2005 - International Court of Justice

1 International Court OF JUSTICEREPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERSCASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIESON THE TERRITORY OF THE congo ( democratic republic OF THE )JUDGMENT OF 19 DECEMBER 20052005 COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICERECUEIL DES ARRE|TS,AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCESAFFAIRE DES ACTIVITEuS ARMEuESSUR LE TERRITOIRE DU congo (REuPUBLIQUE DEuMOCRATIQUE DU congo c. OUGANDA)ARRE|TDU19 DEuCEMBRE 2005 Official citation:Armed Activities on the Territory of the congo ( democratic republic of the ),Judgment, Reports 2005, officiel de citation:Activit s arm es sur le territoire du congo (R publique d mocratique du congo c.)

2 Ouganda),arr t, Recueil 2005, 0074-4441 ISBN 92-1-071016-9 Sales numberNode vente:908 ARMED ACTIVITIESON THE TERRITORY OF THE congo ( democratic republic OF THE )ACTIVITEuS ARMEuESSUR LE TERRITOIRE DU congo (REuPUBLIQUE DEuMOCRATIQUE DU congo c. OUGANDA)19 DECEMBER 2005 JUDGMENT19 DEuCEMBRE 2005 ARRE|TINTERNATIONAL Court OF JUSTICEYEAR 200519 December 2005 CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIESON THE TERRITORY OF THE congo ( democratic republic OF THE CONGOv. UGANDA)Situation in the Great Lakes region Task of the Court .

3 **Issue of DRC consented to presence of Ugandan troops in eastern border area inperiod preceding August 1998 Protocol on Security along the Common Bor-der of 27 April 1998 between the DRC and Uganda No particular formalitiesrequired for withdrawal of consent by the DRC to presence of Ugandan troops Ambiguity of statement by President Kabila published on 28 July 1998 Anyprior consent withdrawn at latest by close of Victoria Falls Summit on 8 August1998.*Findings of fact concerning Uganda s use of force in respect of by Uganda that it was involved in military action at Kitona on4 August 1998 Assessment of evidentiary materials in relation to events atKitona Deficiencies in evidence adduced by the DRC Not established tothe Court s satisfaction that Uganda participated in attack on Kitona.

4 *Findings of fact concerning military action in the east of the DRC and inother areas of that by the Court of facts as to Ugandan presence at, and taking168200519 DecemberGeneral ListNo. 1164of, certain locations in the DRC Assessment of evidentiary materials Sketch-map evidence Testimony before Porter Commission Statementsagainst interest Establishment of locations taken by Uganda and correspond-ing dates of capture .*Did the Lusaka, Kampala and Harare Agreements constitute any consent ofthe DRC to the presence of Ugandan troops ?

5 Contention of Uganda that the Lusaka, Kampala and Harare Agreementsconstituted consent to presence of Ugandan forces on Congolese territory Nothing in provisions of Lusaka Agreement can be interpreted as affirmationthat security interests of Uganda had already required the presence of Ugandanforces on territory of the DRC as from September 1998 Lusaka Agreementrepresented an agreedmodus operandifor the parties, providing framework fororderly withdrawal of all foreign forces from the DRC The DRC did notthereby recognize situation on ground as legal Kampala and Harare Dis-engagement Plans did not change legal status of presence of Ugandan troops Luanda Agreement authorized limited presence of Ugandan troops in borderarea None of the aforementioned Agreements (save for limited exception inthe Luanda Agreement)

6 Constituted consent by the DRC to presence of Ugan-dan troops on Congolese territory for period after July 1999.*Self-defence in light of proven of whether Ugandan military action in the DRC from early August1998 to July 1999 could be justified as action in self-defence Ugandan HighCommand document of 11 September 1998 Testimony before Porter Com-mission of Ugandan Minister of Defence and of commander of Ugandan forcesin the DRC Uganda regarded military events of August 1998 as part ofoperation Safe Haven Objectives of operation Safe Haven.

7 As stated inUgandan High Command document, not consonant with concept of self-defence Examination of claim by Uganda of existence of tripartite anti-Ugandan conspiracy between the DRC, the ADF and the Sudan Evidenceadduced by Uganda lacking in relevance and probative value Article 51 of theUnited Nations Charter No report made by Uganda to Security Council ofevents requiring it to act in self-defence No claim by Uganda that it had beensubjected to armed attack by armed forces of the DRC No satisfactory proofof involvement of Government of the DRC in alleged ADF attacks on Uganda Legal and factual circumstances for exercise of right of self-defence by Ugandanot present.

8 *169 ARMED ACTIVITIES(JUDGMENT)5 Findings of law on the prohibition against the use of 2, paragraph 4, of United Nations Charter Security Council reso-lutions 1234 (1999) and 1304 (2000) No credible evidence to support allega-tion by DRC that MLC was created and controlled by Uganda Obligationsarising under principles of non-use of force and non-intervention violated byUganda Unlawful military intervention by Uganda in the DRC constitutesgrave violation of prohibition on use of force expressed in Article 2, para-graph 4, of Charter.

9 **The issue of belligerent of occupation Examination of evidence relating to the status ofUganda as occupying Power Creation of new province of Kibali-Ituri bycommander of Ugandan forces in the DRC No specific evidence provided bythe DRC to show that authority exercised by Ugandan armed forces in anyareas other than in Ituri Contention of the DRC that Uganda indirectly con-trolled areas outside Ituri administered by Congolese rebel groups not upheld bythe Court Uganda was the occupying Power in Ituri Obligations ofUganda.

10 **Violations of International human rights law and International humanitarianlaw : contentions of the of the DRC that Ugandan armed forces committed wide-scalehuman rights violations on Congolese territory, particularly in Ituri Conten-tion of Uganda that the DRC has failed to provide any credible evidentiary basisto support its allegations.*Admissibility of claims in relation to events in of Uganda that the Court lacks competence to deal with events inKisangani in June 2000 in the absence of Rwanda Jurisprudence contained inCertain Phosphate Lands in Naurucase applicable in current proceedings Interests of Rwanda do not constitute the very subject-matter of decision tobe rendered by the Court The Court is not precluded from adjudicating onwhether Uganda s conduct in Kisangani is a violation of International law.