REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS …legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/115-153.pdf · Con...

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Central Front - Eritrea's Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22

28 April 2004

XXVI pp. 115-153VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT iV

Partial Award Central Front—Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22

Decision of 28 April 2004

Sentence partielle Front central—Réclamations de l’Érythrée Nos 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22

Décision du 28 avril 2004

ParTial aWard. CenTral fronT—eriTrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22, deCision of 28 aPril 2004

senTenCe ParTielle, fronT CenTral— réClamaTions de l’éryTHrée nos 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22

déCision du 28 aVril 2004

JurisdictionoftheCommission—liabilityonlyforserious�iolationsofinter-nationalhumanitarianlawaffectingse�eral�ictims—liabilityengagedonlyforsys-tematic,frequentandrecurring�iolations—apportionmentoflegalliabilitybetweenPartiesfortheloss,damageorinjuryoccurred .

Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—customaryinternationallawofarmedconflict,asexemplifiedbyGene�aCon�entionsandTheHagueCon�entions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofanyoftheseCon�entions—treatiesontheuseofanti-personnellandminesandboobytrapsnotcon-sideredasanexpressionofcustomaryinternationallaw—treatiesconcludedtoorecentlyandpracticeofStatestoo�ariedforconferringcustomarystatustothosepro�isions—recognitionofcustomaryprinciplesonlyregardingthelimitationoftheuseofsuchweaponsbytherecordingofminefieldsandtheprohibitionofindiscriminateuse .

Customaryinternationalhumanitarianlawprinciples—noliabilityforuninten-tionalkillingofci�ilianscaughtinthebattle .

Occupiedterritories—applicationofrulesregulatingoccupationofterritoriesdur-ingarmedconflictstoareascontrolledonlyforshortperiodsduringcombats—responsi-bilityoftheoccupyingStatetomaintainpublicorderandrespectofpri�atepropertyandtopre�entpillage—liabilityarisingfromthefailureinthetakingofeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapeinoccupiedareas—Stateresponsibilityarisinge�enforinfrequentcasesofrape—liabilityarisingfromdamagesnotabsolutelynecessitatedbymilitaryoperationsthatoccurredduringoccupation—thedesiretodenythepotentialfuturereuseoffacili-tiesnotrecognisedasalegitimatemilitaryaim—presumptioninfa�ouroftheliabilityoftheoccupyingStatefordamagesoccurredduringoccupation .

Questionofe�idence—requirementofclearandcon�incinge�idenceforcrimesofacertaingra�ity—burdenofproofontheclaimant—creditaccordedtocumula-ti�e, reinforcing and detailed testimonies—failure of proof when dissenting testi-monies—norelianceonwrittenstatementsofwitnessesnotpresentedatthehearingthereafter—norelianceoninter�iewsreportedinnewsstories—standardofe�idenceloweredregardingrapesbecauseofthetypicallysecreti�eandunwitnessednatureofsuchacts—notreasonabletoconsiderasingleweekoccupationastypifyingthee�entshappenedintheentiresub-zoba—acceptanceofsatellitepicturespurchasedfromcommercialsupplierase�idenceofthetimingofdestructionsoccurred .

Claimsfilingproceedings—extinctionofclaimsnotidentifiednorreferredtoinrele�antstatementsofclaims—norequirementofanexhausti�elistofrele�anttreatiespro�isionsinordertoclaimanillegalact—requirementofanadequatenoticetotherespondentoftheactsassertedtobea�iolationofinternationallaw .

118 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

Remedy—theobligationtoapologizefordamaginganhistoricmonumentnotconsideredasinaccordancewithinternationalpracticeorasareasonableandappro-priateremedy .

CompétencedelaCommission—responsabilitélimitéeàdes�iolationsimpor-tantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—responsabilitéuniquementengagéepourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécurrentes—répartitiondelaresponsabilitéjuridiqueentrelesPartiespourlespertes,dommagesetdégâtssur�enus .

Droiten�igueurpendant leconflitarmé—droit internationalcoutumierdesconflitsarméstelqu’illustréparlesCon�entionsdeGenè�eetlesCon�entionsdeLaHaye—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurl’Étatréfutantlestatutcoutumierd’unedis-positionparticulièredel’unedecesCon�entions—traitésrelatifsàl’emploidesminesanti-personnellesetdespiègesnonconsidéréscommeuneexpressiondudroitinterna-tionalcoutumierenlamatière—traitésayantétéconclustroprécemmentetpratiquedesEtatstrop�ariéepourquecesdispositionsrelè�entdelacoutume—reconnaissancedeprincipescoutumiersuniquementencequiconcernelalimitationdel’emploidetellesarmesparl’enregistrementdeschampsdeminesetl’interdictiond’unemploiindiscriminé .

Principes du droit international humanitaire coutumier—responsabilité nonengagéepourlamortnonintentionnelledeci�ilsprisdanslabataille .

Territoiresoccupés—applicationdesrèglesrelati�esàl’occupationdeterritoireslorsdesconflitsarmésauxrégionscontrôléesseulementpourdecourtespériodeslorsdescombats—responsabilitédelaPuissanceoccupantedemaintenirl’ordrepublic,lerespectdelapropriétépri�éeetdepré�enirlepillage—responsabilitéengagéepourlesdéfaillancesdanslaprisedemesuresdepré�entiondes�iolsdanslesrégionsoccu-pées—responsabilitéétatiqueengagéemêmepourdescasde�iolsisolés—responsabilitéengagéepourlesdommagesnonnécessitésparlesopérationsmilitairessur�enuspen-dantl’occupation—la�olontéd’empêcherunepotentielleréutilisationultérieuredeséquipementsn’estpasreconnuecommeunbutdeguerrelégitime—présomptionenfa�eurdelaresponsabilitédelaPuissanceoccupantepourlesdommagessur�enuslorsdel’occupation .

Questiondespreu�es—nécessitédepreu�esclairesetcon�aincantespour lescrimesd’unecertainegra�ité—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurleplaignant—créditaccordéauxtémoignagescumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—défautdepreu�eencasdetémoignagescontradictoires—pasdecréditaccordéauxdéclarationsécritesdetémoinsnonentendusparlasuitelorsdel’audience—pasdecréditaccordéauxinter�iewsreproduitsdanslesjournaux—rabaissementdescritèresd’établissementdespreu�esdanslesaffairesde�iol,dufaitquecetyped’acteestgénéralementper-pétréentoutediscrétionetsanstémoin—iln’estpasraisonnabledeconsidérerunesemained’occupationcommecaractérisantlesé�énementssur�enusdansl’ensembledelarégion—admissiondephotossatellitesachetéesàunfournisseurcommercialcommepreu�esdumomentdelasur�enancedesdestructions .

Procéduredesoumissionderéclamation—extinctiondesplaintesnonidentifiéesounonmentionnéesdanslesdéclarationsdeplaintespertinentes—pasd’obligation

PartIV—CentralFront eritrea’sclaims2,4,6,7,8&22 119

deprésenterunelisteexhausti�edesdispositionsdestraitéspertinentsafindefaire�aloiruneactionillégale—exigenced’informerdefaçonadéquateledéfendeurdesactesre�endiquéscomme�iolationsdudroitinternationalen�igueur .

Réparation—obligation de présenter des excuses pour la dégradation d’unmonumenthistoriquenonconsidéréecommeconformeàlapratiqueinternationaleoucommeuneréparationappropriéeetadéquate .

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Central Front Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

Hans�anHoutte,PresidentGeorgeH .AldrichJohnR .CrookJamesC .N .PaulLucyReed

TheHague,April28,2004


ParTial aWard—Central front—eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22 between the Claimant,

The state of eritrea, represented by:

Government of EritreaHisExcellency,MohammedSuleimanAhmed,AmbassadorofEritreato

TheNetherlandsProfessorLeaBrilmayer,LegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresident,Co-

AgentfortheGo�ernmentofEritreaMs .LorraineCharlton,DeputyLegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresidentMr .SolomonM .YacobMr .MichaelT .Hagis

Counsel and AdvocatesProfessorJamesCrawfordMr .PayamAkha�an

ConsultantsMs .SemharAraiaMajorGiorgisAbrahaMs .AmandaJonesMs .PriscillaMunozMr .BrianO’DonoghueMs .DanielleTully

and the respondent, The federal democratic republic of ethiopia, represented by:

Government of EthiopiaMr .HabtomAbraha,ConsulGeneral,EthiopianMissioninTheNeth-

erlandsMr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFed-

eralDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMr .TsegayeDemeke,ConsulateofEthiopiatoTheNetherlands

Counsel and ConsultantsMr .W .DeVierPierson,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Member

of theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

ProfessorSeanD .Murphy,GeorgeWashingtonUni�ersityLawSchool,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheStateBarofMaryland


Mr .DonC .Lewis,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofTexas

Mr .EdwardB .Rowe,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofColorado

Ms .VirginiaC .Dailey,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheLawSocietyofEngland&Wales;MemberoftheStateBarofFlorida

Mr .ThomasR .Snider,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Mem-ber of the Bar of the District of Columbia; Member of the State Bar ofMassachusetts

Mr .WonKidane,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofIllinois

Ms .ChristinaE�ans,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Consultant

Table of ConTenTs

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

B . BackgroundandTerritorialScopeoftheClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

C . GeneralComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

II . PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

III . JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

IV . THEMERITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

A . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

1 . QuestionofProofRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1292 . ProofofFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1293 . EstimationofLiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

C . SummaryofE�entsontheCentralFrontRele�anttotheseClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

D . CommentonRape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

E . ArezaSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

F . MaiMeneSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

G . AdiQualaSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135


i. inTroduCTion

a. summary of the Positions of the Parties1 . TheseClaims(“Eritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8and22”)ha�ebeenbrought

totheCommissionbytheClaimant,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .TheClaimantaskstheCommissiontofindtheRespondent,theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),liableforloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimant,includingloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimant’snationals,personsofnationaloriginandagents,asaresultofallegedinfractionsofinternationallawoccurringontheCentralFrontofthe1998–2000internationalarmedconflictbetweentheParties .TheClaimantrequestsmonetarycompensation .TheseClaimsdonotincludeanyclaimssetforthinseparateclaimsbytheClaimant,suchasthoseformistreatmentofprisonersofwar(Eritrea’sClaim17)orformistreatmentofotherEritreannationalsinareasofEthiopianotdirectlyaffectedbythearmedconflict(Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23and27-32) .

2 . TheRespondentassertsthatitfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitsconductofmilitaryoperations .

b. background and Territorial scope of the Claims3 . Between1998and2000,thePartieswagedacostly,large-scaleinter-

nationalarmedconflictalongse�eralareasof theircommonfrontier .ThisPartialAward,likethecorrespondingPartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim2,

H . TseronaSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136I . SenafeSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

1 . Serha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1402 . SenafeTown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1413 . TheStelaofMatara . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1484 . OtherSenafeSub-ZobaClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

V . AWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151D . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . . 151E . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153


addressesallegationsofillegalconductrelatedtomilitaryoperationsontheCentralFrontofthatconflict .

4 . ForpurposesoftheseClaims,theCentralFrontencompassedtheareaoffi�eSub-ZobasinSouthernEritrea,thatisAdiQuala,Senafe,Areza,TseronaandMaiMene .

C. General Comment5 . AsthefindingsinthisPartialAwardandintherelatedPartialAward

inEthiopia’sClaim2describe,theallegationsandthesupportinge�idencepre-sentedbythePartiesfrequentlyindicatediametricallyopposedunderstand-ingsoftherele�antfacts .Suchincompatible�iewsoftherele�antfactsmayperhapsbeconsiderednotsurprisinginlightoftheconfusionanduncertaintycharacteristicofmilitaryoperationsandthepolarizingeffectsofwarfare .Ithasoftenbeensaidthat,inwar,truthisthefirstcasualty .1Or,asJuliusStoneexpressedithalfacenturyago,modernwarfaretendstoproduce“nationaliza-tionofthetruth .”2Ne�ertheless,theCommissionmustnotetheob�iousdif-ficultiesitfaceswheneachPartypresentslargenumbersofsworndeclarationsbywitnessesassertingfactsthatdisagreecompletelywiththefactsassertedinlargenumbersofsworndeclarationsbythewitnessesoftheotherParty .

6 . Intheseunhappycircumstances,theCommission,whichischargedwithdeterminingthetruth,mustdoitsbesttoassessthecredibilityofsuchconflictinge�idence .Considerationsoftimeandexpenseusuallypre�entmorethanahandfulofwitnessesbeingbroughttoTheHaguetotestifybeforetheCommission,sotheCommissionisthencompelledtojudgethecredibilityofanyparticulardeclaration,notbyobser�ingandquestioningthedeclarant,butratheronthebasisofalltherele�ante�idencebeforeit,whichmayormaynotincludee�idencefrompersonsorpartiesnotdirectlyin�ol�edinthecon-flict .Inthatconnection,theCommissionrecallsitsholdingontherequiredstandardofproofinitsPartialAwards:“Particularlyinlightofthegra�ityofsomeoftheclaimsad�anced,theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon�inc-inge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .”3ThesamerequirementisapplicabletotheclaimspresentedinthepresentPartialAward .

1 ThatcommentisgenerallyattributedtoSenatorHiramJohnson,anopponentofentrybytheUnitedStatesintheFirstWorldWar .SeePhilipKnightly, The First Casu-alty—From the Crimea to Vietnam: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth Makerp .17(1975) .

2 JuliusStone,Legal Controls of International Conflictpp .321–323(1954) .3 PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Eritrea’sClaim17BetweentheStateofEritrea

andTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,para .46(July1,2003)[hereinafterPar-tialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17];PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Ethiopia’sClaim4BetweenTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandTheStateofEritrea,para .37(July1,2003)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4] .


7 . TheCommissionrecognizesthatthisstandardofproofandtheexist-enceofconflictinge�idencemayresultinfewerfindingsofliabilitythaneitherPartyexpects .TheAwardsontheseClaimsmustbeunderstoodinthatuna-�oidablecontext .

ii. ProCeedinGs

8 . TheCommission informedthePartiesonAugust29,2001 that itintendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerningliability,andsecond,ifliabilityisfound,concern-ingdamages .TheseClaimswerefiledonDecember12,2001,andaStatementofDefenseonApril15,2002 .TheClaimant’sMemorialwasfiledonOctober15,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialonSeptember1,2003 .BothPartiesfiledadditionale�idenceonOctober13,2003 .AhearingonliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceinNo�ember2003,inconjunctionwithahearinginEthiopia’srelatedClaim2 .

iii. JurisdiCTion

9 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementestablishestheCommis-sion’s jurisdiction .Itpro�ides, inter alia, thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforallloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�-ernmentagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconflictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”

10 . IntheseClaims,asinEthiopia’sClaim2,theClaimantallegesthattheRespondent’sconductrelatedtomilitaryoperationsontheCentralFront�iolatednumerousrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thus,theclaimsfalldirectlywithinthescopeoftheCommission’sjurisdiction .

11 . InitsCounter-Memorial,EthiopiaconteststheCommission’sjuris-dictiono�ercertainclaimspresentedinEritrea’sMemorialthatallegedlywerenotpresentedinitsStatementsofClaim .

12 . AsstatedintheCommission’spriorAwards,thePartiesagreethattheAgreementextinguishedanyclaimsnotfiledwiththeCommissionbyDecember12,2001,whichwasthedateonwhichallStatementsofClaimhadtobefiled .ThequestionbeforetheCommission,therefore,istodeterminewhetheranyclaimsassertedbyEritreainthepresentproceedingwerenotamongtheclaimspresentedinitsStatementsofClaim .

13 . ThefollowingclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialaresubjecttothischallenge:

1 . Alleged�iolationsofinternationallawbyEthiopiaoccurringafterMarch2001;


2 . AllegedrefusalorfailureofEthiopianmilitarycommanderstostopillegalconductbyEthiopiansoldiersinSenafeSub-ZobaandinTseronaSub-Zoba;3 . AllegedunlawfuluseoflandminesbyEthiopiainArezaSub-Zoba;4 . AllegedconductbyEthiopiaofunlawfulpoliticalre-educationclass-esinMaiMeneSub-Zoba;5 . Alleged�iolationsofProtocolIIofthe1980Con�entiononCertainCon�entionalWeapons(“ProtocolIIof1980”)4orofArticles52,57or59ofAdditionalProtocolIof1977totheGene�aCon�entions(“ProtocolI”);5and6 . AllegedcontinuingunlawfuloccupationafterMarch2001ofEri-treanterritoryontheCentralFrontandunlawfulconductduringsuchcontinuedoccupation .14 . TheCommissionfindsthatthefirst,third,fourthandsixthofthese

claimswerenotidentifiedorreferredtoinanywayintherele�antStatementsofClaimfiledbyEritreaonDecember12,2001 .Consequently,theywereextin-guishedpursuanttoArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreementandcannotbeconsideredbytheCommission .Thesecondandfifthoftheseclaimsrequireseparateconsideration .

15 . Withrespecttothesecondclaim,theCommissionfindsthattherewasonereferenceintheStatementofClaimforSenafeSub-ZobatoanEthio-piancommandingofficerignoringacomplaintofrapesallegedlycommittedbyhismen .6Howe�er,thatStatementofClaimdoesnotincludeinitslistsofrele�anttreatyarticlesanydealingwiththeresponsibilityofcommanders;nor,moreimportantly,does it includeanyreferencetothefailureofcom-manderstostopillegalconductbythetroopsundertheircommandwhenitliststhe�iolationsofinternationallawinSenafeSub-Zobaonwhichitbasesitsclaims .7TheCommissionconcludesthatthesecondclaim,asitrelatestoSenafeSub-Zoba,wasnotidentifiedintheStatementofClaimsufficientlytosatisfythejurisdictionalrequirementsoftheAgreementand,consequentlyhasbeenextinguishedpursuanttoArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreementandcannotbeconsideredbytheCommission .TheCommissionnotesthattheextinguishmentoftheseclaimsdoesnotaffectEritrea’sclaimsthatEthiopiaisliableforillegalconductbymembersofitsarmedforces .

4 ProtocolonProhibitionsorRestrictionsontheUseofMines,Booby-TrapsandOtherDe�ices,Oct .10,1980,1342U .N .T .S .168,reprinted in19I .L .M .p .1529[hereinafterProtocolIIof1980] .

5 ProtocolAdditionaltotheGene�aCon�entionsofAug .12,1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictimsofInternationalArmedConflicts,arts .52and57,June8,1977,1125U .N .T .S .p .3[hereinafterProtocolI] .

6 Eritrea’sStatementofClaim,Claim4,filedbyEritreaonDecember12,2001,Sen-afe,atSectionC,para .9 .

7 Id .atSectionD,paras .33–67 .


16 . IntheStatementofClaimforTseronaSub-Zoba,therewasnoref-erencetoanyfailureofcommanders .Onthecontrary,theallegationsinthatStatementofClaimarethattheactscomplainedofwereintentionalordeliber-ateactionsbytheEthiopianarmy .Consequently,thesecondclaimasitrelatestoTseronaSub-ZobawasextinguishedpursuanttoArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreementandcannotbeconsideredbytheCommission .

17 . Finally,withrespecttothefifthofthechallengedclaims,theCom-missionnotesthatthechallengeistothefailureofEritreatorefertocertainspecifictreatypro�isionsinitsStatementsofClaim .Thisisconsiderablydif-ferentfromtheotherfourchallengedclaims,allofwhichallegedunlawfulEthiopianactsorfailurestoact .WhiletheCommission’sRulesofProcedurestatethatStatementsofClaimshallincludea“precisestatement”ofthe“�iola-tionor�iolationsofinternationallawonthebasisofwhichtheclaimorclaimsareallegedtoha�earisen,”8thatdoesnotrequirethattheStatementofClaimspecifye�erytreatyarticlethatmightberele�anttoaclaimedillegalact .WhatisrequiredisadequatenoticetotheRespondentoftheactthatgi�esrisetotheclaimandtheassertionthatitwasin�iolationofapplicableinternationallaw .Thus,whereillegaluseofminesorbooby-trapsisallegedintheStatementofClaim,theclaimisnotextinguishedsimplybecausenoreferenceismadetoProtocolIIof1980 .9Thesameistruewheredestructionofpropertyisalleged,andnoreferenceismadetoArticle52ofProtocolIorwheretargetingofci�il-iansisalleged,andnoreferenceismadetoArticle57ofProtocolI .10Ontheotherhand,Article59ofProtocolIpresentsaqualitati�elydifferentsituation .Article59dealswithundefendedlocalitiesthataredeclaredpursuanttothatarticleandcomplywiththeconditionsofthatarticle,orareestablishedbyagreementofthePartiestotheconflict .11TheCommissionfindsnoreferencetosuchundefendedlocalitiesinEritrea’sStatementsofClaim .Consequently,anyclaimmadeonthatbasiswasextinguishedandcannotnotbeconsideredbytheCommission .

18 . AllotherclaimsassertedbyEritreainthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

iV. THe meriTs

a. applicable law

19 . UnderArticle5,paragraph13,oftheAgreement,“inconsideringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProceduredefinestherele�antrulesinthe

8 Eritrea-EthiopiaClaimsCommissionRulesofProcedure,art .24(3)(d) .9 ProtocolIIof1980,supranote4 .10 ProtocolI,supranote5 .11 Id .atart .59 .


familiar languageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCourtofJustice’sStatute .ItdirectstheCommissiontolookto:

1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,establishingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties;

2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;

3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;

4 . Judicial andarbitraldecisionsand the teachingsof themosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeter-minationofrulesoflaw .

20 . BothParties’discussionsoftheapplicablelawreflectthepremise,whichtheCommissionshares,thatthe1998–2000conflictbetweenthemwasaninternationalarmedconflictsubjecttotheinternationallawofarmedcon-flict .Howe�er,thePartiesdisagreeastowhethercertainrulesapplybyopera-tionofcon�entionsorundercustomarylaw .

21 . In itsPartialAwardsonPrisonersofWar, theCommissionheldthatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimspriortoAugust14,2000,whenEritreaaccededtothefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,12wascustomaryinterna-tionalhumanitarianlaw .13Inthosesameawards,theCommissionalsoheldthatthoseCon�entionsha�elargelybecomeexpressionsofcustomaryinter-nationalhumanitarianlawand,consequently,thatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimswascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthoseCon�entions .14ThoseholdingsapplyaswelltotheCen-tralFrontclaimsaddressedinthepresentAwardand,indeed,toalltheclaimssubmittedtotheCommission .

22 . ThePartiesha�eidentifiednootherpotentiallyrele�anttreatiestowhichbothEritreaandEthiopiawerepartiesduringtheirarmedconflict .AstheclaimspresentedfordecisioninthepresentAwardarisefrommilitarycombatandfrombelligerentoccupationofterritory,theCommissionmakesthesameholdingswithrespecttothecustomarystatusoftheHagueCon-�ention(IV)RespectingtheLawsandCustomsofWaronLandof1907and

12 Gene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickinArmedForcesintheField,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3114,75U .N .T .S .p .31;Gene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWounded,SickandShipwreckedMembersofArmedForcesatSea,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3217,75U .N .T .S .p .85;Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3316,75U .N .T .S .p .135;Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheProtectionofCi�ilianPersonsinTimeofWar,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3516,75U .N .T .S .p .287[hereinafterGene�aCon-�entionIV] .

13 PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17,supranote3,atpara .38;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supranote3,atpara .29 .

14 PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17,supranote3,atparas .40–41;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supranote3,atparas .31–32 .


itsannexedRegulations(“HagueRegulations”)15asthoseithasmadewithrespecttotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .ThecustomarylawstatusoftheHagueRegulationshasbeenrecognizedformorethanfiftyyears .16HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�isionofthoseCon�entionsorRegulationsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwouldha�edecidedthatquestion,withtheburdenofproofontheassertingParty .Inthee�ent,howe�er,neitherPartycontestedtheirstatusasaccuratereflectionsofcustomarylaw .

23 . BothPartiesalsoreliedextensi�elyintheirwrittenandoralplead-ingsonpro�isionscontainedinProtocolI .AlthoughportionsofProtocolIin�ol�eelementsofprogressi�ede�elopmentofthelaw,bothPartiestreatedkeypro�isionsgo�erningtheconductofattacksandotherrele�antmattersinthisCaseasreflectingcustomaryrulesbindingbetweenthem .TheCom-missionagreesandfurtherholdsthat,duringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,mostofthepro�isionsofProtocolIwereexpressionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Again,hadeitherPartyassertedthatapar-ticularpro�isionofthatProtocolshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwouldha�edecidedthatquestion,buttheneedtodosodidnotarise .

24 . BothPartiespresentednumerousclaimsallegingimproperuseofanti-personnellandminesandboobytraps,buttherewaslimiteddiscussionofthelawrele�anttotheuseoftheseweaponsininternationalarmedconflict .TheCommissionnotesthattheeffortstode�eloplawdealingspecificallywithsuchweaponshasresultedinthefollowingtreaties:Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�entionalWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscriminateEffects,17Pro-tocolonProhibitionsorRestrictionsontheUseofMines,Booby-TrapsandOtherDe�ices,18thatProtocolasamendedonMay3,1996,19andtheCon�en-tionontheProhibitionoftheUse,Stockpiling,ProductionandTransferof

15 HagueCon�ention(IV)RespectingtheLawsandCustomsofWaronLandandAnnexedRegulations,Oct .18,1907,36Stat .p .2277,1Be�ansp .631[hereinafterHagueRegulations] .

16 InternationalMilitaryTribunal,TrialoftheMajorWarCriminalsbytheInterna-tionalMilitaryTribunal253–54(1947);United States v. Von Leeb[HighCommandCase],11 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunal Under Control Council Law No. 10,atp .462(1950);ReportoftheSecretary-GeneralPursuanttoParagraph2oftheSecurityCouncilResolution808,Annex,at9,U .N .Doc .S/25704(1993);see also2LassaOppenheim,International Law pp .234–236(HerschLauterpachted .,7thed .1952);JonathanI .Charney,International Agreements and the Development of Customary Inter-national Law,61Wash .L .Re� .p .971(1986) .

17 U .N .Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�en-tionalWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscrimi-nateEffects,Oct .10,1980,1342U .N .T .S .p .137,reprinted in19I .L .M .p .1523 .

18 ProtocolIIof1980,supranote4 .19 Id .,asamendedatGene�a,May3,1996,reprinted in35I .L .M .p .1209(1996) .


Anti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruction .20NoneoftheseinstrumentswasinforcebetweenthePartiesduringtheconflict .TheCommissionholdsthatcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawisthelawapplicabletotheseclaims .Inthatconnection,theCommissionconsidersthatthosetreatiesha�ebeenconcludedsorecentlyandthepracticeofStateshasbeenso�ariedandepisodicthatitisimpossibletoholdthatanyoftheresultingtreatiesconstitut-edanexpressionofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawapplicabledur-ingthearmedconflictbetweentheParties .Ne�ertheless,thereareelementsinProtocolIIof1980,suchasthoseconcerningrecordingofminefieldsandprohibitionofindiscriminateuse,thatexpresscustomaryinternationallaw .Thoserulesreflectfundamentalhumanitarianlawobligationsofdiscrimina-tionandprotectionofci�ilians .

25 . WhileEritreasuggestedin itsMemorial that the1966Co�enantonCi�ilandPoliticalRights21mightalsoberele�ant,22ithasnotreliedontheCo�enantoridentifiedanyrele�antpro�isions .Moreo�er,theCommissionnotesthattheCo�enantpermitspartiestoderogatefrommanyofitspro�i-sionsduringpublicemergencies,suchaswar .23AsthePartiesha�enotreferredintheirwrittenpleadingstoanyspecificpro�isionsoftheCo�enant,theCom-missionneednotdecideitsapplicability .

b. evidentiary issues

1. Question of Proof Required

26 . Asdiscussedabo�e,24theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon-�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .

2. Proof of Facts

27 . Initslastwrittensubmissionsinthiscase,filedlessthanamonthbeforethehearing,EritreasubmittedwitnessstatementsbydesertersfromtheEthiopianforcesandbyformerEritreanprisonersrecruitedbyEthiopiafortheEritreanopposition .NoneofthesewitnesseswaspresentedbyEritreaatthehearing .Inthecircumstances,theCommissionhasdecidednottorelyonthesestatements .NorhastheCommissionreliedoninter�iewsreported

20 Con�entionontheProhibitionoftheUse,Stockpiling,ProductionandTransferofAnti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruction,Sept .18,1997,36I .L .M .p .1507(1997) .

21 InternationalCo�enantonCi�ilandPoliticalRights,Dec .16,1966,999U .N .T .S .p .171[hereinafterICCPR] .

22 Eritrea’sMemorial,Claims2,4,6,7and8,filedbyEritreaonOct .15,2002,Vol .1,para .1 .17 .

23 ICCPR,supranote21,atart .4 .24 Seesuprapara .6 .


innewsstories,althoughEritreacitedsuchreportedstoriesalongwithswornwitnessstatementsforproofoffacts .

28 . Atthehearinginthepresentproceedings,thefollowingwitnesseswerepresented:

By Eritrea:Mr .LaurentBouillet—FactandExpertWitnessMr .HenrikTobiesen—FactandExpertWitnessMr .WilliamArkin—ExpertWitnessDr .BereketBerhaneWoldeab—FactWitnessDr .MarianaRincon—FactWitness

By Ethiopia:General(Ret .)CharlesW .Dyke—ExpertWitnessBrigadierGeneralAlemuAyele—FactWitness

3. Estimation of Liability

29 . TheclaimsbeforetheCommissionin�ol�ecomplexe�ents,someunfoldingo�ermanymonths .Inse�eralsituations,theCommissionhascon-cludedthatparticulardamageresultedfrommultiplecausesoperatingatdif-ferenttimes,includingbothcausesforwhichtherewasStateresponsibilityandothercausesforwhichtherewasnot .Thee�idencedoesnotpermitexactapportionmentofdamagetodifferentcausesinthesesituations .Accordingly,theCommissionhasindicatedthepercentageoftheloss,damageorinjuryconcernedforwhichitbelie�estheRespondentislegallyresponsible,baseduponitsbestassessmentofthee�idencepresentedbybothParties .

C. summary of events on the Central front relevant to these Claims

30 . AfterthearmedconflictbeganontheWesternFrontinMay1998,bothEritreaandEthiopiabegantostrengthentheirarmedforcesalongwhatwouldbecometheCentralFront .Frommid-MaytoearlyJune,Eritreanarmedforcesattackedatanumberofpoints,firstinAhferomandMerebLekheWere-das,theninIrobandGulomakhedaWeredas .InGulomakhedaWereda,thesignificantbordertownofZalambessa(withapre-warpopulationestimatedatbetween7,000and10,000)wasalso taken .Inall fourweredas,Eritreanforcesmo�edintoareasadministeredpriortotheconflictbyEthiopia,occu-piedterritory,andestablishedfieldfortificationsandtrenchlines,sometimespermanentlyandsometimesonlyforabriefperiodbeforereturningtoadja-centterritoryadministeredpriortotheconflictbyEritrea .Inallcases,they


carriedoutintermittentoperationsthatextendedbeyondtheoccupiedareas .Theseoperationsincludedartilleryfire,intermittentgroundpatrols,andtheplacementofdefensi�efieldsoflandmines .

31 . Inresponsetothesemilitaryoperations,manyresidentsofthoseareasfledandsoughtrefugeinca�esordisplacedpersonscampsestablishedbyEthiopia .Someci�iliansne�erthelessremainedintheoccupiedareas .Somewhoremained,includingthosewhostayedinZalambessa,werelatermo�edbyEritreatointernallydisplacedpersons(“IDP”)campswithinEritrea .

32 . WhenEthiopialaterintroducedsubstantialnumbersofitsarmedforcesintothefourweredas,astatic,althoughnotfullycontiguous,frontwascreatedthatremainedlargelythesamefornearlytwoyears .Hostilities�ariedinintensityduringthatperiodandincludedsomeinstancesofintensecombatduring1999 .Howe�er,inMayof2000,Ethiopialaunchedageneraloffensi�ethatdro�eallEritreanarmedforcesoutoftheterritorypre�iouslyadminis-teredbyEthiopiaandtookEthiopianforcesdeepintoEritrea .Eritrea’sclaimsinthepresentcasearoseonly intheperiodbeginninginMay2000,whenEthiopianarmedforcesenteredEritreanterritoryontheCentralFront .InEritrea,theCentralFrontextendedfromArezaandMaiMeneSub-Zobasinthewest,throughAdiQualaandTseronaSub-ZobastoSenafeSub-Zobaintheeast .

33 . OnMay12,2000,EthiopiantroopscrossedtheMerebRi�erintheWesternFrontareaandmo�ednortheasttoMolki .Fromthere,theyad�ancedeastwardtowardAreza,engagingincombatatse�eralplaces,includingthe�illageofAdiNifasandthetownofMaiDima .Ethiopiantroopsthenmo�edsouthtowardsMaiMene .Afterabouttendays,EthiopianforcesinArezaandMai Mene Sub-Zobas mo�ed east and southeast and returned to EthiopiathroughAdiQualaSub-Zoba .

34 . OnMay23,Ethiopianforceslaunchedaseparateoffensi�eintheTseronaareaandcapturedthetownofTseronaonMay25 .OnMay24,Ethio-pianforcesalsoattackedinthe�icinityofZalambessa .TheyquicklytookZal-ambessaand,onMay26,mo�ednorthintoEritrea,throughthetownofSen-afetohighpositionsbeyondatKeshe’atandEmbaSoira,wherethead�ancestoppedandthefrontstabilized .TheEthiopianforcesremainedinoccupationofpartsofTseronaandSenafeSub-ZobasuntilFebruaryandMarch2001whentheywithdrewtoterritoryadministeredbyEthiopiapriortotheconflict,pursuanttotheDecember12,2000PeaceAgreement .

35 . Eritrea’sclaimsarebaseduponactionswithinthefi�eSub-ZobasoftheCentralFrontforwhichEthiopiawasresponsiblethatallegedlywereunlawfulandresultedinthelootinganddestructionofpublicandpri�ateproperty,destructionofinfrastructure,personalinjurytoci�iliansanddes-ecrationofplacesofworship,gra�esandmonuments .Followingageneralcommentonthee�idenceofrapeontheCentralFront,theCommissionshallconsidertheseclaimssub-zobabysub-zoba .


d. Comment on rape36 . TheCommissionconsidersthatallegationsofrapedeser�eseparate

generalcomment .DespitetheincalculablesufferinginflicteduponEthiopianandEritreanci�iliansalikeinthecourseofthisarmedconflict,theCommis-sionisgratifiedthattherewasnosuggestion,muchlesse�idence,thateitherEritreaorEthiopiausedrape,forcedpregnancyorothersexual�iolenceasaninstrumentofwar .Neithersideallegedstrategicallysystematicsexual�iolenceagainstci�iliansinthecourseofthearmedconflictandoccupationofCentralFrontterritories .Eachsidedid,howe�er,allegefrequentrapeofitswomenci�iliansbytheother’ssoldiers .

37 . ThePartiesagreethatrapeofci�iliansbyopposingoroccupyingforcesisa�iolationofcustomaryinternationallaw,asreflectedintheGene�aCon�entions .UnderCommonArticle3(1),Statesareobligedtoensurethatwomenci�iliansaregrantedfundamentalguarantees,includingtheprohibi-tionagainst“�iolencetolifeandperson,inparticularmurderofallkinds,mutilation,crueltreatmentandtorture . . .outragesonpersonaldignity,inparticularhumiliatinganddegradingtreatment .”Article27ofthe1949Gene-�aCon�entionrelati�etotheProtectionofCi�ilianPersonsinTimeofWar(“Gene�aCon�entionIV”)pro�ides(emphasisadded):

Protectedpersonsareentitled,inallcircumstances,torespectfortheirper-sons,theirhonour,theirfamilyrights,theirreligiouscon�ictionsandprac-tices,andtheirmannersandcustoms .Theyshallatalltimesbehumanelytreated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of �iolence orthreatsthereofandagainstinsultsandpubliccuriosity .Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in par-ticular against rape, enforced prostitution or any form of indecent assault.38 . Article76 .1ofProtocolIadds:“Womenshallbetheobjectofspecial

respectandshallbeprotectedinparticularagainstrape,forcedprostitutionandanyotherformofindecentassault .”

39 . Weturnnowtothespecificallegationsandprofferede�idencecon-cerningrapeofci�ilianwomen .BothPartiesexplainedthatrapeissuchasensiti�ematterintheirculturethat�ictimsareextremelyunlikelytocomeforward,andwhentheyorotherwitnessesdopresenttestimony,thee�idencea�ailableislikelytobefarlessdetailedandexplicitthanfornon-sexualoffens-es .TheCommissionacceptsthis,andhastakenitintoaccountine�aluatingthee�idence .Todootherwisewouldbetosubscribetotheschoolofthought,nowfortunatelyeroding,thatrapeisine�itablecollateraldamageinarmedconflict .

40 . Gi�entheseheightenedculturalsensiti�ities,inadditiontothetypi-callysecreti�eandhenceunwitnessednatureofrape,theCommissionhasnotrequirede�idenceofapatternoffrequentorper�asi�erapes .TheCommissionremindsthePartiesthat,initsPartialAwardsonPrisonersofWar,itdidnotestablishanin�ariablerequirementofe�idenceoffrequentorper�asi�e�iola-


tionstopro�eliability .Therele�antstandardbearsrepeating,withemphasisadded:

TheCommissiondoesnotseeitstasktobethedeterminationofliabilityofaPartyforeachindi�idualincidentofillegalitysuggestedbythee�idence .Rather, it istodetermineliabilityforserious�iolationsofthelawbytheParties,whichareusually illegalactsoromissionsthatwerefrequentorper�asi�eandconsequentlyaffectedsignificantnumbersof�ictims .25

41 . Rape,whichbydefinitionin�ol�esintentionalandgrie�ousharmtoanindi�idualci�ilian�ictim,isanillegalactthatneednotbefrequenttosupportStateresponsibility .ThisisnottosaythattheCommission,whichisnotacriminaltribunal,couldorhasassessedgo�ernmentliabilityforisolatedindi�idualrapesoronthebasisofentirelyhearsayaccounts .WhattheCom-missionhasdoneislookforclearandcon�incinge�idenceofse�eralrapesinspecificgeographicareasunderspecificcircumstances .

42 . Perhapsnotsurprisingly,theCommissionhasfoundsuche�idence,intheformofunrebuttedprima facie cases,intheCentralFrontregionswherelargenumbersofopposingtroopswereinclosestproximitytoci�ilianpopu-lations(disproportionatelywomen,childrenandtheelderly)forthelongestperiodsoftime—namely,SenafeTowninEritreaandIrobWeredainEthiopia .Knowing,astheymust,thatsuchareasposethegreatestriskofopportunisticsexual�iolencebytroops,EritreaandEthiopiawereobligatedtoimposeeffec-ti�emeasures,asrequiredbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw,topre�entrapeofci�ilianwomen .Theclearandcon�incinge�idenceofse�eralincidentsofrapeintheseareasshowsthat,ataminimum,theyfailedtodoso .

43 . ForotherareasalongtheCentralFront,althoughtherewase�idenceofoccasionalrape(deser�ingofatleastcriminalin�estigation),theCommis-siondidnotfindsufficiente�idenceonwhichtofindeithergo�ernmentliableforfailingtoprotectci�ilianwomenfromrapebyitstroops .

e. areza sub-Zoba44 . ArezaSub-Zobaisapredominantlyagriculturalregionthatbecame

theareaoftheinitialfightinginEritreaduringEthiopia’sMay2000offensi�e .Astrategicallyimportanteast-westroadcrossesthesub-zobarunningfromMolkithroughMaiDimaandcontinuingupahighescarpmenttothetownofAreza(whichremainedinEritreanhands) .TheEthiopianad�ancelargelyfollowedthisroad,andtherewashea�yfightingatse�eralplacestocontrolit .Ofthetwentykebabis(residentialareas)inthesub-zoba,Ethiopianforcesenteredonlyeight .Theseincludedthelargestkebabi,MaiDima,whichhadapopulationofsome9,000 .ThetownofMaiDimawasknownforamajoreyeclinicthatser�edbothEritreaandEthiopiabeforethewar .

25 PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supranote3,atpara .54;PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17,supranote3,atpara .56 .


45 . Thee�idenceclearlyindicatesthatEthiopianarmedforceswereinArezaSub-Zobaforonlyafewdaysandthatintensefightingoccurredinandaroundthe�illageofAdiNifasandthetownofMaiDima,whicharetheonlytwoplacesinthesub-zobaconcerningwhichEritreapresentedanysignifi-cante�idence .AdiNifaswasastrategicallyimportanthilltop�illageabo�ethemainroadthatwasstronglydefendedbyEritreanarmedforces .Eritreaassert-edthatEthiopianforcesintentionallykilledse�eralci�iliansthere .The�illagewasthesceneofintensecombatbetweenthetwoarmiesand,althoughci�il-iansremainingtheremayha�ebecomeinad�ertentandtragiccasualties,thee�idencefailstosustainEritrea’sclaimthatanyci�ilianswerekilleddeliber-ately .Eritreaalsoallegedintentionaldestruction,lootingandoffensesagainstci�iliansinMaiDima,anotherimportantpointonthemainroadthatwasstronglydefendedbyEritreanforces .AfterbeingtakenbyEthiopianforces,itwasshelledbyEritreanforces,firingfromthehighgroundtotheeast .Gi�enthesecircumstances,thelimitede�idencesubmittedbyEritreaofindi�idualcasualtiesisinsufficienttojustifytherequestedfindingthatEthiopiaisliableforunlawfulmistreatmentofci�iliansinthesub-zoba .

46 . EritreapresentedasmallnumberofstatementsfromwitnesseswhoassertedseeingEthiopiansoldiersandci�ilianslootingproperty,primarilyinMaiDima .Theseassertionsaredeniedinstatementsbytherele�antEthiopianmilitarycommanders,whoallegethattherewasextensi�e lootingbylocalci�iliansandthattheEthiopianforcessoughttocontrolitbydeployingmili-tarypolice .Thee�idenceisinconclusi�eregardingresponsibilityforlooting .TypicalwasthestatementbythedoctorfromtheMaiDimaeyeclinicwhostatedthattheclinichadbeenlootedbytheEthiopianarmy,e�enthoughhedidnotwitnessthee�entandthereforedidnotseewhowasresponsible .Inanye�ent,suchlimitede�idencerelatingsolelytotwolocalitieswhereintensefightingindisputablytookplaceisinadequatetosupportafindingoffrequentorper�asi�elootingintheentiresub-zoba .

47 . AllclaimsrelatingtoArezaSub-Zobaaredismissedforfailureofproof .

f. mai mene sub-Zoba

48 . MaiMeneSub-Zoba,whichisinthesouth-centralsectionofEri-treaontheCentralFront, isapredominantlyagriculturalregionwithsix-teenkebabisandapproximately14,000families .Thee�idenceshowedthatEthiopianforceswerepresentinthesub-zobaforafewdaysinMay2000astheyre-deployedbacktowardsEthiopiainpreparationforattacksfurthereast .Ethiopiantroopsmo�edsouthfromtheMaiDimaareatoMaiMene,wheretheyconnectedwitharoadeasttoEndaGiorgisinAdiQualaSub-Zoba .Manythenmo�edsouthtoRamainEthiopia,beforebeingre-deployedtooperationselsewhere .


49 . Eritreasubmittede�idenceonlyforthetownofMaiMene,fromwhichonequarterofthepopulationfledbeforetheEthiopianforcesarri�edinMay2000andwhichwasunderEthiopiancontrolforapproximatelyoneweekonly .EritreaaskedtheCommissiontoacceptthattheexperienceofMaiMenetowntypifiedthee�entsintheentiresub-zoba .Thatwouldbeunreasonable,particularlyin�iewoftherapidmo�ementofe�entsandthebriefpresenceoftheEthiopianforces .

50 . LikeAdiNifasandMaiDima,MaiMenewasthesceneofintensefightingandwasunderEthiopiancontrolonlyforapproximatelyoneweekinMay2000 .Eritreapresentedwitnessstatemente�idenceofphysicalabuseofci�ilians,particularlyduringsearchesofhomesbyEthiopiansoldierswhowerelookingforweaponsandEritreansoldiers,andoflootingandpropertydestructionbyEthiopiansoldiersandci�ilians,particularlyofpublicprop-erty,suchasaMinistryofAgriculturebuilding,amedicalclinicandschools .Ethiopiasubmittedrebuttale�idencethatthefighting,includingshellingbyEritreanforces,hadcausedconsiderabledamagetopropertyinthetownandthatmanyEritreanshadengagedinlootingofbothpublicandpri�ateproper-tiesinMaiMene .Consideringthee�idenceasawhole,theCommissionfindsthattheclaimsoflootingandpropertydestructionarenotpro�ed .

51 . AllclaimsrelatingtoMaiMeneSub-Zobaaredismissedforfailureofproof .

G. adi Quala sub-Zoba52 . AdiQualaSub-Zoba,whichalsoliesonthesouth-centralsection

oftheCentralFront,hastwentykebabisintotalandapproximately10,900families .Itwasade�elopingagriculturalareaandacenterofcross-bordertradebeforethewar,withanewimmigration,customsandpolicecenterneartheMerebRi�erinKisadIka .

53 . TheEthiopianforcesthathadbeeninArezaandMaiMeneSub-ZobastransitedEndaGiorgisandKisadIkainAdiQualaSub-ZobaontheirreturntoEthiopiafromArezaandMaiMeneSub-Zobas .AsEritreanarmedforceswerealsoinAdiQualaSub-Zoba,therewasrecurringcombattherebeforethelastEthiopianforcesleftthesub-zoba .

54 . Eritreasubmittede�idencerelatingonlytofourtownsor�illagesthatwerecontrolledbyEthiopianforcesforperiodsrangingfromaweekortendaystosixweeksandallofwhichhadlargelybeene�acuatedbeforetheEthiopiantroopsarri�ed .Thate�idenceincludedasmallnumberofaccountsofindi�idualci�iliansbeingshotbyEthiopiansoldiers,intwoofwhichotherEthiopiansoldiersinter�enedtoassisttheEritrean�ictim .Thee�idencealsoincluded a few troubling accounts of arrests and deportations of ci�ilianstoEthiopia .OneEritreanpriestandgroupleaderforthePeoplesFrontforDemocracyandJustice(thego�erningpoliticalparty inEritrea)describedbeingtakentoRamainEthiopia,wherehewasdetainedinacellforamonth


andinterrogatedbypolice,andthenimprisonedinAksumwithpoliticalpris-onersandsubjectedtotwoweeksofpoliticalre-education .Howe�er,thee�i-dencewasnotsufficienttoindicateapatternofsuche�ents .

55 . Eritreaalsosubmittedmanywitnessstatementsdescribinghomes,businessesandschoolsthathadbeenlootedordestroyed .Mostofthesestate-mentswerebyreturningresidentswhotestifiedastotheirlostordamagedproperty,butwhohadnotwitnessedwhathappenedtoit .Indefense,Ethio-piasubmittede�idencethatEritreanshellingcausedsubstantialdamagetoci�ilianpropertyandthatEritreanshadfrequentlylootedpropertiesofotherEritreans .

56 . Consideringthee�idenceasawhole,andin�iewofthebriefperiodoftimeduringwhichEthiopiacontrolledthelocationsconcerned,theCom-missionholdsthatthee�idenceisnotsufficienttoestablishapatternofmis-conductattributabletoEthiopianforces .AllclaimsrelatingtoAdiQualaSub-Zobaaredismissedforfailureofproof .

57 . ThePartiesdisagreedonanissuethatarosenotjustinAdiQualaSub-ZobabutinallthreeEritreansub-zobasinwhichEthiopianarmedforceswerepresentonlyforlimitedperiods,particularlyinareaswherethetroopswerepassingthroughontheirwaytootherlocations .Thatissuewaswhetherthepro�isionsof theGene�aCon�entionsapplicable tooccupied territorywereapplicable topartsorallof those threesub-zobas .Ontheonehand,clearlyanareawherecombatisongoingandtheattackingforcesha�enotyetestablishedcontrolcannotnormallybeconsideredoccupiedwithinthemean-ingoftheGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .Ontheotherhand,wherecombatisnotoccurringinanareacontrollede�enforjustafewdaysbythearmedforcesofahostilePower,theCommissionbelie�esthatthelegalrulesapplicabletooccupiedterritoryshouldapply .26Ne�ertheless,gi�entheCommission’sdis-missalofallclaimsarisinginthosethreesub-zobas,theCommissionneednotdecidewhetheranyareaswithinthemthatwere,atanytime,underthecontrolofEthiopianarmedforceswereoccupiedterritory .

H. Tserona sub-Zoba58 . TseronaSub-Zoba,whichliesinthemiddleoftheCentralFront,has

twentykebabisandapproximately30,000families .AlthoughasmallnumberofEritreanwitnessstatementsaddressedconditionsinsmall�illages,the�astmajorityofthee�idenceconcernedTseronaTownandthethreesmalltownsofLogoSarda,MaiChenaandDibar .

59 . Theprincipaltowninthesub-zobaisTseronaTown,which,beforethewar,hadapopulationofsome3,500people .ItisundisputedthatTseronaTownwashea�ilydamagedduringthewar .TheCommissionrecei�edmuch

26 SeethediscussionofthismatterinU .S .Dep’tofArmy,Law of Land Warfare (FieldManualNo .27–10,1956,re� .1976),atparas .351–356 .


e�idenceandargumentaddressingwhetherthatdamagewasattributabletoEthiopia .EritreacontendedthatTseronaTownwassubjectedtomassi�eloot-ingbyEthiopianforcesandthatpublicbuildingsthereweredeliberatelyandunlawfullydestroyedbyEthiopiandemolition .AfterthewarbeganinMay1998,theEritreanforwardtrencheswereonlytwoorthreekilometerssouthofTseronaTown,andthee�idenceindicatesthatthetownsufferedsomedamagefromEthiopianartilleryfire .Apparently,muchofthepopulationofthetownleftforsafetyinIDPcampsdeeperinsideEritreaand,inJanuary1999,Eritreaorderedthecompletee�acuationofci�iliansfromthetown .Fromthattime,theonlyoccupantsofthetownweresomeEritreanmilitarypersonnelwhousedsomebuildingsinthetown .

60 . Ethiopiabeganitsoffensi�eintheTseronaareaonMay23,2000,andEthiopiantroopstookcontrolofthetownbyMay25 .WhiletheEthio-pianfrontlinesmo�edaconsiderabledistancenorthofthetown,itremainedwithin rangeofEritreanartillery for the remainderof thewar .Ethiopianarmed forces remained in place in the sub-zoba until late February 2001,whentheywithdrewpursuanttotheDecember12,2000PeaceAgreement .Whentheywithdrewtothesouth,theUnitedNationsMissioninEthiopiaandEritrea(“UNMEE”)personnelwerepresent,butEritreadidnotsendanypoliceorlocaladministrati�epersonnelbackintothetownorsurroundingareasuntilJune2001 .ThisdelayproducedwhattheSecretaryGeneraloftheUnitedNationsreferredtoasa“potentiallydangerous�acuumofauthority .”27Ethiopiaarguedthatmuchofthedamageinthesub-zobaforwhichEritreaisclaimingmaywellha�eoccurredduringthatperiod,butitofferednosupport-i�ee�idencerelatingtoe�entsinTseronaduringthatthree-monthperiod .

61 . Thee�idenceindicatesthatthetownsufferedsomedamageduetocombat,althoughitsextentisnotclear .Further,whenEritrearesumedadmin-istrati�econtrolofTseronaTownandthesurroundingareasinJune2001andtheformerresidentsreturnedtothetown,theyfoundthatse�eralmajorbuild-ingshadbeendestroyedbydemolitionandthat�irtuallyallbuildingsinthetownhadbeenstrippedofroofs,doorsandwindows,aswellasanycontentsof�alue .EritreaclaimsthatEthiopiaisresponsibleforthisdamage .Ethiopiadeniesresponsibility,pointingoutthatsomedamageresultedfromcombatandasserting that somebuildingsweredestroyedbydenialoperationsbyretreatingEritreanforcesandthatEritreanmilitaryandci�ilianpersonnelthemsel�eslootedthetown .

62 . Eritreasubmitted ine�idenceasatellitephotographof the towntakenonMay31,2000,afewdaysafterEthiopianarmedforcesoccupiedthetown .Thatphotograph,purchasedfromacommercialsupplierliketheothersintroducedbyEritrea,showsthatroofsremainedonmostofthestructuresinthetown .Eritreastatesthat,unfortunately,nosubsequentsatellitephoto-

27 ReportoftheSecretaryGeneralonEthiopiaandEritrea,U .N .Doc .S/2001/202(Mar .7,2001),atp .2,para .11 .


graphsofthetowncouldbefound .Howe�er,theCommissionfindstheothere�idencepersuasi�ethat,byJune2001,�irtuallyallroofs,doorsandwindowsweremissing .Thee�idenceisalsopersuasi�ethatthreebuildingsthatweree�identlyintactwhenthesatellitephotographwastakenonMay31,2000—thesub-zobaadministrati�eheadquarters, the sub-zobahealthcenterandtheWarsaiHotel—weresubsequentlydestroyedbyexplosi�es .Fortwootherdestroyedbuildings,thecourthouseandthetownhealthclinic,thesatellitephotographisunclearastowhethertheywerestandingonMay31,2000 .

63 . TheCommissionmustdeterminewhetherEritreahaspro�edthatEthiopiaisliableforsomeorallofthedamagetoandstrippingofbuildingsandforthedestructionoftheadministrati�eheadquarters,thehealthcenterandthehotel .In�iewofthee�ident,substantialuseofexplosi�estodestroythose three buildings, which were intact when the occupation began, theCommissionconcludesthatEthiopia,astheOccupyingPower,mustbeheldresponsiblefortheirdestruction .Ethiopiadoesnotcontendthatsuchdestruc-tionwaslawfulbecauseitwas“renderedabsolutelynecessarybymilitaryoper-ations .”28TheCommissiondismissesforlackofsufficientprooftheclaimforthedestructionofthecourthouseandhealthclinic,sincethee�idencedoesnotshowthattheyhadbeenintactwhenEthiopiatookcontrol .

64 . WithrespecttotheclaimforlootingandstrippingbuildingsinTse-ronaTown,thereisconsiderablee�idencethatmustbeweighed .ThesatellitephotographofMay31,2000showsthatatleastninetypercentofthestructuresinthetownhadroofsatthattimeandconsequentlymaybepresumednotyetstrippedbeforethearri�alofEthiopiantroops .

65 . TurningfirsttotheClaimant,Eritreasubmittedcrediblewitnessstatementsofci�iliansstatingthattheysawEthiopiansoldiersandci�iliansstrippinghousesinthetownandloadingtheroofs,doorsandwindowsontotrucks,aswellasotherstatementsfromci�ilianswhowitnessedsuchitemsbeingsoldfromtrucksinEthiopianbordertowns .

66 . Indefense,Ethiopiasubmittedcrediblee�idencethat,priortoitsentryintoTseronaTown,someroofsandothermaterialsfromhouseshadbeenusedbyEritreantroopsintheconstructionoftrenchesnearthetown .Also,NGOobser�ersnotedsomebattledamagetothetownasofMarch2001;inthisconnection,EthiopiaassertsthattherewassomeEritreanshellingofthetownsubsequenttoMay31,2000 .TheCommissionispreparedtoacceptthatassertionforthese�eralweekspriortotheconclusionoftheCease-FireAgreement,butitdoubtsthatmuchadditionaldamagewascausedbysuchlong-rangeshelling .

67 . Ethiopia occupied Tserona Town for nearly nine of the twel�emonthsbetweenMay31,2000andJune2001whenthedamagewasassessed .WhetherornotEthiopianmilitarypersonnelweredirectlyin�ol�edinthelootingandstrippingofbuildingsinthetown,Ethiopia,astheOccupying

28 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supranote12,atart .53 .


Power,wasresponsibleforthemaintenanceofpublicorder,forrespectingpri-�ateproperty,andforpre�entingpillage .29Consequently,Ethiopiaisliableforpermittingtheunlawfullootingandstrippingofbuildingsinthetowndur-ingtheperiodofitsoccupation .Ethiopiaisnotliablefordamagestothetowncausedbycombatorforlootingandstrippingofbuildingsthatoccurredeitherbeforeorafteritsoccupationofthetown .

68 . Eritrea’sclaimsforthedestructionofthetown’swatertankandse�-eralwaterholesaredismissedforlackofproof .Withrespecttothewatertank,Ethiopiasubmittede�idencethatithadbeendestroyedpriortothetown’scap-tureonMay25,2000,andneitherthesatelliteimagenorEritrea’sexpertonbombdamageassessment,Mr .WilliamArkin,pro�idedrele�antinformation .

69 . Assessingrelati�eresponsibilityforthelootingandstrippingofthetownisdifficult,notleastbecausesomedamageresultedfromcombatopera-tionsanditspopulationwasabsentduringtherele�antperiod,includingtwoorthreemonthsafterEthiopianforceswithdrew .Gi�enthis,andconsideringthee�idenceasawhole,theCommissionfindsthatEthiopiaisliableforse�enty-fi�epercentofthedamagecausedbylootingandstrippinginTseronaTown .

70 . TheprincipalcaretakeroftheTseronaPatriotsCemeterypro�idedawitnessstatementinwhichhestatedthatthecemetery,whichwaslocatedimmediatelyoutsideTseronaTown,hadbeendestroyedduringtheEthiopianoccupation .HesaidthatthecemeterywasessentiallyundamagedwhenhefledshortlybeforetheEthiopiantroopsarri�edandthat,whenhereturnedinJune2001,ithadbeendesecrated .Hesaidthattheremainsofthesoldiersburiedtherewerescatteredo�ertheground,themetal�aultsthathadheldthemweremissing,aswerethewindows,doorsandroofsofthebuildingswheretheyhadbeenkept,andthatthememorialtreeshadbeencutdownandthemetalfenceremo�ed .Healsosaidthatemptymesstinsandgarbageweree�erywhere .Eritreasubmittedine�idenceaphotographoftheruinedcemeterythatcon-firmedthestatementsbythecaretaker .

71 . AstheEthiopiantroopshadleftTseronathreemonthspriortothecaretaker’sreturn,thepossibilitycannotbeexcludedthatthecemeterywaslootedandstrippedduringthatinter�al,althoughthepresencethereofmesstinssuggeststhatitismorelikelythatthishappenedpriortotheirdeparture .Inanye�ent,EthiopiawastheOccupyingPoweroftheareathatincludedthecemeteryfromlateMay2000untillateFebruary2001,andEthiopiapresentednodefensi�ee�idencetothisclaim .Consequently,aswithTseronaTown,theCommissionfindsthatEthiopiaisliableforse�enty-fi�epercentofthedamagecausedtothecemetery .

72 . Astotherestofthesub-zoba,Eritreapresenteda�erysmallnumberofwitnessstatementsdescribingisolatedinstancesofphysicalabuseandshell-ingofIDPcampslocatedclosetoTseronaTown .Theseo�erallclaimsrelating

29 HagueRegulations,supranote15,atarts .43,46,47 .


tothesub-zoba,includingitsclaimsforwidespreadmistreatmentofci�iliansinthesub-zoba,aredismissedforfailureofproof .

i. senafe sub-Zoba73 . SenafeSub-Zoba,attheeasternendoftheCentralFront,wasde�el-

opedsubstantiallybyEritreaafterindependenceintoacenterofcross-bordertrade .Therearetwenty-fourkebabis intotal,butthetwomainpopulationcentersofthesub-zobaareSenafeTownandthe�illageofSerha .

74 . Ethiopiain�adedinMay2000anditisundisputedthatitoccupiedsomese�enty-fi�epercentofthesub-zobafortenmonths,untilFebruary2001 .Oftheapproximately20,000families(comprising86,000residents),slightlyo�erhalffledearlytoIDPcamps .EritreasubmittedwitnessstatementsonlyfromresidentsofSenafeTownandSerha,andfromtheAdministratorofZigfetKebabi,whofledhis�illageinMay2000andreturnedayearlater .

1. Serha

75 . Thenew�illageofSerhaislocatednearthesouthernedgeofSen-afeSub-ZobaclosetotheEthiopiantownofZalambessaonthemainroadbetweenAddisAbabaandAsmara .Priortothewar,ithadbecomehomeforsome800–1,000 residentsandhadgrownpartlyby�irtueof crossbordertrade .AfterthewarbeganinMay1998,the�illagewasaffectedbyEthiopianartilleryfirethatwasinterdictingEritrea’ssupplylinestothefrontinEthiopia .Asaresult,someoftheresidentsfledatthattime,andthee�idenceindicatesthatmostresidentshadleftforIDPcampsbymid-1999 .Inanye�ent,satellitephotographysubmittedbyEritreashowsthat,inMarch2000,roofswereonallofthelargebuildingsandallbutafewofthesmallerbuildings .Theexactextentofshellingdamagecouldnot,ofcourse,beascertainedfromsatellitephotography,buttheMarch2000imagesuggeststhatSerhawassubstantiallyintactatthattime .

76 . InlateMay2000,theEthiopianoffensi�ebroketheEritreanfrontinnorthernEthiopia,andEthiopiantroopsretookZalambessa,andquicklymo�edthroughSerhaandSenafe .SerhawasonthemainaxisoftheEthiopianad�ance,butthereisnodirecte�idenceintherecordconcerningtheextentofdamagetherefromthecombatduringthosedays .Thenexta�ailablesatellitephotographsarefromAugust19,2000andSeptember18,2000 .Theyre�ealthatmanymoreroofsweremissingthaninMarch .

77 . Eritrea’s expert witness, Mr . William Arkin, testified about hisinspectionofSerhainOctober2002 .Heindicatedthatthe�illagehadbeenessentiallycompletelydestroyed .Hestatedthat,unlikeTseronaandSenafeTowns,wheretheprincipalbuildingshadbeendemolishedbyexplosi�es,Serhashowedmorecompletedestruction,frequentlybyotherdirectmeans,


suchasartilleryfire,mortarsandtanksorbulldozers .30Mr .ArkinwasaskedbytheCommissionwhetherhehadobtainedanyexplanationforthemorecompletedestructionofallbuildingsinSerha .Herespondedthatmanypeoplethoughtthat“thedamageinflictedinSerhawasretaliationforthedamageinflictedinZalambessa .”31

78 . TheCommissionisunabletodeterminefromthee�idencethepre-ciseextenttowhichthedamagetoSerharesultedfromcombatinlateMay2000orpre�iously,buttheCommissionissatisfiedthatthebulkofthatdam-ageoccurredwhileEthiopiaoccupiedthe�illageandacted in�iolationofArticle53ofGene�aCon�entionIV,andconsequentlyisdamageforwhichEthiopiaisliable .Inthatrespect,atleast,SerhaissimilartoZalambessa .TheCommissiondecides thatEthiopia is liable forse�entypercentof the totaldamageinflictedonSerhafromMay1998throughFebruary2001 .

2. Senafe Town

79 . SenafeTownwasasubstantialcommunitywithapre-warpopula-tionestimatedat26,000 .ItwascontinuouslyoccupiedbyEthiopianforcesfromthetimetheyenteredthetownonMay26,2000untiltheydepartedinFebru-ary2001 .WhilethedeclarationsofsomeEthiopianofficersindicatedthattheysoughttolimitaccesstothetowntotheirtroops,numerouscredibleaccountsindicatedtheregularpresenceofatleastsomeEthiopiansoldiersthere .

a. Rape

80 . Eritreapresenteddetailedandcumulati�ee�idenceofse�eralrapesbyEthiopiansoldiersofEritreanci�ilianwomeninSenafeTown .Particu-larlydisquietingwerethecredibleaccountsofaneyewitnesstotherapeofagirlbyse�eralEthiopiansoldiers,whothenbeattheeyewitness;arapeofase�enty-year-oldblindwoman,whodiedtwoweekslaterandwhosescreamsbroughtneighborstoherhome,whoallegedlysawanEthiopiansoldierrun-ningaway;andmultipleandconsistentaccountsoftherapeofanamedeighty-year-oldwoman,whodiedshortlythereafter,whoseneighborsheardscreamsandfoundherhomesurroundedbyEthiopiansoldiers .Dr .MarianaRincontestifiedcon�incinglyatthehearing,aswellasbywrittenstatement,abouttreatingse�eralpregnantwomeninthemonthsheser�edintheMédecins Sans Frontières (“MSF”)hospitalinSenafe .Shesaidthattheirbeha�ior,inherexperience,couldonlybeexplainedbyrape .Dr .BereketBerhaneWoldeab,bothinhiswrittenstatementsandatthehearing,ga�esimilartestimony .TheCommissionfoundadditionalsupportfortheseaccountsofparticipationby

30 TranscriptoftheEritrea-EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofNo� .2003,PeacePalace,TheHague,atpp .193–194and217–218 .

31 Id .atp .213 .


Ethiopiansoldiersinthecorroboratedstatementofarape�ictiminMaiMene,whodescribedbeingrapedatgunpointbyoneEthiopiansoldierwhileanotherlookedonandfourkeptguard .

81 . TheCommissionfindsthisspecifice�idence,takentogetherwithmultiplegeneralstatementsaboutunreportedopportunisticrapebyEthiopiansoldiers,sufficienttosupportanEritrean prima facie case .Ethiopia’slimiteddocumentationthatrapecomplaintswerein�estigatedandsoldiersarrestedanditsemphasisonthescopeofitshumanitarianlawcompliancetrainingwereinsufficienttorebutthisprima facie case .Accordingly,theCommissionfindsEthiopialiableforfailuretotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapebyitssoldiersofEritreanci�ilianwomenduringEthiopia’sin�asionandoccupationofSenafeTown .

b. Looting82 . EritreapresentedsomethirtywitnessstatementsfromSenafeTown

residents,basedonwhattheysawduringEthiopia’soccupationandupontheirreturnfromIDPcamps .TheydescribeapatternofEthiopiansoldiersseizingpropertyduringthedayfromthehomesandbusinessesofthosewhohadfled,andgoingdoor-to-dooratnighttotakepropertybyforcefromthosewhoremainedintheirhomes .Theydescribewidespreadlootinganddestructionofpropertyfromhomes,businesses,schools,clinicsandchurches .Theystatethat,oftenwiththehelpofEthiopianci�ilians,Ethiopiansoldierstookmetalroofing,doorsandwindowframesandotherbuildingmaterials,furnitureandhouseholdgoods,money,jewelry,electronicequipment,businessin�entoriesandclothing,andeithertookordestroyedli�estock,grain,beehi�es,sacredreligiousobjectsandmedicalandschoolfittings .

83 . Ethiopiadeniedtheseallegations,assertingthatitstroopswerewelltrainedintherulesofinternationalhumanitarianlawandthatitsofficersdidtheirbest toensurethat thoseruleswererespected .Ethiopiaassertedthatmostofthe lootingofhomesandotherpropertiesthatoccurredinSenafeTownwasdoneeitherbeforeitstroopsarri�edonMay26,2000oraftertheydepartedinFebruary2001andbeforetheEritreanadministrationreturnedinJune2001,endingthe“�acuumofauthority,”butitpro�idednoe�idencedirectlysupportingeithercontention .Ethiopiaacknowledgedthat,despiteitsefforts,somelootingoccurredduringitsoccupation,butitassertedthatEri-treanci�ilianswereresponsibleforthelooting .

84 . Consideringalltheconflictinge�idencewithrespecttolooting,theCommissionholdsthatEthiopia,astheOccupyingPowerforapproximatelynineofthetwel�emonthsthatSenafetownwasnotadministeredbyEritrea,isliableforse�enty-fi�epercentofthelossesresultingfromlootingthatoccurredinthetownbetweenMay26,2000andtheEritreanadministrationreturnedinJune2001 .


c. Infrastructure Destruction

85 . TheprincipaldamageclaimbyEritrearelatingtoSenafeTownisforthedeliberate,unlawfuldestructionofinfrastructure,inparticularofanumberof substantialbuildings .TheCommissionrecei�ede�idence frommultiplesourcesshowingthatasignificantnumberoflocalgo�ernmentandotherimportantbuildingsinSenafehadbeendestroyedbythetimeEritrearesumedadministrationofthetowninJune2001 .Mostofthesebuildingshadbeendemolishedbymilitaryexplosi�es,includinganti-tankminesoftypesfoundintheweaponsin�entoriesofbothParties .

86 . Thee�idence indicates that the lastofEritrea’sretreatingtroopspassedthroughSenafeTownnearmidnightonMay25,2000andthat thefirstoftheEthiopiantroopsenteredthetownearlyinthemorningonMay26 .Eritreaassertsthatthetownwasquietandundamagedatbothofthosetimes,whileEthiopia,onthecontrary,assertsthat,whenitsforcesarri�edatthetown,somebuildingsinthetownhadbeendamagedordestroyedandthatsomefireswereburning .Ethiopiasuggestedthatsuchdamagewasprob-ablyaresultofEritreandenialoperations .EthiopiaallegesthatthebuildingsthatEritreaclaimsitdestroyedwereeitherdestroyedbyEritreabeforeEthio-piantroopsarri�edorweredestroyedlater,eitherbyEritreanshellingorbyunknowncausesafterEthiopianforcesleftinFebruary2001 .

87 . Ethiopiaalsoassertsthat,e�enifithaddestroyedsomeofthebuild-ingsinquestion,suchdestructionwouldha�ebeenlawful .TheCommissioncannotagreewiththatassertion .Therele�antruleoflawisfoundinArticle53ofGene�aCon�entionIV,whichstates:

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal propertybelongingindi�iduallyorcollecti�elytopri�atepersons,ortotheState,ortootherpublicauthorities,ortosocialorcooperati�eorganizations,ispro-hibited,exceptwheresuchdestructionisrenderedabsolutelynecessarybymilitaryoperations .32

88 . Ethiopiahasnotsuggestedanyreasonwhythedestructionofanyofthepropertiesinquestioncouldha�ebeenrendered“absolutelynecessary”bymilitaryoperationsotherthansimplytopre�enttheirreusebyEritreaifandwhenitshouldregaincontrolofSenafeTown .TheCommissiondoesnotagreethatdenialofpotentialfutureuseofpropertieslikethese,whicharenotdirectlyusableformilitaryoperationsasare,forexample,bridgesorrailways,coulde�erbejustifiedunderArticle53 .

89 . ThetaskfacingtheCommissionistodeterminewhetherthereisclear andcon�incinge�idence thatEthiopia is responsible for thee�identdamageordestructioninflictedontheseimportantbuildings .Consequently,theCommissionhasexaminedthea�ailablesatelliteimagery,expertreports,photographsandanEthiopian�ideoofthearri�alofitstroopsinthetown,as

32 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supranote12,atart .53 .


wellaswitnessdeclarationsandtestimonybyEthiopianofficersandbyEri-treanresidentsofthetown .Withrespecttothesedeclarationsandtestimony,theircompletelycontradictorycharactermakesrelianceonthemhazardousandunlikelytoleadtoclearandcon�incingresults .

90 . The�ideoisclaimedbyEthiopiatoha�ebeentakenentirelyonMay26,2000,thedayitstroopsarri�edinSenafe .ThisisattestedtobyanEthio-piansergeant,whostatesthathewasthesole�ideophotographer .CounselforEritreadisputesthatthe�ideowastakenallonthatday .The�ideo,whichclearly has been edited, presents a number of disconnected scenes in andaroundthetown,amongwhicharescenesshowingse�eredamagetothepolicestation,thehospital,thecourthouseandtheMomonaHotel .The�ideoalsoshowsthenewandnotfullycompletedtelecommunicationsbuilding,whichappearsundamaged,althoughEthiopiaarguesthatsomee�idenceofdamagecanbeobser�edatonesideofthestructure .In�iewofitsdecisions,infra, theCommissionneednotdecidewhetherthe�ideowasfilmedentirelyonMay26,2000 .Whethertakenononedayorse�eral,the�ideodoesestablishthat,atthattimeortimes,thetelecommunicationsbuildingwasstandingandtheotherstructuresreferredtowerese�erelydamagedordestroyed .

91 . Thesatelliteimagerythatisa�ailabletothePartiesfromcommer-cialsourcesishelpful,butithassignificantlimitations .Unfortunately,onlytworele�antsatelliteimagesofSenafetownarea�ailable,onetakenonJune3,2000,justafewdaysaftertheoccupationbegan,andtheothertwo-and-a-halfmonthslater,onAugust19,2000 .Moreo�er,theseimagesareincapableofshowingdamagetocertaintypesofbuildings,includingstructuresmadeofreinforcedconcretewhich,ifcollapsed,wouldbelikelytostillha�easolid,concreteroofinplace .Consequently,theimagescannottelluswhethersuchbuildingswereundamaged .Thepolicestation,thecourthouse,theMomonaHotelandthetelecommunicationsbuildingwereallofthattype .

92 . Anadditionaldifficultymayseemtoarisefromthefactthat,fol-lowingthedepartureofEthiopianforcesinlateFebruary2001,Eritreadidnot resume administration of the occupied areas, including Senafe Town,until Juneof thatyear .Ethiopiapointsout that itcannotproperlybeheldresponsibleforlootinganddamageordestructionofbuildingsthatoccurredduringthatperiodorforanylatertime .Howe�er,thereisnoe�idencethatitwouldha�ebeenfeasibleforanyoneremaininginSenafeafterEthiopia’swithdrawaltoha�edemolishedmajorbuildingswithexplosi�es .FollowingEritrea’sresumptionofadministration,itwouldcertainlyha�ehadnomoti�etodoso,andEthiopiahasnotsuggestedthecontrary .Consequently,theCom-missionpresumesthatallmajorbuildingsfoundbytheexpertsin2002toha�ebeendemolishedbyexplosi�eshadsufferedthatfatepriortothedepartureoftheEthiopianforces .

93 . Eritreasubmittedausefulreportbyitsexpert,Mr .WilliamArkin,whoalsotestifiedatthehearing .Mr .Arkin�isitedSenafeTowninOctober


2002 .Hestatedthathe�isitedtheremainsofsixteen“majorfacilitiesorcom-plexesofbuildings”inthetown .Helistedthesesitesasfollows:

1 . BissratHotel2 . Courthouse3 . ElectricalAuthority4 . MinistryofAgricultureStorage/OfficeBuilding5 . MinistryofAgricultureVeterinaryComplex6 . MomonaHotel7 . NewTownAdministrati�eHeadquarters8 . OldTownAdministrati�eHeadquartersandOfficesWest9 . OldTownAdministrati�eHeadquartersandResidenceEast10 . PoliceStation11 . SenafeSecondarySchool12 . SenafeHospital13 . Sub-ZobaAdministrati�eHeadquarters14 . Sub-ZobaAdministrati�eOffices15 . Sub-ZobaAdministratorResidence16 . Telecommunications(“PTT”)Building94 . TheCommissionunderstandsthesesixteenbuildingsandcomplexes

toconstitutethecompletelistofdestroyedbuildingsinSenafeTownforwhichEritrea is claiming . The Commission considers each one to be of sufficientimportancetobetreatedasaseparateclaim,soitwilladdressthemonebyone,beginningwiththoseinwhichtheCommissionfindsfortheClaimant:

Building 3. The Electrical Authority

95 . Mr .Arkinstatedthathisinspectionofthefacilityin2002showedthatbothbuildingslackedroofs,doorsandwindowsandthatmostelectricalequipmentwasgone .Healsosaidthatthereweresignsoffireinthegenera-tor/transformerbuildingbutnosignofdetonation .Withrespecttotiming,henotedthatbothsatelliteimageswereinconclusi�e .TheCommissionnotesthattherewascrediblee�idencethatthetownwaslightedwhenEthiopianforcesenteredearlyonMay26,2000,sotheCommissionmayassumethattheElectricalAuthoritybuildingswerethenundamaged .TheCommissionnotese�idencethatgeneratorswereneededbyDecember2000,asshownbythetes-timonyofMr .HenrikTobiesenwhodeli�eredgeneratorstotheUNMEEper-sonneltheninthetown .Accordingly,theCommissioncanpresumethattheElectricalAuthoritybuildingwasdamagedduringtheperiodoftheoccupa-tion .Inthosecircumstances,theburdenisonEthiopiatopro�ethatthedam-agewascausedbyanotherpartyorisotherwisenotattributabletoEthiopia .AsEthiopiahasnotpresenteddefensi�ee�idencetopro�ehowthatdamage


wascaused,theCommissionholdsEthiopia,asOccupyingPower,liableforthedamagetotheElectricalAuthoritybuildings .

Buildings 4./5. Ministry of Agriculture Buildings

96 . Mr .Arkinstatedthat theJune2satellite imageshowsthatbothbuildingshadroofsandtheAugust19 imageshowsthatbotharewithoutroofs . Consequently, the Commission concludes that both buildings weredamagedwhileEthiopiaoccupiedSenafeTown .AsEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthedamagewascaused,theCommissionholdsEthiopia,asOccupyingPower,liableforthedamagetothesetwobuildings .

Building 7. New Town Administrative Headquarters

97 . Mr .Arkinstatedthatthebuildingwasunderconstructionin2000andthatdamagetoitfirstshowsupinthesatelliteimageofAugust19 .Afterhisinspectionofitin2002,hedescribeditas“aparticularlyegregiouscaseofastructurethathasundergoneintentionaldestruction .”Asthedestructionpresumpti�elyoccurredwhileEthiopiawastheOccupyingPower,andasithasnotpro�edhowthedestructionoccurred,Ethiopiaisliableforthedamagetothisbuilding .

Building 8. Old Town Administrative Headquarters and Offices West

98 . Mr .ArkinstatedthatitappearedintactintheJune2satelliteimageandwithoutaroofintheAugust19image .Asthedamagetothisbuildingpresumpti�elyoccurredwhileEthiopiawastheOccupyingPowerofSenafeTownand,asEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthatdamageoccurred,itisliableforthedamagetothisbuilding .

Building 9. Old Town Administrative Headquarters and Residence East

99 . Mr .ArkinstatedthatthesatelliteimageofJune2showsthisbuild-ingintactandthattheimageofAugust19showsit“intactorpartiallyintact .”WhileMr .Arkin’sreportdidnotclarifythatdelphicremark,theCommissionconsidersthatitmustimplyatleastthatthesecondimageshowssomedamage .Consequently,theCommissionwillpresumethatsomedamageoccurredtothebuildingwhileEthiopiawastheOccupyingPowerofSenafeTown .AsEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthatdamageoccurred,itisliableforthatdamage .

Building 11. Senafe Secondary School

100 . Mr .Arkinstated that theschool,whichwasunderconstructioninMay2000,appearsundamagedintheJune2satelliteimageand“partiallydemolished”intheAugust19satelliteimage .Consequently,theCommissionmayreasonablypresume that thedamage to thepartiallycompletedschool


occurredwhileEthiopiawastheOccupyingPowerofSenafeTown .AsEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthatdamageoccurred,itisliableforthatdamage .

Building 12. Senafe Hospital

101 . Mr .Arkinpointedoutthatthehospitalconsistedofawalledcom-poundenclosingbuildingsandopenspaces .HeindicatedthattheJune2satel-liteimageshowedsomedamagebutwas“notclearindeterminingthele�elofdamage .”WithrespecttotheAugust19image,hesaidthatit“suggeststhatthemainbuildingisstillintact .Thele�elofdamageattherestofthecomplexisambiguous .”Thatdescriptionmayindicatethelimitedutilityofcommer-cialsatelliteimagesatthattime,butitisafrustratingdescription,becausehewentontosaythat,whenheinspectedthehospitalin2002,heconcludedthat“anumberofbuildingswithintheHospitalcompoundexhibitedthecharac-teristicsignsofha�ingbeendemolishedasaresultofinternaldetonations .”Howe�er,theCommissionnotesthetestimonyofDr .MarianaRincon,aU .S .physicianwhowasworkinginEritreaforMSF .Dr .Rincontestifiedthatshe�isitedSenafeearlyinMarch2001,approximatelyoneweekaftertheendoftheoccupation,andthattheSenafehospitalwasthencompletelyflattenedandwas“nothingbutrubble .”Dr .RinconappearedbeforetheCommissionatthehearingandwasbrieflycross-examinedbycounselforEthiopia,butthatcross-examinationdidnotrefertothatpartofhertestimony .OnthebasisofthetestimonybyMr .ArkinandDr .Rincon,theCommissiondecidesthat,whilethehospitalmayha�esufferedsomedamagepriortothebeginningoftheoccupation,thereisclearandcon�incinge�idencetojustifythepresump-tionthatthebulkofthedamageoccurredduringtheoccupation .AsEthiopiahasnotshownhowthatdamageoccurred,itisliableforthatdamage,whichtheCommissionconcludesamountedtoninetypercentofthe�alueofthehospital .

Buildings 13./14./15. Sub-Zoba Administrative and Residential Buildings

102 . Mr .ArkinstatedthattheJune2imageshowsthreeofthesebuild-ingstobeintactandthattheAugust19imageshowsthemtobe“completelydemolished .”Consequently, theCommissionissatisfiedthat thebuildingsweredemolishedwhileEthiopiawastheOccupyingPowerofSenafeTown .AsEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthatoccurred,itisliableforthedestructionofthosethreebuildings .

Building 16. Telecommunications (“PTT”) Building

103 . Mr .Arkinstatedthatfromthesatelliteimages“thereisabsolutelynoe�idenceofdamagetothebuilding”andthat,becauseoftheconstructionofthebuilding,“littlecanbedeterminedregardingthedegreeofdamage”fromthetwosatelliteimages .Hepointsoutthatinspectiononthegroundin2002madeclearthatthebuildingwasdamagedbydetonationsintheinterior .


Hestatedthatthereweremorethanadozenseparatedetonationlocationsinthepartiallycompletedbuilding .TheCommissionnotesthatthe�ideosub-mittedbyEthiopiashowedboththenewincompletebuildingandthesmall,adjacentoldbuildingstandingapparentlyundamagedaftertheoccupationbegan .Inaddition,acopyofaBBCwebpagedatedFebruary13,2001(shortlybeforetheendoftheoccupation)thatwassubmittedine�idencebyEritreacontainsaphotographshowingthenewbuildinginthesame,saggingandessentiallydestroyedconditionasMr .Arkinobser�edin2002 .Consequently,theCommissionconsidersthesepiecesofe�idenceclearandcon�incinge�i-dencethatthetelecommunicationsbuildingwasdestroyedbydetonationdur-ingtheoccupation .AsEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthatoccurred,itisliableforthedestructionofthisbuilding .

Building 1. The Bissrat Hotel

104 . Mr .Arkinnotedthat“thedateandcauseof thedamagetotheBissratHotelwasinconclusi�e .”TheCommissionagreesthattheclaimforthatbuildingmustbedismissedforfailureofproof .

Buildings 2./6./10. The Courthouse, the Momona Hotel and the Police Station

105 . Mr .Arkinstated thathis inspectionof thecourthouse in2002showed that it was completely demolished and that its sloping, slab roofcrushedthestructurewhenitwasdemolished .Headdedthatthetwosatel-liteimageswereinconclusi�e,whichmeansthatwhetherthecourthousewasdemolishedpriortothearri�aloftheEthiopianforcesorduringtheoccupa-tioncannotbeestablishedbythoseimages .HestatedthatthesameistrueofthesatelliteimagesoftheMomonaHotelandthepolicestation .TheCommis-sionalsohasexaminedtherele�antsatelliteimagery,fromwhichitconcludesthatthecourthouseappearsseriouslydamagedbyJune3,1998andthatitisimpossibletodeterminewithanycertaintytheconditionatthattimeofthehotelorthepolicestation .Accordingly,thesatelliteimagerycannotre�ealwhetherthesethreebuildingsweredemolishedpriortoorduringthetimeEthiopiawasoccupyingSenafeTown .Consequently,theCommissiondoesnotfindEritreapro�edthatthesethreebuildingsweredemolishedduringthetimeEthiopiawasoccupyingSenafeTown,andtheclaimsforthesethreebuildingsmustbedismissedforfailureofproof .

106 . AllotherclaimsrelatedtoSenafeTownaredismissedforlackofproof .

3. The Stela of Matara

107 . Thestelaisanobeliskthatisperhapsabout2,500yearsold .ItisanobjectofgreathistoricalandculturalsignificancetobothEritreaandEthiopia .


Itislocatednearthesmall�illageofMataraafewkilometerssouthofSenafeTownandoffthemainhighwayfromZalambessatoSenafeandAsmara .Thestelastoodaloneonaplain4 .68metersabo�eground,withanothermeterunderground .Therewerenohousesorotherstructuresnearthestela .

108 . Thee�idenceindicatesthattheareawherethestelaislocatedwascontrolledbyEthiopianarmedforcesat leastfromMay28,2000,andthatthoseforcesestablishedacamponhighgroundquitenearthestela(perhapsascloseas100meters) .Witnesseswholi�ednotfarfromthestelaandregu-larlywalkedbyitduringthedaystatedthatitwasstandingonthee�eningofMay30andwaslyingonthegroundonthemorningofMay31 .Somealsodescribedhearinganexplosionduringthenight .

109 . Eritrea presented an expert witness, highly experienced in theanalysisandrestorationofstoneartifactsandstructures,Mr .LaurentBouil-let,whoinspectedthestelainSeptember2002 .Mr .Bouillettestifiedthatamilitarytypeofexplosi�ehadbeenusedtobringdownthestela,pointingtothenatureandareasoffragmentationofthestoneandthewhitetracesofexplosi�easproofofthatconclusion .Eritrea’sotherexpertwitness,Mr .Arkin,alsolookedbrieflyatthestelaafewweekslaterthanMr .Bouillet,andtestifiedthathesawnoe�idenceofexplosi�edamage .TheCommissionissatisfiedthatMr .Bouillet’sexpertiseismoredirectlyrelatedtotheeffectsofexplosi�esonstonethanisMr .Arkin’s,anditispersuadedthatthestelawasdamagedandtoppledbyanexplosi�echargeofthetypeMr .Bouilletdescribed .

110 . Ethiopiadeniedanyknowledgeaboutthedamageinflictedonthestela .ItsubmittedastatementbyBrigadierGeneralBerhaneNegash,inwhichtheonlythinghesaidrele�anttothedamagetothestelaofMatarawasthefol-lowing:“Duringthiscampaign,intensefightingoccurredinthe�icinityoftheEritreanlocalityofMatara .TheonlytargetsthatweredestroyedbyEthiopianforcesinthislocalitywerethebarracksusedbytheEritreansoldiers .”

111 . Ineffect,Ethiopiaassertsthatitisunclearwhatcausedthestelatofall,thatEritreahastheburdenofproof,andthatithasnotmetthatburden .

112 . TheCommissionbelie�esthatEritreahaspro�edthatthestelawasfelledonthenightofMay30–31,2000,thatitwasfelledbyanexplosi�eofamilitarytypefastenedatitsbase,andthatanencampmentofEthiopiansol-dierswasquitenearthestelawhenthisoccurred .Inthesecircumstances,theCommissionconcludesthatEthiopia,astheOccupyingPowerintheMataraareaofSenafeSub-Zoba,isresponsibleforthedamage,e�enthoughthereisnoe�idencethatthedecisiontoexplodethestelawasanythingotherthanadecisionbyoneorse�eralsoldiers .

113 . TheCommissionholdsthatthefellingofthestelawasa�iolationofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Whilethe1954HagueCon�entionontheProtectionofCulturalProperty33wasnotapplicable,asneitherEritrea

33 Con�entionfortheProtectionofCulturalPropertyintheE�entofArmedCon-flict,May14,1954,249U .N .T .S .p .215 .


norEthiopiawasaPartytoit,deliberatedestructionofhistoricmonumentswasprohibitedbyArticle56oftheHagueRegulations,whichprohibitionispartofcustomarylaw .Moreo�er,asci�ilianpropertyinoccupiedterritory,thestela’sdestructionwasalsoprohibitedbyArticle53ofGene�aCon�entionIVandbyArticle52ofProtocolI .TheCommissionnotesthattheapplicabilityofArticle53ofProtocolImaybeuncertain,gi�enthenegotiatinghistoryofthatpro�ision,whichsuggeststhatitwasintendedtoco�eronlyafewofthemostfamousmonuments,suchastheAcropolisinAthensandSt .Peter’sBasilicainRome .Howe�er,gi�entheclearapplicabilityoftheprinciplesreflectedinArticle56of theHagueRegulations, theCommissionneednotattempttoweighthecomparati�eculturalsignificanceofthestela .

114 . Consequently,EthiopiaisliablefortheunlawfuldamageinflictedupontheStelaofMatarainMay2000 .Eritrea’srequestthatEthiopiaalsobeobligatedtoapologizeforthatdamageisdismissed .AstheCommissionstatedinitsDecisionNo .3, inprinciple, theappropriateremedyfor�alidclaimsshouldbemonetarycompensation,exceptwhereotherremediescanbeshowntobeinaccordancewithinternationalpracticeandtheCommissiondeter-minesthatanotherremedywouldbereasonableandappropriate .Nosuchshowingwasmadehere .

4. Other Senafe Sub-Zoba Claims

115 . Eritrea’sotherclaimsrelatingtoSenafeSub-Zoba,basedastheyareessentiallyononewitnessstatement,aredismissedforfailureofproof .

V. aWardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

a. Jurisdiction1 . TheCommissionlacksjurisdictiono�erclaimsthatwerenotfiledby

December12,2001 .Consequently,thefollowingclaimsareherebydismissedforlackofjurisdiction:

a . claimsthat�iolationsofinternationallawbyEthiopiaoccurredafterMarch2001;b . claimsbasedontheallegedrefusalorfailureofEthiopianmilitarycommanderstostopillegalconductbyEthiopiansoldiersinSenafeandTseronaSub-Zobas;c . theclaimofunlawfuluseoflandminesinArezaSub-Zoba;d . theclaimthatEthiopiaconductedunlawfulre-educationclassesinMaiMeneSub-Zoba;ande . theclaimbasedonalleged�iolationsofArticle59ofProtocolI .


2 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .

b. applicable law1 . WithrespecttomatterspriortoEritrea’saccessiontotheGene�a

Con�entionsof1949,effecti�eAugust14,2000,theinternationallawappli-cabletothisclaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinter-nationalhumanitarian lawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsof thefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .

2 . HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularrele�antpro�isionofthoseCon�entionswasnotpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwouldha�ebeenontheassertingParty,butthatdidnothappen .

3 . WithrespecttomatterssubsequenttoAugust14,2000,theinter-nationallawapplicabletothisclaimistherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,aswellascustomaryinternationallaw .

4 . Mostofthepro�isionsofProtocolIof1977totheGene�aCon�en-tionswereexpressionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawappli-cableduringtheconflict .HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�i-sionofProtocolIshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwouldha�edecidedthatquestion,butthatdidnothappen .

5 . None of the treaties dealing with anti-personnel land mines andboobytrapswasinforcebetweenthePartiesduringtheconflict .According-ly,customaryinternationalhumanitarianlawisthelawapplicabletoclaimsin�ol�ingthoseweapons .

6 . ThereareelementsinProtocolIIof1980totheU .N .Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�entionalWeaponsthatexpresscustomaryinternationallawandreflectfundamentalhumanitarianlawobligationsofdiscriminationandprotectionofci�ilians .

C. evidentiary issuesTheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishthe

liabilityofaPartyfor�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .

d. findings of liability for Violation of international lawTheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsof

internationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelorbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEthiopia:


1 . For permitting the looting and stripping of buildings in TseronaTownwhileitoccupiedthetownfromlateMay2000untillateFebruary2001,itisliablefor75%(se�enty-fi�epercent)ofthetotaldamagecausedbylootingandstrippinginthetown;

2 . For permitting the looting and stripping of the adjacent TseronaPatriotsCemetery,itisliablefor75%(se�enty-fi�epercent)ofthetotaldamagecausedbylootingandstrippingofthecemetery;

3 . ForthedestructionoftheSub-ZobaAdministrati�eBuilding,theSub-ZobaHealthCenter,andtheWarsaiHotelinTseronaTown;

4 . Forinflictingdamageontheinfrastructureofthe�illageofSerhaduringitsoccupationofthat�illage,itisliablefor70%(se�entypercent)ofthetotaldamageinflictedonSerhafromMay1998throughFebruary2001;

5 . Forfailuretotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapeofwomenbyitssoldiersduringitsoccupationofSenafeTown;

6 . ForpermittinglootingandstrippinginSenafeTownduringitsoccu-pation,itisliablefor75%(se�enty-fi�epercent)ofthetotaldamagefromlootingandstrippingsufferedinthetownbetweenMay26,2000andJune2001;

7 . Fortheunlawfuldestructionoforse�eredamagetothefollowingthirteenmajorstructuresinSenafeTownduringtheEthiopianoccupa-tionofthetown:

a . TheElectricalAuthority(two buildings);

b . TheMinistryofAgriculture(two buildings);

c . TheNewTownAdministrati�eHeadquarters;

d . TheOldTownAdministrati�eHeadquartersandOfficesWest;

e . TheOldTownAdministrati�eHeadquartersandOfficesEast;

f . SenafeSecondarySchool;

g . SenafeHospital;

h . Sub-ZobaAdministrati�eandResidential(three buildings);and

i . TelecommunicationsBuilding .

Theliabilityisfor100%(onehundredpercent)ofthedamagetoeachofthesestructures,exceptforthehospital,wheretheliabilityis90%(ninetypercent);and

8 . For permitting, while occupying the area, deliberate damage byexplosion to theStelaofMatara,anancientmonument in theSenafeSub-Zoba .


e. other findings1 . TheClaimant’srequestthattheCommissionordertheRespondentto

apologizeforthedamagetotheStelaofMataraisdenied .2 . Allotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .DoneatTheHague,this28thdayofApril,2004,

[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte

[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich

[Signed]JohnR .Crook

[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul

[Signed]LucyReed

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS …legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/115-153.pdf · Con...

Documents

Transcript of REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS …legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/115-153.pdf · Con...