Written comments of Honduras on the answers of Nicaragua to the questions posed by members of the Court during the oral proceedings
CORRESPONDEXCE 455
Written reply of the Republic of Nicaragua to the question put by Judge Bennouna at the public sitting held on the afternoon of 4 May 2012
EMBA§§Y OF NICARAGUA
THE HAGUE
RESPONSE TO JUDGE BENNOUNA'S QUESTION
THE QUESTION
«Les ll·ègRe psoséesà l'article 76 de la convention des Nations Unies de 1982 sur le droit
diela mer, pour la détermination diela limite extérieure du plateau continental au-delà
des 200 milles marins, peuvent-elles être considérées aujourd'hui comme ayant le
caractère de règles diedroit international coutumier »?
THE RESPONSE
Factual background
Documents submitted by the United States of America in response to a question put by President Ruda
ELETTRONICA SICULA
14 March 1989.
1have the honour Io transmit to Your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter
dated 13 March 1989 from the Deputy-Agent of the United States in the case
concerning Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), setting out the comments of the
United States on the written replies of Italy to questions put by Members of the
Chamber during the oral proceedings in that case.
14April 1989.
Croatia's comments on Serbia's written response to the question put to the Parties by Judge Abraham
Comments of the Republic of Croatia on the Republic ofSerbia's
further written observations of 6 June 2008
1. The Republic of Croatia notes the contents of the Republic of Serbia's 20-page response
wilh Sùrne surpris'ê. Contrary to established practice and against the background of its limited
first round arguments at the oral phase, the Respondent has taken the opportunity t.osummarise,
restate and then further develop the whole of its case on jurîsdiction ratione personae, and Lo
Supplementary replies from Belgium to the question put to it by Judge Greenwood at the close of the hearing held on 16 March 2012 (translation)
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF J USTICE
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite
(Belgium v. Senegal)
Reply of the Kingdom of Belgium to the question put
by Judge Greenwood
INTRODUCTION
1. Judge Greenwood’s question 1 was worded as follows:
Written comments of Italy on the replies given by the United States of America on 27 February 1989 to the questions put by Judges
CORRESPONDENCE 471
3. Equipment,materialsandpersonnel
With regard to the perplexities raised by you in the course of the meeting, 1
wish to point out the following:
Malaysia's comments on Singapore's written response to the question put by Judge Keith to Singapore at the public sitting held on 23 November 2007
Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)
Malaysia's Comments on Singapore's Response to
Judge Keith's Question of 23 November 2007
.'
Malaysia makes the following comments:
Introduction
1. Malaysia's reference to the Johor Agreement and the Federation
Germany's answers to the questions asked by Judges Higgins and Koroma
Answers to the Questions of Judge Higgins
Answer to Question (a):
The sustained breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
by the United States ôf America suffices to give rise to the international responsibility
of the United States. V\Jhile Germany does not need to establish the point in order for
the United States' responsibility to attach, Germany emphasizes that if the LaGrand
brothers had been notified in timely fashion under the Vienna Convention, assistance