on 31 Januat·y 1967;
20· Conv•ntion on Psychotropic Substances, concluded at Vienna
on 21 February 1971;
21· Sin~le Convention on flarcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the
Protocol of 25 March 1972 amending the Single Convention on
:-iarcotic Drugs, 1961, done at New York on 8 August 1975;
22- United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, concluded et Vienna on
20 December 1988: Due note ha$ been taken of the declaration
concerning the designation of au;thority pursuant to
arcicle 17 (7) i
23- Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons
and of the xploitation of the Prostitution of Others,
opened for signature at Lake Success, New York,
on 21 March 1950;
24- Convention concerning Customs Facilities for Touring,
done at New York on 4 June 1950;
25~ Customs Convention on the Temporary Impcrtat:ion of Private
Road Vehicles, done at New York on 4 June 1954;
26· Customs Convantion on the lncernational Transport of Goods
under Cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention), conclc1ded at
Geneva on 14 November 1975;
27- Inter:ri.t:1.tional Convention on the H1Lrmonizatiori. ci Frontier
Control of Goods, concluded a~ Genev~ on 21 Oc:ober 1982:
~2 ~ecle~st~~n an tbe Ccnstructicn cf Mai~ !nte:~at~onal Traffic
A~~erie~. si£ned ac Geneva o~ 16 Sept~rnber 195::
P, J..2
I I
L' N I T E D t\ AT l O N S
. 4 -
2 9 • Agreemsnt on Signs for Road Works, amendirtg th• Europe.an
Agnement of 16 September 1950 supplementing the 1949
Convention on Road. Traffic and the l,9/i 9 Protocol on Road Signs
and Signals, concludad at Geneva on 16 December 195'i;
30, Convention 011 the Contract for the International Carriage of
Goods by Road (GMR), done at Geneva on 19 May 1956;
31· European Agreement concerning the International Carriage
of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), done at Geneva
on 30 September 1957:
32- Protocol amending article 14(3) of the European Agreement on
30 September 1957 concerning the International Carriage of
Dang~rous Goods by Road (ADR), concluded at New York on
21 August 1975:
33- Convention on Roi¼d Traffic, concluded at Vienna on
8 Nov<ilmber 1968: Due note has bee11 taken of the distinguishing
sign selected by Slovenia under article 45 (4);
34- Europ-ean Agreemem supplementing tlls Convention on
Road Traffic opened for signature at Vienrta on
8 November 1968, concluded at Geneva on l May 1911;
35- European Ap;reement on Ma.in International Traffic. Arterie.s
(AGR), concluded·at Geneva on 15 November 1975;
36· European Agreement on !fain International Rsil,aay Lines (AGC),
concluded at Geneva on 31 May 1985;
37- Agreement on tna Imμon,ation of Educational, Scientific a.nd
Cultural Materials, opened for signature a.t Lake $uc;cess 1
New York, on 22 Novtmber 1950;
38- Protocol to the Agn::err.ent: on the. Impor:':a..tion cf Educacicne..l,
Scienc!f~c and Culcural Matsrials of 22 November 1950,
conclu.d~d at Nairobi on 26 0ovember 1976:
1,· Int:crT,c.tic.:al Ag:-eemenr. for r::he Est3blishmer.t oi the Lnive:-:3ir.:i
for F~2..c$, adop"C:E;J by :.he General Ass'c.~Oly of the
l."nit.ed ~iati\'.m5 on 5 D~c~inber 1930;
,, __ ,,,. ·-··· .-- --.
! '
,32 !S:J,;
I'
UNITED 0ATJONS i',AT10NS UcilES
- 5 -
40h Con'rention on the Political Rights of Women 1 opened for
signature at New York on 31 March 1953;
41- Convention on the Nationality of Married Women,
done at New York on 20 February 1957;
42- Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave
Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery,
done at the European Office of the United Nations at Geneva
on 7 September 1956;
43· International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages,
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on
17 December 1979;
44- Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance,
done at New York on 20 June 1956: D~o note has been taken of
the desi3nadon of authority in accordanc• with article 2;
-··
45• Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,
done at Geneva on 29 April 1958;
\.~6- Convention on the High Seas, done at: Geneva on 29 April 1958;
47- Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign
Arbitral Awards, done at New York on 10 June 1958:
Due note has b~en taken of the declaration made in a..ccordnnce
with article I (3);
48~ Europe-a.11 Convcrntion on International Commercial Arbitrat:ion 1
done at Geneva on 21 April 1961:
49- Vienna Convention on the Law of Tre2.ti8s, concluded at Vienna
on 23 Hay 1969;
50• Vi~mna Convention on Succession of States i::-1 rei'apect of
Tr~aties, concluc!&d at Vienna on 23 Au~us:: 197:3;
5~- Convenrion on P:~hibit!cns or R~st:ic:!ons oc :!1s Cs~ c~
ceri:::d i.n Convenc:ional 7(fcapon:s which raay be Cee~eci t.o be
excessiyely injurious or to have i1~Cisc:-imin2.-:a effec"S.::
(and Prococols 1 1 II and III) 1 .::onclLlded .;!t Geneva on
LO October 1980;
;92 l:S:.'.!/
/ I I
6
52- Convention on Long .. Range T:i:anaboundary Air Pollution 1 concluded
at Geneva on 13 November 1979;
53- Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Trans boundary Air
Pollution on Long-Term Financing of the Go-operative Programme
for Monitoring and Evaluation of the Long-Range Trans1nission
of Air Pollutants in Europe (EHEF), concluded at Geneva on
28 September 1984;
54- Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer,
concluded at Vienna on 22 March 1985;
55- Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer,
concluded at Montreal on 16 September 1987; and
56 • Convencion and Statute on Freedom of Transit, Barcelona,
20 April 1921.
The said successions took effect as of 25 June 1991. thA rl~te m,
which Slovenia asswned responsibility for its international relations,
All States concerned are being informed accordingly.
22 October 1992 Jf.