court: icj

doctype: beslut

caseName: Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)

decisionType: order

procedure: Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (Removal from List)

publisher: International Court of Justice

reportsCitation: I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 9

title: Order of 2 June 1999

text: Genocide Convention

text: Genocide Convention, article I

text: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article IX

text: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

text: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

text: INTERIVATIONAL COURT O F JUSTICE

type: rubrik

text: YEAR 1999 1999 2 June General List 2 June 1999 No. 114

type: stycke

text: CASE CONCERNING

text: LEGALITY O F USE O F FORCE

text: (YUGOSLAVIA v. UNITED STATES O F AMERICA)

text: REQLEST FOR THE INDICATION O F PROVISIONAL MEASURES

text: ORDER

text: Present : Vice- President WEERAMANTRY, Acting President ; President SCHWEBEL; Judges ODA, BEDJAOUI, GUILLAUME, RANJEVA, HERCZEGH, SHI, FLEISCHHAUER, KOROMA, VERESHCHETIN, HIGGINS, PARRA-ARANGUREN, KOOIJMANS; Judge ad hoc KRECA; Registrar VALENCIA-OSPINA.

text: The International Court of Justice,

text: Composed as above, After deliberation, Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 of the Statute of the Court and to Articles 73 and 74 of the Rules of Court, Having regard to the Application by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (hereinafter "Yugoslavia") filed in the Registry of the Court on 29 April 1999, instituting proceedings against the United States of America (hereinafter "the United States") "for violation of the obligation not to use force".

text: Mukes the jbf/oi.lling Order:

text: Whereas in that Application Yugoslavia defines the subject of the dispute as follows: "The subject-matter of the dispute are acts of the United States of America by ~xhich it has violated its international obligation banning the use of force against another State, the obligation not to intervene in the internal affairs of another State, the obligation not to violate the sovereignty of another State, the obligation to protect the civilian population and civilian objects in wartime, the obligation to protect the environment, the obligation relating to free navigation on international iivers, the obligation regarding fundamental human rights and freedoms, the obligation not to use prohibited weapons, the obligation not to deliberately inflict conditions of life calculated to cause the phyisical destruction of a national group";

text: Whereas in the said Application Yugoslavia refers, as a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court. to

text: Article IX

text: of the

text: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

text: , adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948 (hereinafter the "

text: Genocide Convention

text: "), and to

text: Article 38

text: , paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court;

text: Whereas in its Application Yugoslavia States that the claims submitted by it to the Court are based upon the following facts: "The Governn~ent of the United States of America, together with the Governments of other Member States of NATO, took part in the acts of use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by taking part in. bombing targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In bombiing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia military and civilian targets were attacked. Great number of people were killed, including a great many civilians. Residential houses came under attack. Numerous dwellings were destroyed. Enormous damage was caused to schools, hospitals, radio and television stations, cultural and health institutions and to places of worship. A large number of bridges. roads and railway lines were destroyed. Attacks on oil refineries and chemical plants have had serious environmental effects on cities, towns and villages in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The use of weapons containing depleted uranium is having far-reaching consequences foir human life. The above-mentioned acts are deliberately creating conditions calculated at the physical destruction of an ethnic group, in whole or in part. The Government of the United States o f Amerioa is taking part in the training, arming, financing, equipping and slupplying the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army'";

text: and whereas it further States that the said claims are based on the following legal grounds:

text: "The above acts of the Government of the United States of America represent a gross violation of the obligation not to use force against another State. By financing, arming, training and equipping the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army', support is given to terrorist groups and the secessionist movement in the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of the obligation not to intervene in the internal affiairs of another State. In addition, the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the Additional Protocol No. 1 of 1977 on the protection of civilians and civilian objects in time of war have been violated. The obligation to protect the environment has also been breached. The destruction of bridges on the Danube is in contravention of the provisions of Article 1 of the 1948 Convention on free navigation on the Danube. The provisions of the

text: and of the

text: of 1966 have also been breached. Furthermore, the obligation contained in the Conivention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocitle not to impose deliberately on a national group conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group has been breached. Furthermore. the activities in which the United States of America is taking part are contrary to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations";

text: Whereas the claims of Yugoslavia are formulated as follows in the Application :

text: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requests the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare: - by taking part in the bombing of the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to use force against another State;

text: - by taking part in the training. arming, financing, equipping and supplying terrorist groups, i.e. the so-called 'Kosovo Liberation Army', the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to intervene in tlhe affairs of another State;

text: - by taking part in attacks on civilian targets, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects ;

text: LEGALIlrY O F USE O F FORCE (ORDER 2 VI 99) 9 19

text: - by taking part in destroying or damaging monasteries, monuments of culture, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to comrriit any act of hostility directed against historical monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute cultural or spiritual heritage of people; - by taking part in the use of cluster bombs, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to use prohibited weapons, i.e. weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

text: by taking part in the bombing of oil refineries and chemical plants, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to cause considerable environmental damage; by iaking part in the use of weapons containing depleted uranium, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to use prohibited weapons and not to cause far-reaching health and environniental damaee: " by taking part in killing civilians, destroying enterprises, communications, health and cultural institutions, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation to respect the right to life, the right to work, the right to information, the right to health care as well as other basic human rights;

text: - by taking part in destroying bridges on international rivers, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslaviir in breach of its obligation to respect freedom of navigation on international rivers;

text: - by taking part in activities listed above, and in particular by causing enormous environmental damage and by using depleted uranium, the United States of America has acted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in breach of its obligation not to deliberately iinflict on a national group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part;

text: - the United States of America is responsible for the violation of the above international obligations; - the United States of America is obliged to stop immediately the violation of the above obligations vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Yugoslaviii; - the United States of America is obliged to provide compensation for the damage done to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to its citizens and juridical persons";

text: and whereas, at the end of its Application, Yugoslavia reserves the right to amend and suppleinent it;

text: Whereas on 29 April 1999, immediately after filing its Application, Yugoslavia also submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures pursuant to Article 73 of the Rules of Court; and whereas that request was accompanied by a volume of photographic annexes produced as "evidence";

text: Whereas, in support of its request for the indication of provisional measures, Yugoslavia contends inter uliu that, since the onset of the bombing of its territory, and as a result thereof, about 1,000 civilians, including 19 children, have been killed and more than 4,500 have sustained serious injuries; that the lives of three million children are endangered; that hundreds of thousands of citizens have been exposed to poisonous gases; that about one million citizens are short of water supply; that about 500,000 aorkers have become jobless; that two million citizens have no means of livelihood and are unable to ensure minimum means of sustenance; and that the road and railway network has suffered extensive destruction: whereas, in its request for the indication of provisional measiires. Yug,oslavia also lists the targets alleged to have come under attack in the air strikes and describes in detail the damage alleged to have been inflicted upon them (bridges, railway lines and stations, roads and means of transport, airports, industry and trade, refineries and warehouses storing liquid raw materials and chemicals, agriculture, hospitals and health Caire centres, schools, public buildings and housing facilities, infrastructure, telecommunications, cultural-historical monuments and religious shrines); and whereas Yugoslavia concludes from this that: "The acts described above caused death, physical and mental harm to the popiilation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; huge devastation; heavy pollution of the environment, so that the Yugoslav population is deliberately imposed conditions of life calculated to bring about ~physical destruction of the group, in whole or in part" ;

text: Whereas, at the end of its request for the indication of provisional measures, Yugoslavia. states that "If the proposed measure were not to be adopted, there will be new losses of huinan life, further physical and mental harm inflicted on the population of the F R of Yugoslavia, further destruction of civilian targets, heavy environmental pollution and further physical destruction of the people of Yugoslavia";

text: and whereas, while reserving the right to amend and supplement its request, Yugoslavia rirquests the Court to indicate the following measure: "The United States of America shall cease immediately its acts of

text: LEGALIlrY O F USE O F FORCE (ORDER 2 VI 99) 92 1

text: Whereas the request for the indication of provisional measures was accompanied by a letter from the Agent of Yugoslavia, addressed to the President and Members of the Court, which read as follows:

text: "1 have the honour to bring to the attention of the Court the latest bombing of the central area of the town of Surdulica on 27 April 1999 at noon resulting in losses of lives of civilians, most of whom were children anld women, and to remind of killings of peoples in Kursumlija, Aleksinac and Cuprija, as well as bombing of a refugee convoy and the Radio and Television of Serbia, just to mention some of the well-known atrocities. Therefore, 1 would like to caution the Court that there is a highest probability of further civilian and military casualties. Considering the power conferred upon the Court by Article 75, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court and having in mind the greatest urgency caused by the circumstances described in the Requests for provisional measure of protection 1 kindly ask the Court to decide on the submitted Requests proprio motu or to fix a date for a hearing at earliest possible time";

text: Whereas on 29 ,4pril 1999, the day on which the Application and the request for the indication of provisional measures were filed in the Registry, the Registr,ar sent to the United States Government signed copies of the Application and of the request, in accordance with Article 38,

text: paragraph 4. and Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court; and

text: whereas he also sent t13 that Government copies of the documents accompanying the Application and the request for the indication of provisional measures ;

text: Whereas on 29 April 1999 the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court had decided, pursuant to Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, to hold heairings on 10 and 1 1 May 1999, where they would be able to present their observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures;

text: Whereas, pend~ng the notification under Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, by transmittal of the printed bilingual text of the Application to the Members of the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court, the Registrar on 29 April 1999 informed those States of the filing of the Application and of its subject-matter, and of the filing of the request for the indication of provisional measures:

text: Whereas, since the Court includes upon the bench no judge of Yugoslav nationality, the Yugoslav Government has availed itself of the provisions of Article 31 of the Statute of the Court to choose Mr. Milenko Kreéa to sit as judge ud hoc in the case; and whereas no objection to that choice was raised within the time-limit fixed for the purpose pursuant to Article 35, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court;

text: Whereas, at the public hearings held between 10 and 12 May 1999, oral observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures were presented by the following:

text: Mr. Rodoljub Etinski, Agent. Mr. Ian Brownlie, Mr. Paul J. 1. M. de Waart, Mr. Eric Suy, Mr. Miodrag MitiC, Mr. Olivier Corten; On hehalf' of' the United Stutes: Mr. David Andrews, Agent; Mr. John Crook, Mr. Michael Matheson;

text: Whereas, in this phase of the proceedings, the Parties presented the following submission:; :

text: On hehalJ' oj' Yugo.rlcili~ia

text: "[Tlhe Court [is asked] to indicate the following provisional measure : [Tlhe United States of America . . . shall cease immediately the acts of use of force and shall refrain from any act of threat or use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia";

text: On belzulf'qf the Uni,ed Stutes of America "That the Court reject the request of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the indication of provisional measures";

text: Whereas the Court is deeply concerned with the human tragedy, the loss of life. and the enormous suffering in Kosovo which form the background of the present dispute, and with the continuing loss of life and human suffering in al1 parts of Yugoslavia;

text: Whereas the Court is profoundly concerned with the use of force in Yugoslavia; whereas under the present circumstances such use raises very serious issues of international law;

text: Whereas the Court is mindful of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and of its own responsibilities in the maintenance of peace and security under the Charter and the Statute of the Court;

text: Whereas the Court deems it necessary to emphasize that al1 parties appearing before it must act in conformity with their obligations under the United Nations Charter and other rules of international law, including humanitarian law;

text: Whereas the Court, under its Statute, does not automatically have jurisdiction over legal disputes between States parties to that Statute or between other States to whom access to the Court has been granted; whereas the Court has repeatedly stated "that one of the fundamental principles of its Statute is that it cannot decide a dispute between States without the consent of those States to its jurisdiction" (Eusi Timor (Portugul v. Ausirulia), Jtidgmrnt, I.C.J. Reporis 1995, p. 101, para. 26); and

text: whereas the Court can therefore exercise jurisdiction only between States parties to a dispute who not only have access to the Court but also have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, either in general form or for the individual dispute concerned;

text: Whereas on a request for provisional measures the Court need not, before deciding whether or not to indicate them, finally satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it ought not to indicate such measures unles!; the provisions invoked by the applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be established ;

text: Whereas in its Application Yugoslavia claims, in the first place, to found the jurisdiction~ of the Court upon

text: Article IX

text: of the

text: Genocide Convention

text: , which provides: "Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts. enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute" ; whereas it is not disputed that both Yugoslavia and the United States are parties to the

text: Genocide Convention

text: ; but whereas, when the United States ratified the Cclnvention on 25 November 1988, it made the following reservation : "That with reference to Article IX of the Convention, before any dispute to whicl~ the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this Article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case" ;

text: Whereas the United States contends that "[its] reservation [to Article IX] is clear and unambiguous"; that "[tlhe United States has not given the specific consent [that reservation] requires [and] . . . will not d o so"; and that Article IX of the Convention cannot in consequence found the jurisdiction of the Court in this case. even prima facie; whereas the United States also observed that reservations to the

text: Genocide Convention

text: are generally perinitted; that its reservation to Article IX is not contrary to the Convention's object and purpose; and that, "[slince . . . Yugoslavia did not object to the . . . reservation, [it] is bound by it"; and whereas the United States further contends that there is no "legally sufficient . . . connection between the charges against the United States contained in the Application and [the] supposed jurisdictional basis under the

text: Genocide Convention

text: "; and whereas the United States further asserts that Yugoslavia has failed to make any credible allegation of violation of the

text: Genocide Convention

text: , by failing to demonstrate the existence of the specific intent required by the Convention to "destroy, in whole or in part. a national, ethnical, racial o r religious group, as such". which intent could not be inferred from the conduct of conventional military operations againsl another State.

text: Whereas Yugoslavia disputed the United States interpretation of the

text: Genocide Convention

text: , but submitted no argument concerning the United States reservation to Article IX of the Convention;

text: Whereas the

text: Genocide Convention

text: does not prohibit reservations; whereas Yugoslavia did not object to the United States reservation to Article IX; and whereas the said reservation had the effect of excluding that Article from the provisions of the Convention in force between the Parties;

text: Whereas in consequence

text: Article I

text: X of the

text: Genocide Convention

text: cannot found the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a dispute between Yugoslavia and the United States alleged to fall within its provisions; and whereas that Article manifestly does not constitute a basis of jurisdiction in the present case, even prima facie;

text: Whereas in its Application Yugoslavia claims, in the second place, to found the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 38. paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, which reads as follows:

text: "5. When the applicant State proposes to found the jurisdiction of the Court upon a consent thereto yet to be given or manifested by the State againijt which such application is made, the application shall be transmitted to that State. It shall not however be entered in the General List, nor any action be taken in the proceedings, unless and until the State against which such application is made consents to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of the case";

text: Whereas the United States observes that it "has not consented to jurisdiction under Article 38, paragraph 5, [of the Rules of Court] and will not d o so";

text: Whereas it is quite clear that, in the absence of consent by the United States, given pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the present case, even prima facie ;

text: Whereas it follows from what has been said above that the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to entertain Yugoslavia's Application; whereas it cannot therefore indicate any provisional measure whatsoever in order to protect the rights invoked therein; and whereas, within a system of consensual jui-isdiction, to maintain on the General List a case upon which it appears certain that the Court will not be able to adjudicate on the merits would most assuredly not contribute to the sound administration of justice;

text: Whereas there is a fundamental distinction between the question of the acceptance by a State of the Court's jurisdiction and the compatibility of particular acts with international law; the former requires consent; the latter question can only be reached when the Court deals with the merits after having established its jurisdiction and having heard full legal arguments by both parties;

text: Whereas, whel.her or not States accept the jurisdiction of the Court, they remain in. any event responsible for acts attributable to them that violate international law, including humanitarian law; whereas any disputes relating to tbe legality of such acts are required to be resolved by peaceful means, the choice of which, pursuant to Article 33 of the Charter, is left to the parties;

text: Whereas in this context the parties should take care not to aggravate or extend the dispute;

text: Whereas, when such a dispute gives rise to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, the Security Council has special responsibilities under Chapter VI1 of the Charter;

text: For these reaslons, THE COURT, (1) By twelve vote:s to three, Rejects the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 29 April 1999;

text: I N F A V O U K : C'ire-Presitlent Weeramantry, Acting President; Presitletzt Schwebel: Judge,s Oda, Bedjaoui. Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh. Fleischhauer, Koroma, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans;

text: A C ~ A I N S T : J I I ~ ~ ~ s Shi, Vereshchetin; Judge ad hoc Kreca: (2) By twelve votes t o three, Ordus that the case be removed from the List. I N I . A V O L K : C'ice-Prc'siu'L'nt Weeramantry, Acting President ; Presidcmt Schwebel; Judges Oda, Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma. Higgins, Kooijmans;

text: AGAINST: Ju(ige.~ Vereshchetin. Parra-Aranguren; Judge ad hoc Kreéa

text: Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this second day of June, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Government of the United States of America, respectively. ( S i g n e d ) Christopher G. WEERAMANTRY, Vice-President. ( S i g r i e d ) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA, Registrar.

text: Judges S H I , KOROMA and VERESHCHETIN append declarations to the Order of the Court.

text: Judges ODA and PARKA-ARANGUREN append separate opinions t o the Order of the Court.

text: Judge a d hoc KRECA appends a dissenting opinion t o the Order of the Court. ( I n i t i u l l e d ) C.G.W. ( l n i t i u l l e d ) E.V.O.

title: Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)

type: avgorande


caseName: Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)

procedure: Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

reportsCitation: I.C.J. Reports 2000, p. 1

title: Order of 1 July 2000

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Geneva Conventions

text: Additional Protocols

text: Additional Protocols

text: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

text: INTERNATIONAL COURT O F JUSTICE

text: YEAR 2000 1 July General List 1 July 2000 No. 116

text: CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES O N THE TERRITORY O F THE CONGO

text: (DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC O F THE CONGO v. UGANDA)

text: REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION O F PROVISIONAL MEASURES

text: ORDER

text: Present: President GUILLAUME; Judges ODA, BEDJAOUI, RANJEVA, HERCZEGH, FLEISCHHAUER, KOROMA, VERESHCHETIN, HIGGINS, PARRA-ARANGUREN, KOOIJMANS, REZEK, AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAL; Registruv COUVREUR.

text: The International Court of Justice,

text: Composed as above, After deliberation, Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 of the Statute of the Court and to Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court,

text: Mukrs the jollo~ring Order:

text: Whereas, by an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (hereinafter "the Congo") instituted proceedings against the Republic of Uganda (hereinafter "Uganda") in respect of a dispute concerning "acts of armed uggression perpetrated by Uganda on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity";

text: Whereas in that Application the Congo founds the jurisdiction of the Court on the declarations made by the two States under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute:

text: Whereas in the said Application the Congo states that the "armed aggression by Ugandan troops on Congolese territory has involved inter uliu violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo", and that "[tlhe extent of the invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been such that it currently involves fighting in sevei-i provinces: Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu. Maniema, Orientale Province, Katanga, Equateur and Kasai Oriental"; whereas the Congo recalls "al1 the efforts undertaken by the Congolese Government with a view to enforcing its right to secure the withdrawal o f . . . foreign troops". in particular within the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity; and whereas the Congo observes that "[bly . . . providing unlimited aid to rebels in the form of arms and armed troops, in return for the right to exploit the wealth of the Congo for their own benefit, Uganda has defied the international community and created a dangerous precedent", that "the invasion of its territory, which has required - and still requires - inordinate financial efforts. has paralysed the majority of the country's economic sectors, to the detriment of the Congolese people". and that "Uganda has prevented the peaceful settlement of the rebellion - an internal problem of the Democratic Republic of the Congo":

text: Whereas in its Application the Congo also contends that the "armed aggression by Ugandan troops on Congolese territory has involved . . . violations of international humanitarian law and massive human rights violations"; whereas it states more particularly that "the various human rights violations perpetrated by the Ugandan Republic" have been set out in two White Papers prepared by the Ministry of Human Rights, annexed to the Application: and whereas it cites massacres, rapes, abductions and murders, arrests, arbitrary detentions. inhuman and degrading treatment, systematic looting of private and public institutions and seizure of property of the civilian population";

text: Whereas in the Application the Congo refers to "the serious violations committed by Uganda". citing inter trliu "the major principles of international law"; and whereas in this connection it refers to violations of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, of Articles 3 et scJq. of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, of the rules set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the

text: of 1966. and of the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, of the Additional Protocols of 1977, of the New York Convention of 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman o r Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and of the Montreal Convention of 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation;

text: Whereas the Congo adds that by its Application it "seeks to secure the cessation of the acts of aggression directed against it, which constitute a serious threat to peace and security in central Africa in general and in the Great Lakes region in particular", and that it "also seeks reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting. and the restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of Uganda" ;

text: Whereas the Congo concludes its Application with the following submissions : "Consequently, and whilst reserving the right to supplement and amplify the present request in the course of the proceedings, the Democratic Republic of the Congo requests the Court to: Adjudge und dec1rr.c. thu f : ( ( 1 ) Uganda is guilty of an act of aggression within the meaning of Article 1 of resolution 3314 of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 14 December 1974 and of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter; ( b ) further. Uganda is committing repeated violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, in flagrant disregard of the elementary rules of international humanitarian law in conflict zones, and is also guilty of massive human rights violations in defiance of the most basic customary law; ( c j more specifically, by taking forcible possession of the Inga hydroelectric dam, and deliberately and regularly causing massive electrical power cuts, in violation of the provisions of Article 56 of the Additional Protocol of 1977. Uganda has rendered itself responsible for very heavy losses of life among the 5 million inhabitants of the city of Kinshasa and the surrounding area; ( d j by shooting down, on 9 October 1998 at Kindu, a Boeing 727 the property of Congo Airlines, thereby causing the death of 40 civilians, Uganda has also violated the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944, the Hague Convention of 16 December 1970 for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

text: Consrqurntly, und pursuunt to tlze aforrmrntion~r/ internutionul Iegul obligations, to udjudgc und dec1ur.e tlzut: ( 1 ) al1 Ugandan armed forces participating in acts of aggression shall forthwith vacate the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; (2) Uganda shall secure the immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Congolese territory of its nationals, both natural and legal persons; (3) the Democratic Republic of the Congo is entitled to compensation from Uganda in respect of al1 acts of looting, destruction, removal of property and persons and other unlawful acts attributable to Uganda, in respect of which the Democratic Republic of the Congo reserves the right to determine a t a later date the precise amount of the damage suffered, in addition to its claim for the restitution of al1 property removed";

text: Whereas on 23 June 1999 the Registrar notified the Ugandan Government, by facsimile and by letter, of the filing of that Application, and a certified copy of the Application was transmitted to that Government; whereas, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 42 of the Rules of Court. copies of the Application were transmitted to the Members of the United Nations through the Secretary- General, as well as to the other States entitled to appear before the Court; and whereas, by an Order of 21 October 1999, the Court fixed 21 July 2000 and 21 April 2001 as the time-limits for the filing, respectively, of the Memorial of the Congo and the Counter-Memorial of Uganda ;

text: Whereas on 19 June 2000 the Congo submitted to the Court a request for the indication of provisional measures, citing Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court; and whereas in that request the Congo, citing Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, also asked the President of the Court to exercise the power conferred upon him by that paragraph to "call upon the Republic of Uganda to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects" ;

text: Whereas in this request for the indication of provisional measures the Congo States that : "[slince 5 June last, the resumption of fighting between the armed troops of the Republic of Uganda and another foreign army has caused substantial damage to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to its population"; whereas the Congo points out that "[tlhese actions have been unanimously condemned, in particular by the United Nations Security Council"; whereas it contends that "[dlespite promises and declarations of principle, the Republic of Uganda has pursued its policy of aggression, brutal armed attacks and acts of oppression and looting",

text: and that "[tlhis is, moreover, the third Kisangani war, coming after those of August 1999 and May 2000 and having been instigated by the Republic of Uganda . . ."; and whereas the Congo further observes that these

text: acts "represent just one further episode constituting evidence of the military and paramilitary intervention, and of occupation, commenced by the Republic of Uganda in August 1998", and "reflect in particular the conflicts between the foreign forces engaged in organized looting of the natural resources and the assets and equipment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo"; 1 1. Whereas in the request for the indication of provisional measures the Congo argues that "each passing day causes to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its inhabitants grave and irreparable prejudice", and that it is "urgent that the rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo be safeguarded in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court";

text: Whereas the Congo adds that its request "is a direct outgrowth of the dispute which it brought" before the Court, and that "[tlhere can be no doubt as to the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court";

text: Whereas at the conclusion of its request the Congo asks the Court to indicate as a matter of urgency the following provisional measures:

text: "(1) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must order its army to withdraw immediately and completely from Kisangani ; ( 2 ) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must order its army to cease forthwith al1 fighting o r military activity on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to withdraw immediately and completely from that territory. and must forthwith desist from providing any direct o r indirect support to any State, group, organization, movement o r individual engaged o r preparing to engage in military activities on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

text: (3) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must take al1 measures in its power to ensure that units, forces o r agents which are o r could be under its authority, o r which enjoy o r could enjoy its support, together with organizations o r persons which could be under its control, authority o r influence, desist forthwith from committing or inciting the commission of war crimes o r any other oppressive o r unlawful act against al1 persons on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

text: (4) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must forthwith discontinue any act having the aim o r effect of disrupting, interfering with or hampering actions intended to give the population of the occupied zones the benefit of their fundamental human rights, and in particular their rights to health and education; (5) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must cease forthwith al1 illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and al1 illegal transfer of assets. equipment or persons to its territory;

text: (6) the Government of the Republic of Uganda must henceforth respect in full the right of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of al1 persons on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

text: The Democratic Republic of the Congo would, at al1 events, respectfully remind the Court of the powers conferred upon it by Article 41 of its Statute and Article 75 of the Rules of Court, which authorize it in the present case to indicate al1 such provisional measures as it may deem necessary in order to bring to an end the intolerable situation which continues to obtain in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in particular in the Kisangani region";

text: Whereas, immediately upon receiving the text of the request for the indication of provisional measures, the Registrar transmitted a certified copy thereof to the Agent of Uganda, in accordance with Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court; and whereas the Registrar also notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the filing of the request ;

text: Whereas, by letters dated 19 June 2000, the President of the Court addressed the parties in the following terms:

text: "Acting in conformity with Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, 1 hereby draw the attention of both Parties to the need to act in such a way as to enable any Order the Court will make on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects";

text: Whereas, by letter dated 20 June 2000, the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court had designated 26 June 2000 as the date for the opening of the hearings provided for in Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, at which they would have the opportunity to present their observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures ;

text: Whereas, at the public hearings held on 26 and 28 June 2000, oral observations on the request for the indication of provisional measures were presented : On belluIf' of' the Congo: by Mr. Michel Hon, Agent, H.E. Mr. She Okitundu, Mr. Ntumba Luaba, Mr. Olivier Corten;

text: On belluij of Ugundu : by H.E. Bart M. Katureebe. Agent, Mr. Ian Brownlie, Mr. Paul S. Reichler;

text: 1 8. Whereas at the hearings the Congo essentially reiterated the line of argument developed in its Application and in its request for the indication of ~rovisional measures: whereas it observed that Article 41 of the Statute confers "a substantial power of discretion on the Court, by providing that it rriuy indicate provisional measures" and that "[tlhe only condition expressly laid down is that the circumstances should require the adoption of such measures"; whereas the Congo asserted that "this was undeniably so in the present case having regard to the extreme gravity of the situation on the ground", which was characterized by the military and paramilitary presence of the Ugandan army on Congolese territory, repeated clashes between the armed forces of Uganda and those of another neighbouring country in the city of ~ i s a n g a n i , the persistence and aggravation of economic rivalry aimed at the seizure of the wealth of the Congo. and the persistence and aggravation of acts of oppression directly affecting the civilian population;

text: Whereas at the hearings the Congo, citing the Court's jurisprudence, argued more particularly that the requirements of urgency and of the risk of irreparable damage, conditions precedent for the indication of provisional measures, were satisfied in the present case; whereas it stated inter uliu that "each passing day, the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to be occupied, its resources and assets are systematically plundered, its inhabitants abducted, injured o r killed". that "it is difficult to conceive of damage more 'irreparable' than this", and that "[nlo form of material restitution, compensation or redress can fully make good the deaths, suffering and humiliation undergone daily by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its inhabitants"; whereas it added that "[wlhen an armed conflict develops and endangers not only the rights and interests of the State but also the lives of its inhabitants, the urgency of provisional measures and the irreparable nature of the damage cannot be in doubt"; and whereas it pointed out that, "in two recent cases, the life of u s i ~ ~ g l e individual justified the indication of measures intended to avert a n irreparable event" and that "[a] jiwtiori, measures should be indicated as a matter of urgency in circumstances where . . . hundreds, if not thousands, of persons are being condemned to certain death . . .";

text: Whereas the Congo further observed that "the fact that certain Ugandan high authorities have officially stated that they agree to withdraw their forces from the Kisangani region and that the beginnings of a withdrawal have in fact taken place can . . . in n o way call into question" the need for the indication of measures as a matter of urgency, and that

text: "these statements [did not] concern . . . the whole of Congolese territory"; and whereas it pointed out, moreover, that, under the Court's jurisprudence, "the existence of obligations whereby one o r other Party agrees to put a n immediate end to the acts underlying the request for the indication of provisional measures does not prevent the Court from acceding to that request";

text: Whereas at the hearings the Congo also contended that there was "a sufficient connection between the measures requested and the rights protected"; whereas it stated, on the basis of a comparison of the text for the request of the indication of provisional measures with that of the Application instituting the proceedings, that the "categories of act referred to are similar" and that the "rules of law applicable are similar", arguing more particularly as follows:

text: "However, at this preliminary stage of a request for the indication of provisional measures, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not asking the Court to condemn Uganda, to require it to pay compensation by way of reparation, o r even to declare - at any event not in the operative part of the order for the indication of provisional measures - that Uganda has violated international law. The withdrawal of troops, o r the ending of support for irregular armed groups, are required not as consequences of a finding that Uganda has violated international law, but simply as measures preserving the rights of the Democratic Republic of the Congo until the Court is able to decide the dispute on the merits. Under such conditions, the requests made correspond, mutatis mutandis, to those which the Court has indicated in other precedents which are not without relevance to the present case, such as those in the Military Actiilities, Frontier Dispute and Genocidt cases. o r in the Lund und Muritinle Bounclc~ry case" :

text: Whereas at the hearings the Congo further contended that the Court has prima facie jurisdiction "to entertain the dispute which is the subject-matter of the Application", having regard to the declarations of acceptance of its compulsory jurisdiction deposited by the two Parties; and whereas in this regard it added the following:

text: "In the Militury Activities case, the Court found that it had prima facie jurisdiction precisely because it was dealing with two declarations of acceptance deposited under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, even though the validity of one of these declarations (that of Nicaragua) had been challenged and the other (that of the United States) contained a reservation which was directly pertinent to the case concerned (I. C. J. Reports 1984, p. 18 1, para. 26). A fortiori, the Court must hold itself to have prima facie jurisdiction in the present case. since it is dealing with two declarations whose validity is unquestioned and which contain no reservation which might prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction";

text: Whereas at the hearings the Congo stated finally that "[tlhere is nothing in the political and diplomatie context of the present case which might prevent the Court from taking the measures which the circumstances require"; whereas it pointed out that "the Security Council has adopted a resolution - resolution 1304 of 16 June 2000 - in which it was demanded that Uganda withdraw its forces not only from Kisangani but from al1 Congolese territory, without further delay"; whereas it observed that "[tlhe withdrawal of Ugandan forces is in substance what the Congo is asking the Court to indicate, not as a political measure with a view to the maintenance of international peace and security, but as a judicial measure"; and whereas, referring to the Court's jurisprudence, it argued that "[ilt is not. however, possible to derive from these parallel powers of the Security Council and of the Court any bar to the exercise by the latter of its jurisdiction"; and whereas, recalling that resolution 1304 "does not concern Uganda alone, but also Rwanda", the Congo pointed out that "although on 23 June 1999 three separate Applications were filed, one of them against Uganda, another against Rwanda, it is only in respect of Uganda that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has considered it appropriate to submit a request for the indication of provisional measures"; whereas it observed that "[tlhese particular circumstances are clearly not such as would prevent the Court from indicating the provisional measures which are the subject-matter of the present proceedings": and whereas it explained that "[tlhe Court [was] not being asked to enjoin a State not party to the proceedings to follow a particular course of conduct", adding the following: "The Court is accordingly Sully entjtled to rule on a request which concerns the State of Uganda specifically and exclusively, even though it is not precluded, should it see fit, from indicating proprio motu, on its own initiative, provisional measures directed at other States in the context of other legal disputes, provided that such legal disputes fall within its prima facie jurisdiction":

text: Whereas a t the hearings Uganda gave the following account of events: "The Congolese forces that overthrew President Mobutu in May 1997 were led by Mr. Kabila, the current President. At the outbreak of the fighting, President Mobutu's army abandoned Eastern Congo, leaving n o central governmental presence o r authority. At the invitation of Mr. Kabila, Ugandan forces entered Eastern Congo to work in collaboration with his forces to arrest the activities of the anti- Uganda rebels.

text: Ugandan forces remained in Eastern Congo after Mr. Kabila became President in May 1997, again at his invitation. The central Government in Kinshasa, which was in the process of creating a new army and a police force, had no capability to exercise authority in this remote region of the country. This arrangement with President Kabila was formalized by written agreement dated 27 April 1998 . . . This agreement expressly recognizes the existence of armed irregulars conducting military activities across the UgandanICongolese border, and it provides for joint action by Ugandan and Congolese armed forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to stop them" ;

text: whereas it added that "Uganda has no territorial interests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo", that "[tlhere is a complete political vacuum in Eastern Congo" and that "[tlhere is no one else to restrain the anti-Uganda rebels or guarantee the security of Uganda's border"; and whereas a t the hearings Uganda stated:

text: "At the time of lodging the Application on 23 June 1999, the Government of Uganda and the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, along with other parties t o the conflict, were already actively involved in direct negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict and establishing a framework for peace in the region. This was eventually achieved when the Lusaka Agreement was signed . . . Uganda therefore views any moves to seek alternative ways of solving the dispute as an act of bad faith and ultimately as a form of undermining the entire peace process" ;

text: whereas it explained that "on its part, [it] has endeavoured to fulfil al1 its obligations laid down in the Lusaka Agreement", and that "with respect to the events in Kisangani, Uganda has fully complied with the United Nations resolutions in the matter and completely withdrawn its troops from the city"; whereas it stated itself "ready to withdraw al1 its troops from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with the Lusaka Agreement and in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council"; and whereas it stressed that any immediate and unilateral withdrawal of its forces, as now being requested by the Congo, would be in fundamental conflict with the Lusaka Agreement and the Kampala Disengagement Agreement, under which the Congo itself agreed that "foreign forces would be withdrawn Ifrom its territory] subject to a precise timetable and following a sequence o f defined events";

text: Whereas a t the hearings Uganda also asserted that "both the Application and the request for provisional measures are based on preposterous allegations that are not backed by any evidence whatsoever

text: before this Court", and that there was "no amassing of troops on Our common border with the Democratic Republic of the Congo or on any border with any of the neighbouring States"; and whereas in consequence it asked the Court to "reject the Application for interim measures so that the Parties can concentrate on implementing the resolution of the Security Council and in fulfilling their obligations under the Lusaka Agreement which has gained regional and international acceptance as the most viable means of ending the current conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo";

text: Whereas a t the hearings Uganda contended that "in the circumstances the request of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is inadmissible, and this for the reason that as a matter of law the Court is prevented from exercising its powers under Article 41 of the Statute"; whereas in this connection it referred to the Orders made by the Court on 14 April 1992 in the cases concerning Questiotzs of' Interprrtution utzd Application of the 1971 Montrcul Conilention arising ,fiorn the Arriul Incident crt Lockcrhie (Lihjjun Aruh Jumr~hirij~u v. United Kingdotn) and (Libyun Arub Jutnu/zirij'u V. Unit& S t u f r . ~ (?f'At?zrriccr) ; and whereas it argued that "the subject-matter of the request for interim measures is essentially the same as the matters addressed by . . . Security Council resolution [1304] of 16 June [2000]" and that "the principles invoked by the Court in the Lockerhie cases of 1992 must . . . apply";

text: Whereas at the hearings Uganda argued in the alternative that

text: "even if the Court had a prima facie competence by virtue of Article 41, there are concerns of propriety and judicial prudence which strongly militate against the exercise of the discretion which the Court has in the indication of interim measures"; whereas it pointed out that "the Congolese request has the same subjectmatter as the Security Council resolution", that "the Republic of Uganda accepts the resolution which was, in any event, adopted in accordance with Chapter VI1 of the Charter and is therefore binding", and that, "pursuant to the resolution, the Republic of Uganda has withdrawn al1 its forces from Kisangani"; and whereas it accordingly concluded that "the request has in practical terms been rendered redundant"; whereas Uganda asserted that "al1 the relevant States and other interested parties have expressly agreed to the resolution of outstanding issues exclusively by recourse to the modalities established by the Lusaka Agreement and the subsequent peace process", and that "[tlhe Lusaka Agreement is the relevant regional public order system and in the text of the Security Council resolution this is effectively recognized"; whereas Uganda contended that "the Court should not grant interim measures because the requesting State has not complied with the normal and necessary standards of procedural fairness"; whereas it stated that "the Court has not yet received the Memorial of the requesting State", that "[tlhe Application is, of course, available . . . but the allegations contained in the Application have no relation to the Republic of Uganda or its armed forces", that "the request itself is deficient in substance and is unsupported by any evidence", and that there is a problem of "adequate notice to the respondent State" (request submitted on 19 June 2000, Congo's argument presented on 26 June 2000); whereas it made the point, "on the question of procedural fairness", that the "requesting State has seen fit to single out Uganda in these proceedings", although "[the Lusaka Agreement] was signed by six States. al1 of which are bound by the provisions for disengagement, not just Uganda", and "the Security Council resolution of 16 June calls on 'al1 parties' . . . to cease hostilities and makes several references to the Rwandan forces"; and whereas Uganda referred also to the principle of the Moneturll, Gold case";

text: Whereas at the hearings Uganda stressed that "any action . . . by [its] armed forces . . . has been in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter"; and whereas it explained, with reference to "activities of armed bands operating from Congolese territory", that "[iln responding to these threats to its territorial integrity and security, Uganda acted by virtue of Article 51 of the Charter";

text: Whereas at the hearings Uganda argued that there was an "absence of any clear link between the request and the original claim", as the latter "[did] not . . . relate to any conflict between Ugandan and Rwandan armed forces"; and whereas it asserted that "the [Congo's] request [fails to satisfy] the requirement of urgency or the risk of irreparable damage" and that there cannot "be an element of urgency after the Congo has waited for almost a year before making a complaint";

text: Whereas at the hearings Uganda stated that "the Lusaka Agreement is a comprehensive system of public order, signed by the Heads of State of six African States and the leaders of three Congolese rebel groups", and that "it is a binding international agreement that constitutes the governing law between and among the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda in particular"; whereas it maintained that "the parties to the Lusaka Agreement, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda, continue to express their full support for the Agreement", and that "[tlhe Security Council and the Secretary- General have repeatedly declared that [this] Agreement is the only viable process for achieving peace within the Democratic Republic of the Congo and for achieving peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbours"; and whereas Uganda emphasized that "the specific interim measures requested by the Democratic Republic of the Congo directly conflict with the Lusaka Agreement, and with the Security Council resolutions - including resolution 1304 . . . - calling for implementation of the Agreement";

text: Whereas, in response to the arguments put forward by Uganda, the Congo contended inter aliu, with regard to the requirement of urgency, that "at al1 events. the fact that a reauest mav not have been submitted cannot support a claim of lack of urgency", and pointed out that "the three attacks on Kinsangani, one of them just weeks ago, have once again demonstrated the dangers and irreparable risks to which its inhabitants are exposed as a result of the continuing presence of foreign armies on Congolese territory": whereas, as regards one of Uganda's arguments deriving from Security Council resolution 1304, the Congo stated that "no incompatibility can be shown between the text of the resolution and the text of the requests"; whereas, as to Uganda's argument on the "absence of Rwanda", the Congo observed, citing the Court's case-law, that an applicant State is "entitled to isolate procedurally a specific relationship with another State"; and whereas, in response to Uganda's argument on the Lusaka Agreement, the Congo observed that this Agreement "can in no circumstances negate [the rules on the prohibition of the use of force and on the prohibition of aggression and of occupation]", and that it "merely prescribes the procedures for a withdrawal but cannot in any event compromise the requirement of withdrawal";

text: Whereas the two Parties have each made a declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute; whereas the declaration of Uganda was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 3 October 1963 and that of the Congo (formerly Zaire) on 8 February 1989; whereas neither of the two declarations includes any reservation; and whereas Uganda stated in its declaration that it was made on the sole condition of reciprocity;

text: Whereas on a request for the indication of provisional measures the Court need not, before deciding whether or not to indicate such measures, finally satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it may not indicate them unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded:

text: Whereas the Court considers that the declarations made by the Parties in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute constitute a prima facie basis upon which its jurisdiction in the present case might be founded ;

text: Whereas, in its request for the indication of provisional measures, the Congo refers to resolution 1304 (2000), adopted by the United

text: Nations Security Council on 16 June 2000; whereas that resolution was adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VI1 of the Charter of the United Nations; and whereas, in the said resolution, the Security Council : "1. Crills on al1 parties to cease hostilities throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and to fulfil their obligations under the Ceasefire Agreement and the relevant provisions of the 8 April 2000 Kampala disengagement plan;

text: 2. Reitrrtrfcs its unreserved condemnation of the fighting between Ugandan and Rwandan forces in Kisangani in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Coneo. and demantl.~ that these forces and those allied to them desist fro; fbrther fighting ; 3. Dcnzurzds that Ugandan and Rwandan forces as well as forces " of the Congolese armed opposition and other armed groups immediately and completely withdraw from Kisangani, and cwlls on al1 parties to the Ceasefire Agreement to respect the demilitarization of the city and its environs; 4. Further r/c>niand.s : ( ( 1 ) that Uganda and Rwanda, which have violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, withdraw al1 their forces from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo without further delay, in conformity with the timetable of the Ceasefire Agreement and the 8 April 2000 Kampala disengagement plan;

text: ( b ) that each phase of withdrawal completed by Ugandan and

text: Rwandan forces be reciprocated by the other parties in conformity with the same timetable; ( c ) that al1 other foreign military presence and activity, direct and indirect, in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo be brought to an end in conformity with the provisions of the Ceasefire Agreement; 5 . In this context tlemun~1.s that al1 parties abstain from any offensive action during the process of disengagement and of withdrawal of foreign forces; 6. Reyuests the Secretary-General to keep under review arrangements for deployment of the personnel of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), as authorized and in conditions defined by resolution 1291 (2000), to monitor the cessation of hostilities, disengagement of forces and withdrawal of foreign forces as described in paragraphs 1 to 5 above and to assist in the planning of these tasks, and reyuests also the Secretary-General to recommend any adjustment that may become necessary in this regard; 7 . Cul1.r on al1 parties, in complying with paragraphs 1 to 5 above, to cooperate with the efforts of M O N U C to monitor the cessation of hostilities, disengagement of forces and withdrawal of foreign forces;

text: 8. Derrlunds that the parties to the Ceasefire Agreement cooperate with the deployment of M O N U C to the areas of operations deemed necessary by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, including by lifting restrictions on the freedom of movement of M O N U C personnel and by ensuring their security; 9. Culls on al1 the Congolese Parties to engage Sully in the National Dialogue process as provided for in the Ceasefire Agreement, and culls in prrrriculur on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to reaffirm its full commitment to the National Dialogue, to honour its obligations in this respect and to cooperate with the Facilitator designated with the assistance of the O A U and to allow for the full participation of political opposition and civil society groups in the dialogue;

text: 10. Deinunds that al1 parties cease al1 forms of assistance and cooperation with the armed groups referred to in Annex A, Chapter 9.1 of the Ceasefire Agreement; 11. Welcomcs efforts made by the parties to engage in a dialogue on the question of disarmament, demobilization, resettlement and reintegration of members of al1 armed groups referred to in Annex A, Chapter 9.1 of the Ceasefire Agreement, and urges the parties, in particular the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Government of Rwanda, to continue these efforts in full cooperation;

text: 12. Bemarzd.~ that al1 parties comply in particular with the provisions of Annex A, Chapter 12 of the Ceasefire Agreement relating to the normalization of the security situation along the borders of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with its neighbours;

text: 13. Condemns al1 massacres and other atrocities carried out in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and urges that an international investigation into al1 such events be carried out with a view to bringing to justice those responsible;

text: 14. E'cprrsses the view that the Governments of Uganda and

text: Rwanda should make reparations for the loss of life and the property damage they have inflicted on the civilian population in Kisangani, and recluests the Secretary-General to submit an assessment of the damage as a basis for such reparations;

text: 15. Cuils on al1 the parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to protect human rights and respect international humanitarian law :

text: 16. Culls also on al1 parties to ensure the safe and unhindered access of relief personnel to al1 those in need, and recalls that the parties must also provide guarantees for the safety, security and freedom of movement for United Nations and associated humanitarian relief personnel ;

text: 17. F~rrthrr calls on al1 parties to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross to enable it to carry out its mandate as well as the tasks entrusted to it under the Ceasefire Agreement;

text: 1 S. Rruffirms the importance of holding, a t the appropriate time, an international conference on peace, security, democracy and development in the Great Lakes region under the auspices of the United Nations and of the OAU, with the participation of al1 the Governments of the region and al1 others concerned;

text: 19. E.vpresses its readiness to consider possible measures which could be imposed in accordance with its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations in the case of failure by parties to comply fully with this resolution; 20. DP~-ides to remain actively seized of the matter";

text: Whereas the Court notes Uganda's argument that the Congo's request for the indication of provisional measures concerns essentially the same issues as this resolution, that the said request is accordingly inadmissible, and that the request is, moreover, moot, since Uganda fully accepts the resolution in question and is complying with it; whereas Security Council resolution 1304 (2000). and the measures taken in its implementation, d o not preclude the Court from acting in accordance with its Statute and with the Rules of Court; whereas in particular, as the Court has already had occasion to observe. "while there is in the Charter 'a provision for a clear demarcation of functions between the General Assembly and the Security Council, in respect of any dispute or situation, that the former should not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requires, there is no similar provision anywhere in the Charter with respect to the Security Council and the Court. The Council has functions of a political nature assigned to it, whereas the Court exercises purely judicial functions. Both organs can therefore perform their separate but complementary functions with respect to the same events' (Militurj, and Prrramilitary Actiiiities in ann rrgainst Nicuruguu (Nicaraguu v. United States of Arnrricu), Jurisdiction und A(inzi.rsibi/itj~, Judgment, 1. C. J. Reports 1984, pp. 434-435, para. 95)" (Application of' the Conilenfion on the Pre~ivntiotz and Punishnzent qf'tlie Cvimr of Cenocido, Provisionul Meusures, Order of 8 April 1993, I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 19, para. 33);

text: and whereas in the present case the Security Council has taken no decision which would prima facie preclude the rights claimed by the Congo from "be[ing] regarded as appropriate for protection by the indication of provisional measures" (Questions of'lnterpretation and Application of the 1971 Montrerrl Convention arising from tlze Aerial Incident ut Lockerbie {Libyrin Arab Jut?7rlhiriya v. OS7itrd Kingdom), Provisional Measures, Order o f 14 April 1992, p. 15, para. 40);

text: Whereas the Court has taken note of the Lusaka Agreement, to which Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) refers a number of times; whereas that Agreement constitutes an international agreement binding upon the Parties; whereas it does not. however, preclude the Court from acting in accordance with its Statute and with the Rules of Court;

text: Whereas, furthermore, the Court is not precluded from indicating provisional measures in a case merely because a State which has simultaneously brought a number of similar cases before the Court seeks such measures in only one of them; and whereas, pursuant to Article 75, paragraph 1, of its Rules, the Court may in any event decide to examine proprio tnotu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures:

text: Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court has as its object to preserve the respective rights of the parties pending the decision of the Court, and presupposes that irreparable prejudice shall not be caused to rights which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings; whereas it follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to belong either to the Applicant or to the Respondent; and whereas such measures are only justified if there is urgency;

text: Whereas the rights which, according to the Congo's Application, are the subject of the dispute are essentially its rights to sovereignty and territorial integrity and to the integrity of its assets and natural resources, and its rights to respect for the rules of international humanitarian law and for the instruments relating to the protection of human rights; and whereas it is upon the rights thus claimed that the Court must focus its attention in its consideration of this request for the indication of provisional measures;

text: Whereas the Court is in possession of information on the facts of this case, and in particular that contained in the above-mentioned Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000; whereas, however, the Court's duty at this stage of the proceedings is limited to examining whether the circumstances brought to its attention require the indication of provisional measures; and whereas it cannot make definitive findings of fact o r of imputability, since the right of each of the Parties to submit arguments in respect of the merits must remain unaffected by the Court's decision ;

text: Whereas it is not disputed that at this date Ugandan forces are present on the territory of the Congo, that fighting has taken place on that territory between those forces and the forces of a neighbouring State, that the fighting has caused a large number of civilian casualties in addition to substantial material damage, and that the humanitarian situation remains of profound concern; and whereas it is also not disputed that grave and repeated violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, including massacres and other atrocities, have been committed on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

text: Whereas, in the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that persons, assets and resources present on the territory of the Congo, particularly in the area of conflict, remain extremely vulnerable, and that there is a serious risk that the rights at issue in this case, as noted in paragraph 40 above, may suffer irreparable prejudice; whereas the present urgency in the situation cannot be in any way affected by the fact that the Congo did not present its request for provisional measures at the same time as its Application; and whereas the Court consequently considers that provisional measures must be indicated as a matter of urgency in order to protect those rights; whereas Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court empowers the Court to indicate measures that are in whole or in part other than those requested;

text: Whereas, independently of requests for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the parties to preserve specific rights, the Court possesses by virtue of Article 41 of the Statute the power to indicate provisional measures with a view to preventing the aggravation or extension of the dispute whenever it considers that circumstances so require (Lund und Muritirne B o u n d a v betlileen Curneroor~ und Nigcriu, Proi~isioilal Mcusures. Orrler of 15 Murch 1996, I. C. J. Reports 1996, pp. 22-23, para. 41); whereas, having regard to the information at its disposai. and in particular the fact that the Security Council has determined, in its resolution 1304 (2000), that the situation in the Congo "continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region", the Court is of the opinion that there exists a serious risk of events occurring which might aggravate o r extend the dispute or make it more difficult to resolve;

text: Whereas, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the circumstances require it to indicate provisional measures, as provided for in Article 41 of the Statute of the Court;

text: Whereas a decision in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case, or any questions relating to the merits themselves, and leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of the Congo and of Uganda to submit arguments in respect of those questions;

text: For these reasons,

text: Itzdicutes, pending a decision in the proceedings instituted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo against the Republic of Uganda, the following provisional measures :

text: ( 1 ) Unanimously.

text: Both Parties must, forthwith, prevent and refrain from any action, and in particular any armed action, which might prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve;

text: (2) Unanimously,

text: Both Parties must, forthwith, take al1 measures necessary to comply with al1 of their obligations under international law, in particular those under the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, and with United Nations Security Council resolution 1304 (2000) of 16 June 2000;

text: (3) Unanimously,

text: Both Parties must, forthwith, take al1 measures necessary to ensure full respect within the zone of conflict for fundamental human rights and for the applicable provisions of humanitarian law.

text: Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this first day of July, two thousand, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Government of Uganda, respectively.

text: (Signrci) Gilbert G U I L L A U M E , President.

text: (Signeu') Philippe COUVREUR, Registrar.

text: Judges ODA and KOROMA append declarations to the Order of the Court. (Initiulled) G.G. (Itzitiullrd) Ph.C.

title: Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)