| |
[p.3]
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
After deliberation,
Having regard to Articles 48 and 49 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 44, 49 and 50 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the Order dated 30 March 1998, whereby the Court, taking
into account the views of the Parties,
"Fix[ed] 30 September 1998 as the time-limit for the filing by Qatar of an
interim report, to be as comprehensive and specific as possible, on the
question of the authenticity of each of the documents challenged by Bahrain
in the case;
Direct[ed] the submission of a Reply on the merits by each of the Parties,
and decide[d] that the Reply of Qatar [would] contain its [p 4] detailed and
definitive position on the question of the authenticity of each of the
documents challenged by Bahrain and that the Reply of Bahrain [would]
contain its observations on the interim report of Qatar; and fix[ed] 30
March 1999 as the time-limit for the filing of [those] pleadings";
Whereas, on 30 September 1998, Qatar, referring to the above-mentioned
Order, submitted an "Interim Report", to which were appended, inter alia,
four experts' reports prepared in the summer of 1998, the first two of which
concerned the material authenticity of the Qatari documents, while the other
two dealt with the historical consistency of the content of those documents;
whereas, in that Report, Qatar, after explaining the origin of the documents
in question and the reasons which had led it to submit those documents to
the Court, stated on the one hand that, on the question of the material
authenticity of the documents, there were differing views not only between
the respective experts of the Parties, but also between its own experts, and
on the other hand that, as far as the historical aspects were concerned, the
experts that it had consulted considered that Bahrain's assertions showed
exaggerations and distortions; and whereas Qatar ended its Report with a
conclusion in the following terms:
"As indicated above, after receiving its various expert's reports and in the
light of the conflicting views amongst the Parties' experts, Qatar has
decided that it will disregard all the 82 challenged documents for the
purposes of the present case so as to enable the Court to address the merits
of the case without further procedural complications. It does so, however,
with the proviso that it does not accept Bahrain's distortions of the
historical facts or its exaggerations of the effect of the challenged
documents on Qatar's case";
and whereas, on the same day, the Registrar transmitted a certified copy of
the said Report and its annexes to the Agent of Bahrain;
Whereas, under cover of a letter with annexes dated 27 November 1998, the
Agent of Bahrain, referring to the "Interim Report" of Qatar, supplied the
Court with a list of the 82 documents challenged by its Government, together
with certain comments which it wished to submit "on the insufficiency of
Qatar's explanations"; and whereas, in that letter, the Agent expressed
himself as follows:
"The Order [of 30 March 1998] does not require Bahrain to submit its
observations on that Report before its Reply. However, in view of the
effective abandonment by Qatar of all of the impeached documents in the face
of Bahrain's proof of forgery, Bahrain considers it appropriate even now to
note the situation resulting from the terms of that Report.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[p 5]
Although the Court's Order contemplated that Qatar could make known its
'definitive' position in regard to the 82 documents in the Reply due on 30
March 1999, the fact is that Qatar has already taken a position which is as
'definitive' as it can possibly be. There is thus no scope for any further
definition of Qatar's position in its Reply. The status of documents
explicitly declared to be non-existent leaves no room for amplification or
qualification by any subsequent statement.
It follows that Qatar cannot make any further reference to the 82 forged
documents, that it will not adduce the content of these documents in
connection with any of its arguments and that, in general, the merits of the
case will be adjudicated by the Court without regard to these documents. (A
list of the documents thus excluded appears as Annex 1 to this letter.)";
and whereas a copy of this letter and its annexes was duly transmitted to
the Agent of Qatar by the Deputy-Registrar;
Whereas, by a letter dated 11 December 1998, the Agent of Qatar informed the
Court that its Government
"[was] . . . preparing its Reply on the merits [but that], in view of the
fact that until 30 September 1998 its attention had been directed
principally to the preparation of its Interim Report on the documents
challenged by Bahrain, Qatar consider[ed] that it [would] not be possible to
finalize its Reply by 30 March 1999"
and accordingly requested "a two-month extension of the time-limit for the
filing of a Reply by each of the Parties, to 30 May 1999"; and whereas the
Registrar, referring to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court,
transmitted a copy of this letter to the Agent of Bahrain;
Whereas, by a letter dated 15 December 1998, the Agent of Qatar, referring
to the letter with annexes, dated 27 November 1998, from the Agent of
Bahrain, stated the following:
"by setting out in its Interim Report the results of its forensic and
historical examination of all of the documents in question and by indicating
its decision to disregard all the challenged documents for the purposes of
the present case, Qatar has given its position with regard to those
documents in advance of the time-limit of 30 March 1999 that was fixed by
the Court's Order. In effectively removing the documents from consideration
in the case, Qatar's intention was to enable the Court to address the merits
of the case and the Parties to prepare their replies without further
procedural complications";
and whereas, after challenging the terms of the letter from the Agent of
Bahrain, the Agent of Qatar concluded his letter as follows: [p 6]
"As Qatar pointed out in its Interim Report, it goes without saying that if
Qatar had had doubts as to the authenticity of these documents, it would not
have introduced them into evidence in these proceedings. However, so that
there be no misunderstanding on this point, Qatar would like to express here
its regret at the situation that has arisen and the inconvenience that this
has caused to the Court and Bahrain";
and whereas a copy of this letter was duly transmitted to the Agent of
Bahrain by the Deputy-Registrar;
Whereas, by a letter dated 13 January 1999, the Agent of Bahrain,
acknowledging receipt of the letters of 11 and 15 December 1998 from the
Agent of Qatar, stated that his Government "appreciate[d] Qatar's expression
of regret for the situation resulting from the submission of the forged
documents", and that, with regard to the request by Qatar for an extension
of the time-limit, its position was as follows:
"Bahrain has no objection to the modification of the Court's Order of 30
March 1998 to accommodate Qatar's request for a two-month extension of the
time-limit for the Replies. In connection therewith, Bahrain recalls that
the final paragraph of the Order called for Qatar to provide its 'definitive
position' on the documents in its Reply, due on 30 March 1999. Since Qatar
states that it has 'given its position with regard to these documents in
advance of the time-limit' to the effect that it is 'removing the documents
from consideration in the case', Bahrain respectfully requests that any
modification of the Order take note of this development";
and whereas a copy of this letter was duly transmitted to the Agent of Qatar
by the Deputy-Registrar;
Whereas, in a letter dated 1 February 1999, the Agent of Qatar stated that
he was pleased to note that Bahrain had no objection to the two-month
extension of the time-limit for the filing of the Replies; whereas he
stressed that his Government could not accept the description of the
documents challenged by Bahrain as "forged"; whereas, referring to the
position adopted by Qatar with regard to those documents in its Interim
Report of 30 September 1998, he added:
"This is Qatar's definitive position. Qatar hereby confirms that it will not
rely on any of those documents in its Reply; nor will it make any further
observations as to their authenticity. In its Reply Qatar will, however,
address the consequences of Qatar's decision to disregard the challenged
documents with respect to its previous written pleadings, and will provide a
document to illustrate such consequences;" [p 7]
and whereas, as far as the Order to be issued by the Court was concerned,
the Agent stated that his Government took the view that "the question of the
nature and substance of such an Order is a matter for the Court alone"; and
whereas a copy of this letter was duly transmitted to the Agent of Bahrain
by the Registrar;
Taking into account the concordant views of the Parties on treatment of the
disputed documents and their agreement on the extension of time-limits for
the filing of Replies,
Places on record the decision of Qatar to disregard, for the purposes of the
present case, the 82 documents challenged by Bahrain;
Decides that the Replies whose submission was directed by the Order of 30
March 1998 will not rely on these documents;
Extends to 30 May 1999 the time-limit for the submission of those Replies;
Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at the
Peace Palace, The Hague, this seventeenth day of February, 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
State of Qatar and the Government of the State of Bahrain, respectively.
(Signed) Stephen M. Schwebel,
President.
(Signed) Eduardo Valencia-Ospina,
Registrar. |
|
