other_document

Ll~GALCONSl~QUENCRS OFTl·m Sl~PAH.ATION OFTIII~ CIIAGOS
ARCIIIPl~LAGO FIU)M MAURITIUS IN 1965
(Rl~QtmST FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS)
.JOINT IU~SPONSI~ ownrn REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA
AND THE IUWUHLIC OF VANUATU
ON FRIDAY 7 SEPTEMHER 2019
Question (.Judge AnWnio Augusto Can~ado Trindadc, Cit 2018/25, p. 58):
As recalled in para~raph (a} ,?f the UN General As.,·embly :,· Request fhr an advisOIJ'
opinion <?(the International Court <?{.Justice, (Jenera/ Assembly resolution 71/292 of 22

Australian Government
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS IN 1965
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
QUESTION PUT BY JUDGE CANCADO TRINDADE
5 SEPTEMBER 2018
Question put by Judge Cancado Trindade:
"As recalled in paragraph (a) of the U.N. General Assembly's request for an Advisory
Opinion of the International Court of Justice (General Assembly resolution 71/292 of
22.06.2017), the General Assembly refers to obligations enshrined into successive pertinent

,.
WRITTEN REPLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF MAURITIUS TO JUDGE GAJA'S QUESTION
"In the process of decolonization relating to the Chagos Archipelago, what is the relevance of
the will of the population of Chagossian origin?"
I. The Chagos Archipelago having always been an integral part of the territory of
Mauritius, the "process of decolonization relating to the Chagos Archipelago" could
only be treated as a part of the decolonization of Mauritius as a whole.

Response to the question of Judge Tomka on the Report submitted on 30 April2017 by the
experts appointed by the Court
The text of a question asked by Judge T omka on our Report was transmitled to us by a letter of
the Registrar dated 12 June 2017. ln this document, we provide an answer to the question:
Text and question by Judge Tom ka
Could the Experts provide information, based on their observations during the two site visits
(December 2016 and March 2017), on whether they saw, in the close vicinity of the Caribbean

RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF COSTA RICA ON THE REPORT SUDMITTED ON
30 APRIL 2017 8\' THE EXPERTS APPOINTED BV THE COURT
IN THE CASE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE
PACIFIC OCEAN (COSTA RICA V. NICARAGUA)
Costa Rica's written observations on our Report of 30 April 2017 were transmitted tous by a
letter of the Registrar dated 2 June 2017. This letter also informed us thal Nicaragua indicated
that it would not make written observations on our Report.

Exccllcncy,
EMDASSY OF NICARAGUA
THE HAGUE
The llaguc, 1 June 20 17
REF: HOL-EMB-123
1 have the honour to refer to the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and
the Pacifie Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) which has been joined with the case concerning the Land
Boundary in lhe Northern part of Isla Porti/los (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), particularly to your lener
148492 transmitting the report prepared by the experts appointed by the Court, as wells as the meeting

Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacifie Ocean
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), joined with the Case Concerning Land Boundary
in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
Observations of Costa Rica upon the Report
prepared by the Court-appointed Experts
Pursuant to the Court's communication dated 1 May 2017, reference 148491, in the case
concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacifie Ocean (Costa Rica v.

MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN
(COSTA RICA V. NICARAGUA)
EXPERT OPINION
Professor Eric Fouache
Professor Francisco Gutiérrez
30 April 2017

Letter to the Registrar dated 31 October 2016 from the Agent of France

[Translation]

With reference to the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial
Guinea v. France), please find enclosed herewith our comments on the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea’s replies to the questions put by Judge Bennouna and Judge Donoghue, which the French
Republic wishes to bring to the Court’s attention.