19 December 1908

 

CENTRAL AMERICAN cOURT OF JUSTICE

 
 
 

Honduras

Nicaragua

v. 

Guatemala

 

El Salvador

 
 

JUDGMENT

 
BEFORE: JUDGES: Josť Astķa Аguilar; Salv. Gallegos; Angel M. Bocanegra; Alberto Ucles; Josť Madriz.
 
Applicant(s): Honduras, Nicaragua
Respondent(s): Guatemala, El Salvador
      
Perma Link: http://www.worldcourts.com/cacj/eng/decisions/1908.12.19_Honduras_v_Guatemala1.htm
Citation: Honduras v. Guatemala, CACJ, Judgment of 19 December 1908, 3 Am. J. Intíl L. 434 (1909)
Editor's Note: Reproduced with permission from ASIL/AJIL. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Apr., 1909), 434-436; Vol. 3, No. 3 (Jul., 1909), 729-736. © 1909 The American Society of International Law
 

  

[JUDGMENT]

In the city of Cartago, Costa Rica, at 12 at night of December 19, 1908. The deliberations of the court having been considered to have been concluded, so that it could proceed to render judgment on the suit begun by the government of the republic of Honduras against the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala, [435] on account of responsibility with which the former government charges the latter two in connection with the revolution which occurred in the former of said republics in July of this year, the honorable presiding magistrate proposed the following set of questions to be answered in rendering the judgment which was to decide the controversy:

1. Should we allow the exception of inadmissibility of the complaint, as inter¨posed by the representative of the Guatemalan government on the alleged ground that said complaint was filed without exhausting the means of settlement between the respective chancelries?

Negative: all five judges.

2. Should we allow the exception, interposed by the same party, alleging insufficiency of the petition to institute proceedings, owing to the circumstance that it was not accompanied by the appropriate evidence when the charge was first preferred?

Negative: all five judges.

3. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of El Salvador has violated article 17 of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded at Washington on December 20, 1907, by not arresting and trying the Honduran emigrants who were threatening the peace of their country?

Negative: Judges Gallegos, Boeanegra and Astua.
Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz.

4. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of El Salvador violated article 2 of the Additional Convention annexed to said Treaty, by protecting or encouraging the aforesaid insurrectionary movement?

Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Ucles.

5. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of El Salvador contributed toward the accomplishment of said political offense by a culpable lack of diligence?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua.
Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz.

6. Should, consequently, the action begun against the government of El Salvador be declared proper and the latter therefore sentenced to pay the damages asked?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua.

Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz.

7. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of Guatemala violated article 17 of the General Treaty of Peace and Amity concluded at Washington on December 20, 1907, by not arresting and trying the Honduran emigrants who were threatening the peace of their country?

Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles.

8. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of Guatemala violated article 2 of the Additional Agreement to said treaty by protecting or fomenting the said insurrectionary movement?

Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles. [436]

9. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of the republic of Guatemala contributed toward the accomplishment of the said political offense by a culpable lack of diligence ?

Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles.

10. Should, consequently, the action begun against the government of Guatemala be declared proper and the latter therefore sentenced to pay the damages asked?

Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles.

11. Should the losing party or parties be sentenced to pay the costs of trial? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.

Judge Ucles answered that the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala should be sentenced to pay the costs.

From the foregoing vote, as stated, it results that judgment is pronounced rejecting the action brought against the high defendants, without sentencing them to payment of the costs.

Jose Astua Aguilar
Salv. Gallegos
Angel M. Bocanegra
Alberto Ucles
Jose Madriz
Ernesto Martin, Sec.

home | terms & conditions | copyright | about

 

Copyright © 1999-2010 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.