REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Principes du droit humanitaire...

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Central Front - Ethiopia's Claim 2

28 April 2004

XXVI pp. 155-194VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT V

Partial Award Central Front—Ethiopia’s Claim 2

Decision of 28 April 2004

Sentence partielle Front central—Réclamation de l’Éthiopie No 2

Décision du 28avril 2004

PartialAward .CentralFront—Ethiopia’sClaim2Decisionof28April2004

Sentencepartielle,Frontcentral—Réclamationdel’ÉthiopieNo2,Décisiondu28avril2004

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

Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—customaryinternationallawofarmedconflict,asexemplifiedbyGene�aCon�entionsandTheHagueCon�entions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofanyoftheseCon�entions—treatiesontheuseofanti-personnellandminesandboobytrapsnotconsideredasanexpressionofcustomaryinternationallaw—treatiesconcludedtoorecentlyandpracticeofStatestoo�ariedforconferringcustomarystatustothosepro�isions—recognitionofcustomaryprinciplesonlyregardingthelimitationoftheuseofsuchweaponsbytherecordingofminefieldsandtheprohibitionofindiscrimi-nateuse .

Customaryhumanitarianlawprinciples—absenceofliabilityforthedisplace-mentofci�iliansfleeingthebattleunlesstheintentionalspreadingofterrorasapri-marypurposeofthein�asionmaybepro�ed—liabilityforpermittingtroopstoabusephysicallytheci�ilianpopulation,tolootandtodestructproperties—insults,�erbalabuseandpsychologicallypainfulsituationsnotconsideredautomaticallyasmentalabuse—airports,housingornotmilitaryaircrafts,consideredaslegitimatemilitaryobjecti�es—liabilityoccurringformthefailuretotakeallfeasibleprecautionsintheconductofairstrikessuchastrainingofpilotsandsubsequentlackofin�estigations—statusof“undefendedplace”pre�entedbytheexistenceofsomelocalresistancebymilitiaandpolice .

Occupiedterritories—possibilitytoapplythestatusofoccupationtoterritorywithunclearandcontestedtitleofso�ereignty,withoutprejudicingitsfuturestatus—liabilityarisingfromthefailureinthetakingofeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapebysoldiersduringoccupation—Stateresponsibilityarisinge�enforinfrequentcasesofrape—thesubsequentallocationofadisputedterritorytotheoccupyingpowernotconsideredtoimplythedenialofprotectionoftheci�ilianpopulationunderinterna-tionalhumanitarianlaw .

Questionofe�idence—requirementofclearandcon�incinge�idenceforcrimesofacertaingra�ity—burdenofproofontheclaimant—creditaccordedtocumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonies—uncertainprobati�e�alueofquestionnairesandformsforfilingclaims—swornwitnessdeclarationsconsideredasthemosttrust-worthyformofwrittentestimonies—standardofe�idenceloweredregardingrapesbecauseofthetypicallysecreti�eandunwitnessednatureofsuchact .

158 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

CompétencedelaCommission—responsabilitélimitéeàdes�iolationsimpor-tantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—responsabilitéengagéeuniquementpourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécurrentes—répartitiondelaresponsabilitéjuridiqueentrelesPartiespourlespertes,dommagesoudégâtssur�enus .

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

Principesdudroithumanitairecoutumier—absencederesponsabilitéen�ertududroitinternationalpourledéplacementdesci�ilsfuyantlescombats,àmoinsdeprou�erquelebutpremierdecetin�asionétaitlapropagationdelaterreur—responsa-bilitéengagéepoura�oirlaissélestroupesmaltraiterphysiquementlapopulationci�-ile,pilleretdétruirelespropriétés—lesinsultes,maltraitances�erbalesetsouffrancespsychologiquesne sontpasautomatiquementconsidéréescommedes sé�icespsy-chologiques—lesaéroportshébergeantounondesappareilsmilitairessontconsidéréscommedesobjectifsmilitaireslégitimes—responsabilitéengagéepourlesdéfaillancesauni�eaudelaprisedeprécautiondanslaconduitedesfrappesaériennes,tellesquel’entraînementdespilotesetl’absenced’in�estigationultérieure—présencedemou�e-mentslocauxderésistancepardesmilicesoulapoliceconsidéréecommeunobstacleàlareconnaissancedustatutde«placenondéfendue» .

Territoiresoccupés—possibilitédeconférerlestatutdeterritoireoccupéàunterritoireayantuntitredesou�erainetéflouetcontesté,sanspréjudicedesonstat-utultérieur—engagementdelaresponsabilitépourlesdéfaillancesdanslaprisedemesuresefficacesdepré�entiondes�iolsparlessoldatslorsdel’occupation—respon-sabilitéétatiqueengagéemêmepourdescasde�iolisolés—l’attributionsubséquenteduterritoirecontestéàlaPuissanceoccupanten’estpasconsidéréecommeimpliquantundénideprotectiondespopulationsci�ilesen�ertududroitinternationalhumani-taire .

Questiondespreu�es—nécessitédepreu�esclairesetcon�aincantespour lescrimesd’unecertainegra�ité—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurleplaignant—créditaccordéauxtémoignagescumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—�aleurprobanteincertainedesquestionnairesetdes formulairesde soumissionderéclamations—considérationdesdéclarationsfaitessoussermentcommelaformelaplusfiabledetémoignage écrit—rabaissement des critères d’établissement des preu�es dans lesaffairesde�iol,dufaitquecetyped’acteestgénéralementperpetréentoutediscrétionetsanstémoin .

PartV—CENTRALFRONT ethiopia’sclaim2 159

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Central Front

Ethiopia’s Claim 2

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

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

TheHague,April28,2004

PARTIAL AWARD—Central Front—Ethiopia’s Claim 2 between the Claimant,

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 .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofMassachusetts

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

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

and the Respondent, 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


Table of ConTenTs

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162B . BackgroundandTerritorialScopeoftheClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . 162C . GeneralComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

II . PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

III . JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

IV . THEMERITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

A . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

1 . QuestionofProofRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1672 . ProofofFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1673 . EstimationofLiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

C . SummaryofE�entsontheCentralFrontRele�anttotheseClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

D . CommentonRape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171E . MerebLekheWereda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173F . AhferomWereda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177G . GulomakhedaWereda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178H . Zalambessa—LootingandPropertyDestruction . . . . . . . . . . . . 180I . IrobWereda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183J . AerialBombardmentofMekele . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187K . Aksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191L . Adigrat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

V . AWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193D . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLaw . . . . . . 193E . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194


i. inTroduCTion

a. summary of the Positions of the Parties

1 . This Claim (“Ethiopia’s Claim 2”) has been brought to the Com-mission by the Claimant, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuant toArticle5of theAgreementbetweentheGo�ern-mentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .TheClaim-antaskstheCommissiontofindtheRespondent,theStateofEritrea(“Erit-rea”),liableforloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimant,includingloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimant’snationals,asaresultofallegedinfractionsofinternationallawoccurringontheCentralFrontofthe1998–2000internationalarmedconflictbetweentheParties .TheClaimantrequestsmonetarycompensation .ThisClaimdoesnotincludeanyclaimssetforthinseparateclaimsbytheClaimant,suchasthoseformistreatmentofprisonersofwar(Ethiopia’sClaim4)orformistreatmentofotherEthiopiannationalsinareasofEritreanotdirectlyaffectedbythearmedconflict(Ethio-pia’sClaim5) .

2 . TheRespondentassertsthatitfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitsconductofmilitaryoperations .

b. background and Territorial scope of the Claims

3 . Between1998and2000,thePartieswagedacostly,large-scaleinter-nationalarmedconflictalongse�eralareasof theircommonfrontier .ThisPartialAward,likethecorrespondingPartialAwardinEritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8and22,addressesallegationsofillegalconductrelatedtomilitaryopera-tionsontheCentralFrontofthatconflict .

4 . ClaimsbasedonallegedbreachesbytheRespondentofthejus ad bellum aredeferredfordecisioninasubsequentproceeding .

5 . ForpurposesoftheseClaims,theCentralFrontencompassedtheareaofmilitaryoperationsextendingbetweenEthiopia’sMerebLekheWeredaonthewestandIrobWeredaontheeastandthecorrespondingareastothenorthinEritrea .TheCentralFrontinEthiopiaincluded(fromwesttoeast)partsoftheborderweredasofMerebLekhe,Ahferom,GulomakhedaandIrob .Rele�ante�entsarealsoallegedinGentaAfeshumWereda,whichislocatedtothesouthofGulomakhedaWeredaanddoesnotadjointheboundary .1

1 See Ethiopia’sMemorial,Claim2,filedbyEthiopiaonOct .15,2002,atII-32,II-36 .


C. General Comment

6 . AsthefindingsinthisPartialAwardandintherelatedPartialAwardinEritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8and22describe,theallegationsandthesup-portinge�idencepresentedbythePartiesfrequentlyindicatediametricallyopposedunderstandingsoftherele�antfacts .Suchincompatible�iewsoftherele�antfactsmayperhapsbeconsiderednotsurprisinginlightoftheconfu-sionanduncertaintycharacteristicofmilitaryoperationsandthepolarizingeffectsofwarfare .Ithasoftenbeensaidthat,inwar,truthisthefirstcasualty .2Or,asJuliusStoneexpressedithalfacenturyago,modernwarfaretendstoproduce“nationalizationofthetruth .”3Ne�ertheless,theCommissionmustnotetheob�iousdifficultiesitfaceswheneachPartypresentslargenumbersofsworndeclarationsbywitnessesassertingfactsthatdisagreecompletelywiththefactsassertedinlargenumbersofsworndeclarationsbythewitnessesoftheotherParty .

7 . Intheseunhappycircumstances,theCommission,whichischargedwithdeterminingthetruth,mustdoitsbesttoassessthecredibilityofsuchconflictinge�idence .Considerationsoftimeandexpenseusuallypre�entmorethanahandfulofwitnessesbeingbroughttoTheHaguetotestifybeforetheCommission;sotheCommissionisthencompelledtojudgethecredibilityofanyparticulardeclaration,notbyobser�ingandquestioningthedeclarant,butratheronthebasisofalltherele�ante�idencebeforeit,whichmayormaynotincludee�idencefrompersonsorpartiesnotdirectlyin�ol�edinthecon-flict .Inthatconnection,theCommissionrecallsitsholdingontherequiredstandardofproofinitsearlierPartialAwards:“Particularlyinlightofthegra�ityofsomeoftheclaimsad�anced,theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .”4ThesamerequirementisapplicabletotheclaimspresentedinthepresentPartialAward .

8 . TheCommissionrecognizesthatthisstandardofproofandtheexist-enceofconflictinge�idencemayresultinfewerfindingsofliabilitythaneitherPartyexpects .TheAwardsontheseclaimsmustbeunderstoodinthatuna-�oidablecontext .

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

3 JuliusStone,Legal Controls of International Conflictpp .321–323(1954) .4 PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Eritrea’sClaim17BetweentheStateofEritrea

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


ii. ProCeedinGs9 . TheCommission informedthePartiesonAugust29,2001 that it

intendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerningliabilityand,second,ifliabilityisfound,concern-ingdamages .ThisClaimwasfiledonDecember12,2001,andaStatementofDefenseonApril15,2002 .TheClaimant’sMemorialwasfiledonOctober15,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialonSeptember1,2003 .BothPartiesfiledadditionale�idenceonOctober13,2003 .AhearingonliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceinNo�ember2003,inconjunctionwithahearinginEritrea’srelatedClaims2,4,6,7,8and22 .

iii. JurisdiCTion10 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementestablishestheCommis-

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

11 . InthisClaim,asinEritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8and22,theClaimantallegesthattheRespondent’sconductrelatedtomilitaryoperationsontheCen-tralFront�iolatednumerousrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thus,theclaimsfalldirectlywithinthescopeoftheCommission’sjurisdiction .

12 . Eritrea’sStatementofDefenseandCounter-MemorialdonotcontesttheCommission’sjurisdictiono�erthetypesofclaimspresentedbyEthiopia .Indeed,Eritrea’sMemorialinitsClaims2,4,5,6,7,8and22presentsacasefortheCommission’sjurisdictioncomparabletothatad�ancedbyEthiopia .TheCommissionagreeswithbothPartiesandfindsthatithasjurisdictiono�erallofEthiopia’sclaims .5

iV. THe meriTs

a. applicable law13 . UnderArticle5,paragraph13,oftheAgreement,“inconsidering

claims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProceduredefinestherele�antrulesinthefamiliar languageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCourtofJustice’sStatute .ItdirectstheCommissiontolookto:

5 Eritrea’sclaimspresentjurisdictionalissuesregardingcertainclaimsallegedlynotassertedinitsStatementofClaim .ThesearenotpresentinEthiopia’sClaim2andwillbeaddressedintheCommission’sseparateAwardinEritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8and22 .


1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,establish-ingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties;2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .14 . BothParties’discussionsoftheapplicablelawreflectthepremise,

whichtheCommissionshares,thatthe1998–2000conflictbetweenthemwasaninternationalarmedconflictsubjecttotheinternationallawofarmedcon-flict .Howe�er,thePartiesdisagreeastowhethercertainrulesapplybyopera-tionofcon�entionsorundercustomarylaw .

15 . In itsPartialAwardsonPrisonersofWar, theCommissionheldthatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimspriortoAugust14,2000,whenEritreaaccededtothefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,6wascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .7Inthosesameawards,theCommissionalsoheldthatthoseCon�entions ha�e largely become expressions of customary internationalhumanitarianlawand,consequently,thatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimswascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthoseCon�entions .8ThoseholdingsapplyaswelltotheCentralFrontclaimsaddressedinthepresentPartialAwardand,indeed,toalltheclaimssubmittedtotheCommission .

16 . ThePartiesha�eidentifiednootherpotentiallyrele�anttreatiestowhichbothEritreaandEthiopiawerepartiesduringtheirarmedconflict .AstheclaimspresentedfordecisioninthepresentAwardarisefrommilitarycombatandfrombelligerentoccupationofterritory,theCommissionmakesthesameholdingswithrespecttothecustomarystatusoftheHagueCon�en-tion(IV)RespectingtheLawsandCustomsofWaronLandof1907anditsannexedRegulations(“HagueRegulations”)9asthoseithasmadewithrespect

6 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] .

7 PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17,supra note4,atpara .38;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supra note4,atpara .29 .

8 PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17,supra note4,atparas .40–41;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supra note4,atparas .31–32 .

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


totheGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .ThecustomarylawstatusoftheHagueRegulationshasbeenrecognizedgenerallyformorethanfiftyyears .10HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�isionofthoseCon�entionsorRegu-lationsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwouldha�edecidedthatquestion,withtheburdenofproofontheassertingParty .Inthee�ent,howe�er,neitherPartycontestedtheirstatusasaccuratereflectionsofcustomarylaw .

17 . BothPartiesalsoreliedextensi�elyintheirwrittenandoralplead-ingsonpro�isionscontainedinAdditionalProtocolItotheGene�aCon�en-tionsof1977(“ProtocolI”) .11AlthoughportionsofProtocolIin�ol�eelementsofprogressi�ede�elopmentof the law,bothParties treatedkeypro�isionsgo�erningtheconductofattacksandotherrele�antmattersinthisCaseasreflectingcustomaryrulesbindingbetweenthem .TheCommissionagreesandfurtherholdsthat,duringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,mostofthepro�isionsofProtocolIwereexpressionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Again,hadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�i-sionofthatProtocolshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwouldha�edecidedthatquestion,buttheneedtodosodidnotarise .

18 . BothPartiespresentednumerousclaimsallegingimproperuseofanti-personnellandminesandboobytraps,buttherewaslimiteddiscussionofthelawrele�anttotheuseoftheseweaponsininternationalarmedcon-flict .TheCommissionnotesthattheeffortstode�eloplawdealingspecifi-callywithsuchweaponsha�eresultedinthefollowingtreaties:Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�entionalWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscriminateEffects,12ProtocolonProhibitionsorRestrictionsontheUseofMines,Booby-TrapsandOtherDe�ices(“ProtocolIIof1980”),13thatProtocolasamended

10 InternationalMilitaryTribunal,TrialoftheMajorWarCriminalsbytheInter-nationalMilitaryTribunalpp .253–254(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-GeneralPursuanttoPara-graph2oftheSecurityCouncilResolution808,Annex,at9,U .N .Doc .S/25704(1993);see also 2LassaOpppenheim,International Lawpp .234–236(HerschLauterpachted .,7thed .,1952);JonathanI .Charney,International Agreements and the Development of Customary International Law, 61Wash .L .Re� .p .971(1986) .

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

12 U .N .Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�en-tionalWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscrimi-nateEffects,Oct .10,1980,1342U .N .T .S .p .137,reprinted in 19I .L .M .p .1523 .

13 ProtocolonProhibitionsorRestrictionsontheUseofMines,Booby-TrapsandOtherDe�ices,Oct .10,1980,1342U .N .T .S .p .168,reprinted in 19I .L .M .p .1529[herein-afterProtocolIIof1980] .


onMay3,1996,14andtheCon�entionontheProhibitionoftheUse,Stockpil-ing,ProductionandTransferofAnti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruc-tion .15NoneoftheseinstrumentswasinforcebetweenthePartiesduringtheconflict .Accordingly, theCommissionholds thatcustomary internationalhumanitarianlawisthelawapplicabletotheseclaims .Inthatconnection,theCommissionconsidersthatthosetreatiesha�ebeenconcludedsorecentlyandthepracticeofStateshasbeenso�ariedandepisodicthatitisimpossibletoholdthatanyoftheresultingtreatiesconstitutedanexpressionofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawapplicableduringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties .Ne�ertheless,thereareelementsinProtocolIIof1980,suchasthoseconcerningrecordingofminefieldsandprohibitionofindiscriminateuse,thatexpresscustomaryinternationallaw .Thoserulesreflectfundamentalhumanitarianlawobligationsofdiscriminationandprotectionofci�ilians .

19 . WhileEritreasuggestedinitsMemorialthatthe1966InternationalCo�enantonCi�ilandPoliticalRights16mightalsoberele�ant,17ithasnotreliedontheCo�enantoridentifiedanyrele�antpro�isions .Moreo�er,theCommissionnotesthattheCo�enantpermitspartiestoderogatefrommanyofitspro�isionsduringpublicemergencies,suchaswar .18AsthePartiesha�enotreferredintheirwrittenpleadingstoanyspecificpro�isionsoftheCo�-enant,theCommissionneednotdecideitsapplicability .

b. evidentiary issues

1. Question of Proof Required

20 . Asdiscussedabo�e,19theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon-�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .

2. Proof of Facts

21 . InitsPartialAwardofJuly1,2003onEthiopia’sClaimsregardingthetreatmentofprisonersofwar,theCommissionstatedthattheclaimsformscompletedbyformerprisonersofwarwereofuncertainprobati�e�alueandthatitdidnotrelyonthemforitsconclusions .20Inthepresentproceeding,

14 Id., asamendedatGene�a,May3,1996,reprinted in 35I .L .M .p .1209(1996) .15 Con�entionontheProhibitionoftheUse,Stockpiling,ProductionandTransferof

Anti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruction,Sept .18,1997,36I .L .M .p .1507(1997) .16 InternationalCo�enantonCi�ilandPoliticalRights,Dec .16,1966,999U .N .T .S .

p .171[hereinafterICCPR] .17 Eritrea’sMemorial,Claims2,4,6,7and8,filedbyEritreaonOct .15,2002,Vol .

1,para .1 .17 .18 ICCPR,supra note16,atart .4 .19 See supra para .7 .20 PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supra note4,atpara .41 .


Ethiopiapointedoutthatsomeoftheclaimsformsithassubmittedinsupportoftheseclaimsaresignedandsworndocumentsthatcontainconsiderabledetailedinformation,anditrequestedthattheybeconsideredseriouslybytheCommission .TheCommissionagreesthatsomeofthoseformscontainadditionalindiciaofreliabilityandmayha�eprobati�e�alue .TheCommis-sionhasconsideredthem,notasthesoleproof,butassupplementarytotheswornwitnessdeclarations,whichremainthemosttrustworthyformofwrit-tentestimony .

22 . Atthehearinginthepresentproceedings,thefollowingwitnesseswerepresented:

ByEthiopia:BrigadierGeneralAlemuAyele—FactWitness

Mr .TsegayeTemalow—FactWitnessGeneral(Ret .)CharlesW .Dyke—ExpertWitness

ByEritrea:Dr .EfremFessehaKidanemariam—FactWitness

Col .AbrahamOgbasellassie—FactWitnessMajor(Ret .)PaulNoack—ExpertWitnessCol .(Ret .)JakeBell—ExpertWitness

3. Estimation of Liability

23 . TheclaimsbeforetheCommissionin�ol�edcomplexe�ents,someunfoldingo�ermanymonths .Inse�eralsituations,theCommissionconclud-edthatparticulardamageresultedfrommultiplecausesoperatingatdifferenttimes,includingbothcausesforwhichtherewasStateresponsibilityandothercausesforwhichtherewasnot .Thee�idencedidnotpermitexactapportion-mentofdamagetodifferentcausesinthesesituations .Accordingly,theCom-missionhasindicatedthepercentageoftheloss,damageorinjuryconcernedforwhichitbelie�estheRespondentislegallyresponsible,baseduponitsbestassessmentofthee�idencepresentedbybothParties .

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

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


permanentlyandsometimesonlyforabriefperiodbeforereturningtoadja-centterritoryadministeredpriortotheconflictbyEritrea .Inallcases,theycarriedoutintermittentoperationsthatextendedbeyondtheoccupiedareas .Theseoperationsincludedartilleryfire,intermittentgroundpatrols,andtheplacementofdefensi�efieldsoflandmines .

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

26 . WhenEthiopialaterintroducedsubstantialnumbersofitsarmedforcesintothefourweredas,astatic,althoughnotfullycontiguous,frontwascreatedthatremainedlargelythesamefornearlytwoyears .Hostilities�ar-iedin intensityduringthatperiodandincludedsomeinstancesof intensecombatduring1999 .Howe�er,inMayof2000,Ethiopialaunchedageneraloffensi�ethatdro�eallEritreanarmedforcesoutoftheterritorypre�iouslyadministeredbyEthiopiaandtookEthiopianforcesdeepintoEritrea .Ethio-pianarmedforcesremainedinEritreanterritoryuntil lateFebruary2001,whentheyreturnedtothepre-warlineofadministrati�econtrolpursuanttotheCessationofHostilitiesAgreementofJune2000andthePeaceAgreementofDecember12,2000 .

27 . TheCommissionwishestoemphasizethatitsdescriptionofterrito-riesadministeredbyonePartyortheotherpriortotheconflictandthecon-clusionsreachedinthisPartialAwardarenotintendedto,andindeedcannot,ha�eanyeffectonthelawfulboundarybetweenthetwonations .Thedetermi-nationofthatboundaryisthetaskoftheBoundaryCommissionestablishedbyArticle4ofthePeaceAgreementofDecember12,2000 .Thatboundaryisnotrele�anttotheworkoftheClaimsCommission .OurtaskunderArticle5ofthatAgreementistodeterminethe�alidityofeachParty’sclaimsagainsttheotherfor�iolationsofinternationallawarisingoutofthearmedconflictforwhichthatotherParty isresponsibleandwhichcauseddamageto theClaimantParty,includingitsnationals .TheCommissionconsidersthat,undercustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw,damageunlawfullycausedbyonePartytoaninternationalarmedconflicttopersonsorpropertywithinterri-torythatwaspeacefullyadministeredbytheotherPartytothatconflictpriortotheoutbreakoftheconflictisdamageforwhichthePartycausingthedam-ageshouldberesponsible,andthatsuchresponsibilityisnotaffectedbywheretheboundarybetweenthemmaysubsequentlybedeterminedtobe .

28 . Thealternati�ecoulddeny�ulnerablepersonsindisputedareastheimportantprotectionspro�idedbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thesepro-tectionsshouldnotbecastintodoubtbecausethebelligerentsdisputethesta-tusofterritory .Thealternati�ewouldfrustrateessentialhumanitarianprinci-plesandcreateanex post facto nightmare .Moreo�er,respectinginternationalprotectionsinsuchsituationsdoesnotprejudicethestatusoftheterritory .As


ProtocolIstates,“NeithertheoccupationofaterritorynortheapplicationoftheCon�entionsandthisProtocolshallaffectthelegalstatusoftheterritoryinquestion .”21

29 . TheresponsibilityofaStateforallactscontrarytointernationalhumanitarianlawcommittedbymembersofitsarmedforcesisclearwhere�erthoseactstakeplace .22TheHagueRegulationsconsideredoccupiedterritorytobeterritoryofahostileStateactuallyplacedundertheauthorityofahostilearmy,23andthe1949Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheProtectionofCi�il-ianPersonsinTimeofWar(“Gene�aCon�entionIV”)appliesto“allcasesofpartialortotaloccupationoftheterritoryofaHighContractingParty .”24

Howe�er,neithertextsuggeststhatonlyterritorythetitletowhichisclearanduncontestedcanbeoccupiedterritory .

30 . In its Decision of April 13, 2002 Regarding Delimitation of theBorder,theBoundaryCommissionprimarilyinterpretedse�eralcentury-oldtreaties .WhileitalsolookedatthesubsequentconductoftheParties,itdidsolargelyaspotentiallyrele�anttothepossiblealterationsoftheboundariesestablishedbythosetreaties .25ItalsoseemsclearthattheBoundaryCommis-sionga�econsiderablygreaterweighttoadmissionsbyaPartyinthecourseofthearbitralproceedings,suchasthosebyEthiopiathatTseronaandFortCadornawereEritrean26andtoacknowledgementsofso�ereignty,suchasbyEritreanofficialswithrespecttoZalambessa,27thanitdidtoe�idenceofde facto localorregionaladministrationofterritory .Indeed,thatCommissionwasconcernedtodeterminetheboundaryasoftheindependenceofEritreaonApril27,1993,notthede facto linebetweeneffecti�eadministrationsin1998 .Thus,theBoundaryCommissionwasnotpurportingtoreachanyconclusionsastotheareaseffecti�elyadministeredbyeitherPartyinMay1998,whenthearmedconflictbetweenthembegan .

31 . Consequently, theBoundaryCommissionwasnotchargedwith,anddidnot,determine the respecti�eareasof effecti�eadministrationbythePartiesinMay1998 .Forthepurposesofitsassignedtasks,theClaimsCommissionconcludesthatthebesta�ailablee�idenceoftheareaseffecti�elyadministeredbyEthiopiainearlyMay1998istheagreementontheareastowhichEthiopianarmedforcesweretobere-deployed,assetforthinparagraph9oftheCessationofHostilitiesAgreementofJune18,2000 .

21 ProtocolI,supra note11,atart .4 .22 See, e.g., id. atart .91 .23 HagueRegulations,supra note9,atart .42 .24 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,atart .2 .25 DecisiononDelimitation,Eritrea-EthiopiaBoundaryCommission,April13,2003,

para .3 .8 .26 Id. atparas .4 .69and4 .71 .27 Id. atpara .4 .75 .


32 . In addition to actions by ground forces, there were some aerialbombardmentsontheCentralFront .Inparticular,onJune5,1998,thePar-tiesexchangedairstrikesonairfields—atAsmarainEritreaandMekele inEthiopia .InMekele,thetownitselfwasalsohit .EthiopiaalsoallegesthatanairfieldatAksumwashitonthesameafternoon .EritreadeniesanyairstrikeatAksum .OnJune11,1998,EritreanaircraftalsobombedtargetswithintheEthiopiantownofAdigrat .

33 . Ethiopia’sCentralFrontclaimsareextensi�eandfactuallycomplex .Theseclaimsweregenerallyorganizedonthebasisoftheweredainwhicheachclaimwasallegedtoha�eoccurred .Ethiopiaallegedineachweredaamatrixof�iolations,in�ol�ingfromeighttothirteendistincttypesof�iolations .TheCommissionhasaddressedtheseclaimsweredabywereda,but,in�iewofthee�idencepresented,ithasfrequentlycombinedthespecificelementsoftheclaimsforpurposesofsimplificationandgreaterclarity .

d. Comment on rape

34 . Beforebeginningitsre�iewof theclaimswereda-by-wereda, theCommissionconsidersthatallegationsofrapedeser�eseparategeneralcom-ment .DespitetheincalculablesufferinginflicteduponEthiopianandEritreanci�iliansalikeinthecourseofthisarmedconflict,theCommissionisgratifiedthattherewasnosuggestion,muchlesse�idence,thateitherEritreaorEthio-piausedrape, forcedpregnancyorothersexual�iolenceasaninstrumentofwar .Neithersideallegedstrategicallysystematicsexual�iolenceagainstci�iliansinthecourseofthearmedconflictandoccupationofCentralFrontterritories .Eachsidedid,howe�er,allegefrequentrapeofitswomenci�iliansbytheother’ssoldiers .

35 . ThePartiesagreethatrapeofci�iliansbyopposingoroccupyingforcesisa�iolationofcustomaryinternationallaw,asreflectedintheGene�aCon�entions .UnderCommonArticle3(1),Statesareobligedtoensurethatwomenci�iliansaregrantedfundamentalguarantees,includingtheprohibi-tionagainst“�iolencetolifeandperson,inparticularmurderofallkinds,mutilation,crueltreatmentandtorture . . .outragesonpersonaldignity,inparticularhumiliatinganddegradingtreatment .”Article27ofGene�aCon-�entionIVpro�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 .


Article76 .1ofProtocolIadds:“Womenshallbetheobjectofspecialrespectandshallbeprotectedinparticularagainstrape,forcedprostitutionandanyotherformofindecentassault .”

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

37 . 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 .28

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

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

28 PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim4,supra note4,atpara .54;PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17,supra note4,atpara .56 .


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

e. mereb lekhe Wereda41 . MerebLekheisatthewesternendoftheCentralFront,separated

fromEritreabytheMerebRi�er .In1998,itwasprimarilyanagriculturalwere-da .Theweredaanditsprincipaltown,Rama,aretra�ersedbyanorth-southroadcrossingtheinternationalboundary,oneofthefewsuchroadsconnectingthetwocountries .Ethiopia’sclaimswithrespecttothisweredaarebasedonallega-tionsofphysicalandmentalabuseoftheci�ilianinhabitantsofthewereda,theabductionofsomeci�ilians,indiscriminateshelling,indiscriminateplacementoflandmines,lootingandunlawfuldestructionofpri�ateandpublicproperty,destructionofobjectsindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulation,andunlawfuldamagetoen�ironmentalresources .EthiopiaalsoassertsthattheseallegedunlawfulactionsforwhichEritreaisresponsibleresultedinthedisplacementofapproximately50,000residentsoftheweredaandthatEritreashouldconsequentlybeliableforsuchdisplacement .

42 . EritreadidnotpresentadetailedfactualrebuttalofEthiopia’se�i-denceregardingMerebLekheWereda,orindeedofthee�idencerele�anttotheotherweredasoftheCentralFront .Eritreacontendedthatthefactualalle-gationsinEthiopia’snumerouswitnessdeclarationswerecharacteristically�agueandgeneral .Itassertedthatmanynarrati�esdidnotin�ol�ee�entsorinjuriesshowingany�iolationofinternationallawandthatmuchofEthiopia’se�idencefailedtorelatethee�entsdescribedtothearmedconflictitself .In�iewofthesepercei�eddeficienciesinEthiopia’se�idence,Eritreacontendedthatithad“nocasetoanswer .”Whilethereismeritinsomeoftheseargu-ments,theCommissionne�erthelesshasfoundthatthee�idencewassufficienttoshowliabilityforsome�iolationsofinternationallaw .

43 . Thee�idencepresentedbyEthiopiaintheformofwitnessdeclara-tionsbyresidentsof�illagesneartheMerebRi�ershowsthat,beginninginmid-May1998,Eritreanarmedforcescrossedtheri�eratanumberofplaces .Itappearsthatmanyifnotmostoftheinhabitantsfledtheir�illagesattheapproachoftheEritreanforces,oftentakingrefugeinca�esthatweresomehourswalkfromthe�illages .Thee�idencedemonstratesthatsomecasual-tieswereincurredbytheEthiopianci�iliansduringthesee�ents,bothfromEritreanartilleryfireandfromdirectsmall-armsfire .Itappearsthatnosig-nificantEthiopianarmedforceswerepresentwhereandwhenthesecross-ingsoccurred,althoughtherewasoccasionalresistancebyafewEthiopianmilitiamembersandpoliceinsome�illages .Usuallythemilitiamembers,whoapparentlyhadnoweaponsotherthanindi�idualsmallarms,fledwiththeci�ilians .


44 . Theunrebuttedwitnessdeclarationscontainse�eralcrediblereportsoftheintentionalkillingofEthiopianci�iliansbyEritreansoldiersincircum-stanceswhereitshouldha�ebeenclearthatthesepersonswerenot lawfultargets .Someoftheseincidentsoccurredwhileci�ilianswerefleeingtheir�illagesandinothercaseswhileherdingcattlewhichtheEritreansoldierstook,oftenherdingtheanimalstoplacesnorthoftheri�er .Forexample,wit-nessdeclarations,includingonefroma�ictim,describedindetailanincidentinwhichEritreansoldiersshottwoshepherdboyswhowereherdingcattleinMayWediAmberayKebeleinJanuary1999 .Oneboywaskilledwithashottotheheadandtheotherwaswounded .Whentwo�illageeldersdemandedreturnofthecattle,theyweretakentoEritreaandreturnedthreemonthslaterwithsignsofseriousphysicalabuse .

45 . Thereisconsiderablee�idenceoflootingbyEritreansoldiersandtherelateddestructionofhomes,farmingequipment,cropsandotherprop-erty .Thereisalsoe�idencethatafewresidentsoftheweredaweretakentoEritrea .SomeofthesepersonslaterreturnedtotheweredaandreportedthattheyhadbeeninterrogatedconcerningthepositionsofEthiopianarmedforcesandhadbeenbeatenduringtheircapti�ity .Othersarereportedsimplyasnotha�ingbeenseenagaininEthiopia .

46 . Thee�idenceshowsthattheseincursionsintoEthiopianadminis-teredterritorywereoftenaccompaniedbyshelling .Inaddition,theoccasionalshellingofinlandareasatadistancefromthefrontlines, includingtowns(suchasRama),smaller�illagesande�encampsfordisplacedpersons(suchastheSetatoIDPcamp),orareascontaininglargenumbersofdisplacedper-sons(suchasthe�icinityoftheEnguyaRi�er)continueduntiltheEthiopianoffensi�einMayof2000dro�eintoEritreaandmadesuchshellingimpossible .WhentheEritreanforceswithdrew,minefieldsthattheyhadlaidwereleftbehind .Untiltheminesinthosefieldscouldbefoundandeitherberemo�edordestroyed,theyendangeredreturningEthiopiansandtheirdomesticani-mals .Innocentli�escontinuedtobelosttotheseblindweaponslongaftertheforcesthathadlaidthemhadgone .

47 . TheCommissionrecognizesthatthesemilitaryoperationsbyErit-rearesultedinsubstantialnumbersofEthiopianci�ilianssufferingprolongeddanger,depri�ationandsometimesinjuryordeath,first,whilefleeingunderfire,second,asdisplacedpersonsinca�esandcampsand,finally,fromthepresenceoflandmineswhene�entuallytheywereabletoreturntotheir�illag-es .Ne�ertheless,thee�idenceisinadequatefortheCommissiontoholdthateithertheshellingortheplacementoflandmineswasunlawfulongroundsthattheytargetedci�iliansorwereindiscriminate .Certainlythereise�idencethatci�ilianresidencesandplaceswheredisplacedpersonswerehousedsuf-feredfromEritreanshelling .WithrespecttoallEritreanshellingofinlandtargets,andparticularlyinthe�icinityofIDPcampsorotherconcentrationsofIDPs,theCommissionisconcernedaboutci�iliancasualties,butitlackse�idencewithrespecttotargetingandwithrespecttothelocationoftheplaces


atriskandoflegitimatetargetssufficienttoshowthatsuchshellingwaseithertargetedatunlawfultargetsorwasindiscriminate .

48 . Withrespecttotheshellingthataccompaniedtheinitialinfantryattacks,thelegalquestionisadifficultone .Normallytheintentionalshellingofanundefendedtownopenforoccupationbytheattackingforceswouldbeunlawful .29Ina1976amendmenttotheUnitedStatesArmyFieldManual,entitled“TheLawofLandWarfare,”Article25oftheHagueRegulationsisinterpretedasfollows:

Anundefendedplace,withinthemeaningofArticle25HR,isanyinhabitedplacenearorinazonewhereopposingarmedforcesareincontactwhichisopenforoccupationbyanad�ersepartywithoutresistance .Inordertobeconsideredasundefended,thefollowingconditionsshouldbefulfilled:

(1) Armedforcesandallothercombatants,aswellasmobileweaponsandmobilemilitaryequipment,mustha�ebeene�acuated,orother-wiseneutralized;(2) No hostile use shall be made of fixed military installations orestablishments;(3) Noactsofwarfareshallbecommittedbytheauthoritiesorbythepopulation;and,(4) Noacti�ities in supportofmilitaryoperations shallbeunder-taken .30

49 . Howe�er,inthepresentcase,ithasnotbeenshownthattheEritreanarmedforceshadreasontobelie�ethatanyofthe�illageswasundefendedatthetimetheyandthesurroundingareaswereattacked .Indeed,thee�idenceindicatedthat,insomecases,therewasatleastsomelocalresistancebymilitiaandpolice .CertainlythereisnoindicationthatEthiopiahaddeclaredthatthesetownswereundefended,andtheCommissionwastoldthatthearmedforcesofbothPartiesapparentlyfollowedmilitarydoctrinederi�edfromtheformerSo�ietUnionwhichemphasizedtheimportanceofpreparingforandsupportinginfantryattacksbyartilleryfirewhene�erthereseemedtobethepossibilityofresistance .

50 . Withrespecttolandmines,thee�idencesuggeststhathere,andintheotherweredas,theywereplacedinfrontofEritrea’sfixedpositionsasadefensi�emeasure,whichisthetypeofusethathasbeencommonandpermis-sibleundercustomaryinternationallaw .WhiletheEritreanforcesremainedinthosepositions,reasonableprecautions,suchasfencesorwarningsigns,wouldha�ebeenrequiredtoprotectci�iliansremainingintheareawhere�ertheywereatriskofenteringthosedefensi�eminefields .TheCommissionhasnoe�idenceconcerningwhethersuchprecautionsweretaken .Instead,theclaimsbeforeitin�ol�einjuriesanddamagecausedbyanti-personnelland-

29 HagueRegulations,supra note9,atart .25 .30 U .S .Dep’tofArmy,Law of Land Warfare (FieldManualNo .27–10,1956,re� .

1976),atpara .39(b)[hereinafterFieldManual] .


minesleftbehindwhenEritreanforceswithdrewfromtheirpositions,oftenatthetimeoftheEthiopianoffensi�eofMay2000 .Whentroopsarecom-pelledtoquittheirdefensi�epositionsbyforceofarms,asoccurredthen,itisunderstandablethattheymaybeunabletoremo�eorotherwiseneutralizetheirminefields .Onthecontrary,theymaydependonthoseminefieldstoslowtheirattackersortochanneltheirattackssufficientlytoallowdefenseandescape .

51 . Thus,whilethee�idenceinthepresentcasedoesnotpermittheCommissiontoholdthatEritreaactedunlawfullywithrespecttoitsuseoflandminesinMerebLekheWereda,thecontinuingdangerstheyrepresentedtoreturningEthiopianci�ilianswereserious .Theriskposedtoci�iliansfrome�enlawfuldefensi�eusesoflandminesdemonstratestheimportanceoftherapidde�elopmentinrecentyearsofnewinternationalcon�entionsaimedatrestrictingande�enprohibitingallfutureuseofanti-personnellandmines .31

52 . Ontheotherhand,thewitnessdeclarationspro�idedbyEthiopiaareadequate toestablishaprima facie case thatEritrea,as theOccupyingPower,permittedEritreanmilitarypersonneltoengageinthefrequentphysi-calabuseofci�iliansbymeansofintentionalkillings,beatingsandabductionsintheareasoftheweredaoccupiedbyEritreanarmedforcesneartheMerebRi�erandpermittedwidespreadlootingandpropertydestructioninthoseareas .WhileEritreagenerallydeniestheseclaimsbyEthiopia,ithaspro�idedlittlee�idencetosupportthatdefense .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforper-mittingthefrequentphysicalabuseandabductionofci�iliansandwidespreadlootingandpropertydestructionintheareasofMerebLekheWeredathatwereoccupiedbyitsarmedforcesduringsuchtimeassuchoccupationcon-tinuedineachofthoseareasfromMay1998untilMay2000 .

53 . AllotherEthiopianclaimsbaseduponallegedunlawfulactionsattributable to Eritrea in this wereda are dismissed for lack of proof . Thee�idenceofdamagetoobjects indispensable tothesur�i�alof theci�ilianpopulationandtoen�ironmentalresourcesfellfarshortofthatrequiredtoestablishliability .TotheextentthatEthiopiaalsoclaimsinthisproceedingforci�iliandisplacementinanywereda,suchclaimisdismissedforfailuretoallegeorestablishabreachofinternationallaw .Theflightofci�iliansfromthepercei�eddangerofhostilitiesisacommon,andoftentragic,occurrenceinwarfare,butitdoesnot,assuch,gi�erisetoliabilityunderinternationalhumanitarianlaw .WhileProtocolIprohibits“actsorthreatsof�iolencetheprimarypurposeofwhichistospreadterroramongtheci�ilianpopulation,”32

31 See Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�entionalWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscriminateEffects,supra note12;ProtocolIIof1980,supra note13;ProtocolIIof1980,asamendedatGene�a,May3,1996,supra note14;Con�entionontheProhibitionoftheUse,Stockpil-ing,ProductionandTransferofAnti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruction,supra note15 .

32 ProtocolI,supra note11,atart .51 .


itimplicitlyrecognizesthatci�iliansmay,ne�ertheless,beterrorizedbecauseof thehostilities .Moreo�er,Ethiopiadoesnot allegeorpro�e thatEritreadeliberatelytriedtocausetheci�ilianinhabitantsoftheweredatofleebyter-rorizingthem,letalonethatspreadingterrorwastheprimarypurposeofitsactsduringitsin�asionandoccupation .

f. ahferom Wereda54 . Ethiopiaclaimsforthesametypesofallegedunlawfulactionsin

AhferomWeredaas itdid inMerebLekheWereda .Eritreanarmedforcesenteredtheweredainmid-May1998inthesameway,accompaniedbyartil-leryshelling,theoccupationofsomeareas,andtheestablishmentofazoneinwhichartilleryandpatrollingoperationswerecarriedoutontheEthiopiansideoftheEritreanlines .Thee�idenceindicatesthatmany,ifnotmost,oftheci�ilianpopulationfledtheirhomesintheareasoccupiedbyEritreanforcesandintheareasnearbythatwereaffectedbyEritreanshellingorothermilitaryacti�ities .Ethiopia’sestimateofdisplacedpersonsintheweredais38,900 .

55 . Again,EritreadidnotpresentadetailedfactualrebuttalofEthio-pia’se�idence .Instead,EritreacontendedthatEthiopia’switnessdeclarationsweretooimpreciseandcontainedtoolittleinformationrelatingallegationstotheongoingmilitaryoperationstopermitlegalanalysis .Accordingly,Eritreafeltthatithad“nocasetoanswer .”Ne�ertheless,theCommissionfindsthatthee�idenceissufficientlyclearandcon�incingtoestablishaprima facie caseofse�eraltypesofsignificant�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .

56 . Thereisclearandcon�incinge�idencethatthosefleeingfromtheEritreanforcessufferednotonly fromtheshelling,butalso fromEritreansmall-armsfireaimedat themor indiscriminatelyfired in theirdirection .SomepersonswhoweretendingcattlewereshotbyEritreantroopswhotookthecattle .

57 . The e�idence also demonstrates that many of the ci�ilians whochosenottofleewerephysicallyabusedbybeingbeatenand,insomecases,bybeingtakentoEritreaforinterrogationandimprisonment .Mostofthise�idencerelatestothefirstdaysandweeksofthein�asion,butthereissomee�idenceofphysicalabuseatlaterdates .Thee�idenceisalsoadequatetoshowthatEritreanforcesengagedinfrequentdestructionofpropertyandlootingofusefulanimals,materialsandotherproperty .Witnessesdescribebulldozersbeingusedtodestroystonehousesandhea�ytrucksbeingusedtotransportseizedbuildingmaterials .OthersdescribeseeingtheirhousesandcropsbeingburnedbyEritreantroops .

58 . As in Mereb Lekhe Wereda, those who fled often report seeingdeathsandinjuriescausedbyshelling .Understandably,tothe�ictimsofshell-ing,itseemedthattheyortheircampswerethetargetsor,atleast,thattheshellingwasindiscriminate,butthee�idenceisinadequatetoestablishclearlyandcon�incinglythatsuchshellingwasunlawful,eitherbybeingaimedat


unlawful targetsorbybeing indiscriminate .Similarly,while thee�idencedemonstratesthatlandminesplacedbyEritreanarmedforcesconstitutedaseriousdangertoreturningEthiopianci�iliansaftertheEritreanforceswereexpelledfromthewereda,thee�idencedoesnotshowthatthoselandmineshadbeenplacedunlawfully .

59 . Consequently,theCommissionfindsEritrealiableforpermittingthefrequentphysicalabuseofci�iliansintheweredabymeansofintentionalkillings,killingsandwoundingscausedbyindiscriminatesmall-armsfire,beatings, abductions and widespread looting and property destruction inthewereda .AllotherEthiopianclaimsbaseduponallegedunlawfulactionsattributabletoEritreainthisweredaaredismissedforlackofproof .

G. Gulomakheda Wereda60 . ThisweredaincludesthesignificantbordertownofZalambessa,

whichhadser�edasamajorcommunicationsandtransportlinkbetweenErit-reaandEthiopiabeforetheconflict .ItwasthenorthernmostpointinEthiopiaonthemainroadconnectingAddisAbabawithAsmara .Beforethewar,itwasagrowingcommunitythatplayedanimportantroleincross-bordertrade .ItwasthehomeofanEthiopiancustomspostandotherfacilitiessupportingtradeandcommerce .Zalambessasufferedalmostcompletedestructiondur-ingthewar,andtheissueofliabilityforsuchdestructionandrelatedlootingwillbedealtwithseparatelyfromtherestofthewereda .Otherliabilityissues,howe�er,willbedealtwithhere,includingbothclaimsarisinginZalambessaandelsewhereinthewereda .

61 . EritreanarmedforcesenteredtheweredainearlyJune1998andestablishedtrenchlinesafewkilometerssouthofZalambessaandanareaofmilitaryoperationsbeyondthem,asintheotherweredas .Ofthetotalpopula-tionofthewereda(claimedbyEthiopiatoha�ebeenapproximately600,000),Ethiopiaestimates thatapproximately85,000weredisplacedbymid-1999 .EthiopiaclaimsforthesametypesofallegedunlawfulactionsinGuloma-khedaWeredaasitdidintheMerebLekheandAhferomWeredas,butitaddsclaimsforforcedlabor,mentalabuseandforthedeportationofci�ilianstoEritrea .

62 . Thee�idenceisadequatefortheCommissiontofindthatEritreaisliableforpermittingfrequentphysicalabuseofci�iliansduringitsin�asioninJune1998,primarilyintheformofaimedorindiscriminatesmall-armsfire,beatingsandabductions .Someofthesebeatingsappeartoha�ebeenpartofaneffortbytheEritreantroopstoobtaininformationaboutthelocationofEthiopianarmedforcesandtheidentificationofresidentswhomightha�ebeensoldiersormembersofthemilitia .Thedeclarationsofwitnessesdescribegratuitousandoftenbrutalbeatings,includingofeldersandwomen,ofteninpublic,andextendedorrepeatedbeatingsthatsometimesresultedinthedeathofthe�ictims .Thee�idenceofbeatingsandkillingsindicatesthatthemajority


occurredinthefirstdaysandweeksofthein�asion,althoughthereisadequatee�idenceofabusethroughoutthetwoyearsoftheEritreanoccupationofsub-stantialpartsofthewereda .AlthoughtheaccountsofintentionalkillingofEthiopianci�iliansbyEritreansoldiersdidnotcomefromeyewitnesses,theywerenonethelesscredibleasthewitnessesdescribedhearingshots,runningtothefields,findingashepherdorfarmershot,andobser�inguniformedEri-treansoldiersdri�ingawayli�estock .Asignificantnumberofwitnessesalsocrediblyreportedfrequentabductionsofnamedci�iliansduringthefirstfewdaysofthein�asion,probablyforintelligencepurposes,andtheyassertthatmostofthoseabductedremainunaccountedfor .

63 . Incomparison,thee�idencedoesnotsupportafindingofunlaw-fulmentalabuseofci�iliansinthewereda .Atmost,thee�idenceshowsthatEritrean forces routinely insulted and humiliated Ethiopian ci�ilians andoccasionallythreatened�iolenceinthecourseofseekingmilitaryinformationfromci�ilians .Whilesuchbeha�iorcannotbecondoned,itdoesnotconstituteunlawfulmentalabuse .

64 . Turning to property damage, the e�idence—much from eyewit-nesses—isalsoadequatetofindEritrealiableforpermittingfrequentlootinganddestructionofci�ilianproperty,includingburningandknockingdownhouses .

65 . With respect to Ethiopia’s claim of forced labor, some fourteendeclarantsdescribedbeingforcedtolaborfortheEritreanarmedforcesforshort periods . The types of work reported included burying bodies, dig-gingtrenches,carryinglumber,stones,orammunitiontothefront,cuttingtreesandcarryinglootedproperty .Noneofthesewitnessesindicatesthatherecei�edanypayforthat labor,and,e�enmoredisturbingly,se�eralassertthatanypersonwhoresistedperformingthelaborwasbeaten .WhileGene�aCon�entionIVpermitsOccupyingPowerstorequisitionlabor,itrequiresfairpayandworkproportionateto indi�iduals’capacities .Italsoprohibits theOccupyingPowerfromcompellingprotectedpersonstodoworkthatwould“in�ol�ethemintheobligationoftakingpartinmilitaryoperations .”33Inthisregard,theU .S .ArmyFieldManualreferredtoearlierstates:

Theprohibitionagainstforcinginhabitantstotakepartinmilitaryopera-tionsagainsttheirowncountryprecludesrequisitioningtheirser�icesuponworksdirectlypromotingtheendsofthewar,suchasconstructionoffor-tifications,entrenchments,andmilitaryairfieldsorthetransportationofsuppliesorammunitioninthezoneofoperations .34

66 . Whilethislaborisdisturbing,particularlybecauseofthebrutal-ityin�ol�edandtheunlawfulnatureofsomeofthelabor,itappearstoha�etakenplaceonlyduringtheearlydaysoftheoccupation,andconsequentlywas

33 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,atart .51 .34 FieldManual,supra note30,atpara .419 .


neitherfrequentnorper�asi�e .Consequently,thise�idencedoesnotjustifyafindingofliabilityunderthestandardsappliedbytheCommission .

67 . Theclaimfordeportationrelatesprimarilytoe�idencethatthou-sandsofresidentsofGulomakhedaWereda,includingalltheresidentsofZal-ambessawhoremainedthereafterthein�asion,werecompelledinearly1999tolea�etheirhomesandgotodisplacedpersonscampsinEritrea .Article49ofGene�aCon�entionIVpro�ides,inpart,asfollows:

Indi�idualormassforcibletransfers,aswellasdeportationsofprotectedpersonsfromoccupiedterritorytotheterritoryoftheOccupyingPower . . . . .areprohibited,regardlessoftheirmoti�e .Ne�ertheless,theOccupyingPowermayundertaketotalorpartiale�acua-tionofagi�enareaifthesecurityofthepopulationorimperati�emilitaryreasonssodemand .Suche�acuationsmaynotin�ol�ethedisplacementofprotectedpersonsoutsidetheboundsoftheoccupiedterritoryexceptwhenformaterialreasonsitisimpossibletoa�oidsuchdisplacement .

68 . EritreaarguesthattheincreasedriskstoinhabitantsfromEthio-pian artillery fire by February 1999 justified their mass relocation to IDPcampsand,formaterialreasons,suchcampshadtobeinEritrea .WhilethoserisksaredifficultfortheCommissiontoe�aluateonthebasisofthee�idencepresented,itseemsclearthatanye�acuationwouldha�etobetoacampinEritrea,andtheCommissionacceptsthatargument .Consequently,theclaimfordeportationin�iolationofArticle49isdismissed .

69 . EthiopiaalsoassertsthattheconditionsattheseIDPcampsinErit-rea,inparticularHambokha,wereunlawfullyharsh .Therewereisolatedandundetailedallegationsofphysicaltorture .Thee�idencecertainlysuggeststhatconditionsthereweredifficult,e�engrim,butthee�idencefallsshortofpro�-ingapatternofabuseorofconditionsthatwereunlawful .

70 . Consequently,theCommissionfindsEritrealiableforpermittingfrequentphysicalabuseofci�iliansinGulomakhedaWereda,includinginten-tionalkilling,beatingandabductionofci�ilians,duringitsin�asioninJune1998andlessfrequent,butrecurring,physicalabuseofci�iliansintheweredaduringthenexttwoyears .TheCommissionalsofindsEritrealiableforper-mittingfrequentlootinganddestructionofpropertyintheweredaduringitsoccupation .Ethiopia’sclaimforunlawfuldeportationisdismissed,astheCommissionacceptsEritrea’sexplanationasconsistentwiththerequirementsof the law .AllotherclaimsbyEthiopiarelatingtoGulomakhedaWereda,asidefromthoseforlootingandpropertydestructioninZalambessa,whicharedealtwithinfra, aredismissedforlackofproof .

H. Zalambessa—looting and Property destruction71 . Throughouttheproceedings,bothPartiesde�otedmuchattention

tothequestionofwhichsidewasresponsiblefortheenormousdamageinflict-


edonthetownofZalambessa .Priortothewar,Zalambessawasathri�ingtownofapproximatelyse�entotenthousandinhabitants,bothEthiopianandEritrean,andithadcloseto1,400buildings .WhenitwasrecapturedbyEthio-pianarmedforcesinMay2000,scarcelyasinglebuildingremainedintact .Theaerialandgroundle�elphotographssubmittedbythePartiespro�idegraphice�idenceoftheextensi�edestructionsufferedbythetown .Virtuallye�erybuildingismissingaroof(exceptforsometemporaryplasticsheets),andmostmissatleastonewall,oftenthatclosesttothestreet .EthiopiaclaimsthatthedestructionwascausedalmostentirelybyEritrea,whosetroops, italleges,lootede�erythingof�alueandthendestroyedallstructuresbytheuseofbull-dozers,explosi�esorfire .EritreadeniesthatclaimandallegesthatthetownwasdestroyedlargelybyEthiopianartilleryfireduringthenearlytwoyearsthatitwasoccupiedbyEritrea .

72 . Inadditiontothephotographs,bothPartiespro�idede�idenceintheformoftestimonybyresidentsandmilitaryofficers,aswellasbyexpertswhoexaminedtheruinsor, in thecaseofEritrea’sexpert,photographsoftheruins .BothPartiesagreedthatZalambessasufferedsomecombatdam-agewhenitwastakenbyEritreainJune1998andthenretakenbyEthiopiainMay2000,buttheextentofsuchcombatdamagewasnotestablished .Withrespecttowhathappenedduringthenearlytwoyearsbetweenthosee�ents,thePartiesdifferedsharply .EritreaallegedthatZalambessawasshelledfre-quentlyandhea�ilybyEthiopia,andthatthisshellingwaslargelyresponsiblefortheextensi�edamagetothetown .EritreasubmittedcopiesofEritreanmilitarydocumentsthatitasserteddemonstratea�eryhea�y�olumeofEthio-pianshelling .EthiopiadeniedthatitshelledZalambessaduringthatperiod,exceptforafewoccasionswhenittriedtodestroybulldozersthat,italleged,werebeingusedtodestroybuildingsinthetown .Ethiopiasupporteditsasser-tionswithtestimonybysomeofitsofficerswhoobser�edZalambessafromahigh�antagepointse�eralkilometersdistantandbyattackingthecredibilityoftheEritreanshellingreports .Ethiopiaalsopro�idedwitnessdeclarationsbyresidentsofZalambessawhoassertedthattheywitnessedEritreantroopslootingbuildingsanddestroyingthelootedstructures,particularlyafterthesuccessfulEthiopianattacksontheWesternFrontinearly1999(“OperationSunset”) .VirtuallyallresidentswerecompelledbyEritreatolea�eZalambessainFebruary1999,althoughse�eralofthoseresidentsreportedthingsobser�edinlatermonthsduring�isitstothetown .

73 . Aftercarefulconsiderationofallrele�ante�idence,theCommissionhasreachedthefollowingconclusions:

(1) Thee�idenceshowsthatessentiallynothingof�alueremainedinthetownbyMay2000 .Mo�eableproperty,roofingmaterialsandotherusablebuildingmaterialshad�irtuallyallbeenlooted .Thewitnesse�idenceassigningresponsibilityforthislootingtoEritreanpersonnelduringthenearlytwoyearsofoccupationisessentiallyunrebutted .Accordingly,


Eritrea,whichwasincontrolofthetownthroughoutthisperiod,isliableforthelootingofZalambessa .(2) Eritrea’sallegationsofmassi�eandsustainedEthiopianartilleryfireintoZalambessaarenotpro�en .TheCommissionisskepticalofthemilitarydocumentssubmittedbyEritreaonthisissue .The�olumesandtypesoffirecitedinthemilitarydocumentssubmittedbyEritreaappearunrealisticgi�enthequantitiesofweaponsandammunitionlikelya�ail-able,andtheformat,datingandnumberingofthedocumentsraisefur-therdoubts .(3) TheCommissionisalsoskepticalofEthiopia’sassertionsthat,dur-ingthenearlytwoyearsofEritrea’soccupationofZalambessa,itfiredartilleryintoZalambessaonlyonafewoccasionswhenittriedtopre-�entbulldozers fromdestroyingbuildings .Zalambessa’s locationandtheco�erandconcealmentofferedby itsbuildingsmadethetownanob�iouslocationforEritreanheadquartersandsupportunits .Thetopog-raphyalsoindicatesthatmanyofthesuppliesfortheEritreanforcestothesouthwouldprobablyha�epassedthroughthetown .ItisimprobablethatEthiopianinterdictionfirewouldne�erha�ebeenusedagainstthatrouteorwouldha�ebeenlimitedentirelytopointsthatwereoutsideofthetown .(4) Accordingly, some destruction of structures within Zalambessamustbeascribedtolawfulcombatdamage .Howe�er,theCommission’sinspectionof theextensi�ee�idencebefore it,particularly thephoto-graphice�idenceshowingarecurringpatternofcollapseof the frontwallsofbuildings,con�incesitthatthebulkofthatdestructionisascrib-abletodeliberateactionsbyEritrea,includingwidespreaduseofbull-dozers .Suchdestructionwasunlawful,exceptas“renderedabsolutelynecessarybymilitaryoperations .”35Eritreahasneitherallegednorpro�edsuchnecessity .WhilesomestructuresweredestroyedduringtheperiodfromJuly1998untilFebruary1999,themajorityofthedestructiontookplaceafterFebruary1999,thatis,followingEthiopia’smilitaryad�ancesinOperationSunset .(5) Gi�enthelimitationsandconflictsinthee�idenceandtheinher-entuncertaintyin�ol�ed,theCommissioncannotbecertainofthepre-cisepercentageofthetotalpropertydestructionresultingfromdeliber-ateactionsbyEritrea .Howe�er,baseduponitsstudyof thee�idence,includingphotographs,theCommissionconcludesthatEritrea’sactionswerethepredominantcauseofdamage,andassignsitresponsibilityforse�enty-fi�epercent .(6) Consequently,Eritreaisliableforonehundredpercentoftheprop-ertylootedinZalambessaandse�enty-fi�epercentofthephysicaldam-agetostructuresandinfrastructureinthetown .

35 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,atart .53 .


i. irob Wereda74 . General . IrobWereda isat theeasternendof theCentralFront .

Muchoftheaffectedareaishigh,ruggedandsparse,andtherearefewsub-stantialtowns .BeforehostilitiesbeganinMay1998,thepopulationwasesti-matedtobe18,000 .

75 . Twofactorscomplicatedtheseclaims .First,elsewhereontheCen-tralFront,thefrontlinesoftenroughlyparalleledandlayclosetowhatbothParties�iewedastheinternationalboundary .Consequently,EritreanforceswereeitherconcentratedinsideEritreaoroccupiedrelati�elynarrowareasinEthiopia,sometimesonlyforlimitedperiods .Irobwasdifferent .Eritreanforceswerecontinuouslypresentinlargeareasforabouttwoyears .Asaresult,Eritreanforcesandtheci�ilianpopulationwereinregularcontacto�eralongperiod,gi�ingrisetomanyallegationsofseriousincidentsandabuses .

76 . Second,so�ereigntyo�erlargeportionsofIrobWeredawasdisput-ed .ThefinalawardoftheBoundaryCommissionplacedinEritreasubstantialareasinnorthwestIrobthatwereclaimedandadministeredbyEthiopiawhenthewarbegan .ManyclaimsallegedbyEthiopiaaroseintheseareas .

77 . At the hearing, Eritrea argued that the Commission should notaddresssuchclaimsinthecontextoftheCentralFrontclaims,for�ariousreasons .Inter alia, itcontendedthattheallegedoffensesin�ol�edinteractionsbetweenEritreanforcesandEritreannationals,andhencewereoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .Itwasalsourgedthat,becausetheBoundaryCom-missiondeterminedtheterritorytobeEritrean,itcouldnotbesubjecttobel-ligerentoccupationbyEritrea’sownforces .

78 . TheCommission’sresponsetosuchargumentswasnotedsupra atparagraphs27-31initssummaryofe�entsontheCentralFront .TheCommis-siondoesnotagreethatpersonsshouldbedeniedtheprotectionsofinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawbecauseofdisputesbetweenthePartiestoaninterna-tionalconflictregardingso�ereigntyo�ertheterritoryconcerned .

79 . Eritreaputinlittlee�idencespecificallyaddressingtheseclaims .AswithallofEthiopia’sweredaclaims,EritreacontendedthatEthiopia’salle-gationsande�idenceweretoounfocused,andpro�idedtoolittleinforma-tionregardingthesurroundingmilitaryconflict,torequireore�enpermitananswer .Hence,Eritreamaintainedithad“noclaimtoanswer .”

80 . The Commission agrees that the e�idence supporting se�eral ofEthiopia’sclaimsis insufficienttoestablishliability .Howe�er,astose�eralimportantclaims,theCommissionfindsclear,compellingandunrebuttede�idenceshowingpatternsofseriousmisconductbyEritreanforces .Thise�i-denceincludesmultipleallegationsimplicatingnamedEritreanofficers .

81 . ClaimsofPhysicalandMentalAbuse .Thee�idenceshowsfrequentfrictionbetweenoccupiedandoccupiersintheoccupiedareasofIrobWereda,includingfrequentinsultsand�erbalabuse .Thereisnodoubtthatthesitua-


tionwaspsychologicallypainfulanddifficultformany .Howe�er,thee�idenceisnotsufficienttopermittheCommissiontomakefindingsofliabilityfornon-�iolentharassmentand�erbalabuse .

82 . OfmuchgreaterconcernarenumerousaccountsinEthiopia’se�i-denceofactsof�iolencebyEritreanforcesagainstci�ilians .Manyaccounts,includingeyewitnessaccounts,described frequentbeatingsof ci�iliansbysoldiers,oftenresultinginsubstantialinjuries .Morethanadozenaccountsrefertointentionalkillingsofci�iliansbysoldiersunrelatedtocombat .Mostofthesedeathsin�ol�edintentionalshootings;othersresultedfrombeatings .Manyof thesedeclarantsclaimtoha�ebeeneyewitnesses .Someaccountscon�erge;twodescribethekillingofanamedci�ilianinAyegashotinthebackwhilecarryingabeehi�e .TheCommissionbelie�esthatthisunrebuttede�idenceissufficienttoestablisharecurringpatternofexcessi�e�iolencebyEritreansoldiersagainstci�ilians,includingfrequentbeatingsanddeliberatekillings .

83 . Rape .Ethiopiapresenteddetailedandcumulati�ee�idenceofse�-eralrapesbyEritreansoldiersofEthiopianci�ilianwomeninIrobWereda,inparticularinEndalgedaKebele .TheTigrayWomen’sAssociationregisteredtwenty-sixrape�ictimsinIrobWereda,whichwascorroboratedinagen-eralmannerbythedeclarationofago�ernmentofficialinIrobWeredawhoestimated,onthebasisofdiscussionswithwomenandtheirfamilies, thatthirty-fi�ewomenwererapedbyEritreantroops .OnedeclarantfromEngu-raelaKushet,EngaldedaKebele,testifiedthatheknewele�enwomenwhowererapedbyEritreansoldiersinthefirstweekofthein�asionin1998;anothertestifiedtoele�enrape�ictimsfromthesamekushetbearingchildrenanddescribedthepracticeofEritreansoldiersgoingdoor-to-doorselectingwom-entotakeaway .Se�eralclergymenidentifiedbothrape�ictimsandEritreanmilitaryperpetratorsbyname .Onepriestdescribedcomplaining,futilely,toEritreancommandersaboutthreespecificEritreansoldiers .

84 . TheCommissionfindsthisspecifice�idence,withcumulati�egen-eraldeclarationsaboutunreported,opportunisticrapebyEritreansoldiers,sufficienttosupportanEthiopianprima facie case .Eritreaeffecti�elyleftthiscaseunrebutted .Accordingly,theCommissionfindsEritrealiableforfailuretotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapebyitssoldiersofEthiopianci�ilianwomenduringEritrea’sin�asionandoccupationofIrobWereda .

85 . Abduction Claims . Numerous unrebutted declarations referredto indi�iduals taken intocustodybyEritreansoldierswhodidnotreturn .Missingindi�iduals(andthosesaidtoberesponsible)oftenwereidentified


byname .36ManyweretakenintocustodysoonafterEritreantroopsarri�ed,butabductionsarereportedthroughouttheyearsofoccupation .Somedeclar-antsdescribedthedisappearance37ofci�icleadersandotherimportantpeople .Othersreferredtothedetentionofoldermenknowledgeableaboutthearea .Somereportedyoungwomenbeingtakenaway .

86 . Theunrebuttede�idenceissufficienttoestablishapatternofseriousmisconductbyEritreanforcesin�ol�ingthedetentionandsubsequentfail-uretoreleaseorpro�ideinformationregardingthewhereaboutsofnumerousci�ilians .

87 . Mistreatment During Capti�ity . Other detained ci�ilians werereleased,sometimesafterrelati�elyshortperiodsofconfinement .Howe�er,thee�idenceindicatesthatprisoners,includingmanydetainedforjustafewdays,werecommonlysubjectedtomistreatment,oftenincludingse�erebeatings .

88 . Multiple declarations describe indi�iduals or groups who weredetained, se�erelybeaten,and thenreleased,oftenwithscarsandbruises,sometimeswithpermanentinjuries .Thee�idencerarelyindicateswhythesepeopleweredetainedorotherrele�antcircumstances,andtheCommissioncanmakenofindingregardingthelawfulnessoftheirdetention .Howe�er,therecurring,unrebutteddeclarationsindicatearegularpatternoffrequentse�erebeatingandotherphysicalabuseofci�ilianstakenintocustody .

89 . ForcedLabor .Article51ofGene�aCon�entionIVindicatesthatci�ilianscanberequiredtolaboronbehalfofthemilitaryforcesofanoccupy-ingpower,butonlyifcompensatedandonly“onworkwhichisnecessary . . .fortheneedofthearmyofoccupation .”Worksupportingmilitaryoperationsisprohibited .

90 . AllegationsofforcedlaborintheIrobe�idencewerefarlessfrequentthanclaimsofphysicalabuse .CounselforEthiopiareferredtotendeclarationssaidtoshowforcedlaborcontrarytointernationalhumanitarianlaw .How-e�er,thecitedreferencesarebriefandpro�idelittledetail .Afewrefertoci�il-iansbeingmadetocarryammunitionandothermilitarysupplies,particularlyintheinitialdaysfollowingthein�asion,butthesearenotsufficienttoshowageneralpatternofprohibitedbeha�ior .Weighedintheaggregate,thee�idenceisnotsufficienttoshowthatuncompensatedforcedlabor,orforcedlaborforprohibitedpurposes,characterizedtheoccupationtotheextentrequiredfortheCommissiontofindliability .

36 VariousdeclarationsimplicateaColonelShifaintheseandothere�ents .Twoholdhimresponsibleforfiftyabductions .AnotheraccusedShifaandnamedsubordinatesofabductingpeopleinthenight,claimingthatShifatookhimandotherstoaplacewheretheywereforcedtoworkonaroadand/orwerese�erelybeaten .Anotherallegedthatoffic-ersunderCol .Shifa’scommandcommittedrapesandwerenotpunished .

37 Inusingtheterm“disappearance,”theCommissiondoesnotmeantoimplythatthemissingindi�idualswerekilledwhileincustody .Itrecei�ednoe�idencesupportingsuchafinding .TheCommissionsimplyhasnoknowledgeregardingthemissingpersons’whereaboutsorfate .


91 . CampConditions .Inadditiontoitsallegationsregardingthedisap-pearanceandmistreatmentofci�iliansheldasprisoners,Ethiopiaallegesthatnumerousci�ilianswereforciblyinternedundersubstandardconditions,par-ticularlyinacampatMekhetainIrobWeredaandatHambokhacampnearSenafe,Eritrea .ClaimsconcerningHambokhaaredealtwithsupra atparagraph69 .Ethiopia’sdeclarationsincludedescriptionsofharshcampconditions .

92 . WhilethereisnodoubtthatconditionsatMekhetawereharshanddifficult,thee�idenceisnotsufficienttosustainaCommissionfindingthatpersonswereunlawfullyheldthereorthatthecampfailedtomeetinterna-tionalstandards .

93 . IndiscriminateShelling .Asintheotherweredas,Ethiopiareferredextensi�elytoEritrea’suseofartillery,bothatthetimeoftheinitialin�asionandsubsequently,toshelladjoiningareas .Howe�er, legalanalysisoftheseclaimsispossibleonlyiftheycanberelatedtoongoingmilitaryoperations .Thea�ailablee�idencedidnotgi�etheCommissionsufficientbasistoassesswhetherartilleryfireduringthein�asionorsubsequentlyintentionallytar-getedci�ilianobjects,wasindiscriminateorotherwise�iolatedinternationalhumanitarianlawrules .

94 . Whilesomedeclarationsallegedshellingoflocationswheretherewasnoarmedresistance,othersfrequentlyrefertothepresenceofarmedmili-tia .Se�eralrefertosuccessfullocaldefensebythemilitia;somedescribesitu-ationswhereartillerywasusedonlyafterthemilitiasuccessfullyturnedbackinitialEritreanattacks .TherearealsodeclarationsclaimingthattherewerenoEthiopianforcesinanarea,butalsoindicatingthattherewereEritreancasual-tiesthere .Theseclaimsmustbedismissedforfailureofproof .

95 . Landmines .Aswithotherweredas,thee�idenceindicatesthatEri-treamadeextensi�euseofanti-personnellandmines,butitdoesnotdemon-strateapatternoftheirunlawfuluse .For liability, theCommissionwouldha�etoconcludethatlandmineswereusedinwaysthatintentionallytargetedci�iliansorwereindiscriminate .Howe�er,thea�ailablee�idencesuggeststhatlandmineswereextensi�elyusedaspartofthedefensesofEritrea’strenchesandfieldfortifications .Thus,thedeclarationscitinglandmineusealsofre-quently refer to the presence of Eritrean trenches in the area/kushet con-cerned .Inprinciple,thedefensi�euseofminefieldstoprotecttrencheswouldbealawfuluseundercustomaryinternationallaw .

96 . Looting .Ethiopiaalleges,andthee�idenceconfirmed,frequentandwidespreadactsoftheftanddestructionofci�ilianpersonalpropertybyEri-treanforcesduringtheoccupation .

97 . TherearenumerousunrebuttedaccountsofwidespreadtheftsbyEritreansoldiersofli�estock,themostcommonandimportantformofwealthinruralIrob .NumerousdeclarationsdescribeEritreanforcesseizinglargenumbersofanimals .Eritreansoldiersaredescribedslaughteringandfeastingonci�ilians’sheepandgoats;otheraccountstellofstolenli�estockbeingcol-


lectedandherdedbacktoEritreanrearareas .TheCommissionencounteredonlyonereferencetoEritreansoldierse�erpayingforli�estock .

98 . TherewerefewerallegationsoftheftsofsewingmachinesandotherhouseholdgoodsbyEritreansoldierswhileci�iliansremainedintheirhomes .Howe�er,themanyci�ilianswholefttheirhomes,eitherfleeingbehindEthio-pianlinesorbeingplacedinIDPcamps,commonlyreturnedtoareaspre�i-ouslycontrolledbyEritreanforcestofindalloftheirpropertylooted,includ-ingdoors,windowsandotherrecyclablehouseparts .

99 . Thee�idencealsodemonstratedfrequentandwidespreadactsoftheft and destruction of public and community property in Irob, in�ol�-ingnotablychurches, schoolsandgo�ernmentaloffices .Muchof thisalsooccurredwhile theci�ilianpopulationwasabsentatHambokhaCamporotherlocationsawayfromtheirhomes .Howe�er, itoccurredwhileEritreawastheOccupyingPoweroftheareaandwasresponsibleformaintainingpublicorder .Accordingly,theCommissionbelie�esitisappropriatetofindEritrealiablefortheselosses .

100 . OtherClaims .Thee�idenceisnotsufficienttoestablishliabilityconcerningse�eralothertypesofclaimsassertedbyEthiopia .Thereisinsuf-ficiente�idencetoestablishapatternofconductbyEritreanforcesin�ol�-ingtheunlawfultransferofci�ilianstoEritrea,forcibleadoptionofEritreannationality,orthedestructionofobjectsindispensableforthewelfareoftheci�ilianpopulation .Theallegationsande�idenceofdestructionofen�iron-mentalresourcesalsofallwellbelowthestandardofwidespreadandlong-last-ingen�ironmentaldamagerequiredforliabilityunderinternationalhumani-tarianlaw .

J. aerial bombardment of mekele101 . OnJune5,1998,EthiopiaandEritreaexchangedairstrikes,Ethio-

piaattackingtheAsmaraairportandEritreaattackingtheMekeleairport .Eachaccusestheotherofstrikingfirst,butthatisaquestiontheCommis-sionneednotaddress,becausebothairportshousedmilitaryaircraftandwereunquestionablylegitimatemilitaryobjecti�esunderinternationalhumanitar-ianlaw .Ethiopia’sclaiminthepresentcaseisbasednotupondeaths,woundsanddamageattheMekeleairport,butuponthefactthatEritreanaircraftalsodroppedclusterbombsthatkilledandwoundedci�iliansanddamagedprop-ertyinthe�icinityoftheAyderSchoolandthesurroundingneighborhoodinMekeletown .Ethiopiastatesthatthosebombskilledfifty-threeci�ilians,includingtwel�eschoolchildren,andwounded185ci�ilians,includingforty-twoschoolchildren .

102 . Ethiopiaalleges thatEritrea intentionally targeted this ci�ilianneighborhoodin�iolationofinternationallaw .Eritrea�igorouslydeniesthisallegation .WhileEritreaacknowledgesthatoneofitsaircraftdiddropclusterbombsinthe�icinityoftheAyderSchool,itcontendsthatthiswasanacci-


dentincidentaltolegitimatemilitaryoperations,notadeliberateattack,andconsequentlynotabasisforliability .

103 . ForthepurposesofthepresentAward,theCommissionfocusesontheratherlimitedkeyfactsandpiecesofe�idence .First,someimportantfactsareagreedbetweenthePartiesandmaybesummarizedasfollows:

(1) EritreasentfourseparatesingleaircraftsortiestoMekele .Theair-craft were Italian-made MB-339’s, each flown by a single pilot . Theseaircraftallegedlyhadcomputerizedaimingsystemsthataredesignedtoreleasebombsatthepropertimetohitatargetwhenthepilotseesitalignedwitha“headsup”displayinthecockpitandpushesabombreleaseswitch .(2) Thefirstsortiehadnobombsandstrafedtheairportatabout2:45p .m .,causingsomecasualtiesanddamage .Thefollowingthreesortieswerearmedwithclusterbombs .(3) Thesecondsortiedroppedclusterbombsonorneartheairportrun-wayatabout3:30p .m .(4) Thethirdsortiedroppeditstwoclusterbombso�ertheAyderSchoolandneighborhoodatabout5:00p .m .(5) TheAyderSchoolandneighborhoodarelocatedwithinthetownofMekele,onitsnorthwestside;theMekeleairportislocatedapproxi-matelyse�enkilometersfromAyderonhighgroundoutsidethetowntothesoutheast .(6) Eritreahadinstructedthepilotsofallfoursortiestofollowaflightpaththatbroughtthemtotheairportfromthewestsothatthesunwouldbebehindthemandtheywouldbemoredifficulttosee .(Thiswasalsoanormalapproachtotheairportforci�ilianaircraft .)Thisapproachtookthemdirectlyo�erdenselypopulatedresidentialareasofMekelecity .104 . Otherimportantfactsarenotagreed,andtheCommissionmust

decidethosefactsnecessarytoresol�ethisclaim .ThecentraldisputedissueiswhethertherewasonebombingattackthathittheAyderSchoolarea,asEritreaadmits,ortwo,ascontendedbyEthiopia .

105 . EritreaassertsthatthethirdsortiewasinstructedtoattackEthio-piananti-aircraftdefensesnorthwestoftheairfieldandatleastfourkilometersfromtheAyderneighborhoodandthatthebombreleasecomputerhadbeensetaccordingly .Eritreastatesthatthepilotofthethirdsortiesaidthathehadsucceededinhittinghistarget .Eritreaalsoassertsthatthepilotofthefourthsortiewasinstructedtoattacktheairportandthathisbombreleasecomputerhadbeensetaccordingly .Eritreastatesthatthepilotofthefourthsortie,whichwaso�erMekeleatabout6:00p .m .,saidthathehadsucceededinhittinghistarget .Ethiopiaasserts,tothecontrary,thatthefourthsortiedidnotdropabombontheairportanddroppedatleastoneclusterbombonthesameAyderneighborhoodasthethirdsortie;andEthiopiaarguesthat,gi�entheextremeoddsagainsttwoerrorsresultinginbombingthesameplace,theCommission


mustconcludethattheAyderSchoolandneighborhoodweredeliberateandunlawfultargetsofthosetwosorties .

106 . EritreadeniesthatthefourthsortiedroppedabombontheAyderneighborhood .Itpointedoutthatithadnoreasonstotargetci�iliansandthatithadstrongreasonstotargettheMekeleairport,becauseEthiopia’sstrongerairforce,operatingfromthere,mightbeabletoputAsmaraairport—whichitsayswasitsonlyairport—outofcommission .

107 . Aftercarefullyconsideringallthee�idence,theCommissioncon-cludesthatthefourthsortiedroppedatleastoneclusterbombontheAyderneighborhoodandthatthereisnoe�idencethatitdroppedanybombonornearMekeleairport .Thereiscompellingtestimonybywitnessesplacingthestrikesonehourapart,includingtestimonybeforetheCommissionbyawit-nesstothefirstbombingwhobecameaninjured�ictimofthesecond .Thistestimonyisconsistentwith�ideoe�idence,hospitalrecordsandaReutersarticledatedJune5byjournalistsinMekelethatdaythatrefersspecificallytoabombinginthetownatduskaswellasoneearlierintheafternoon .

108 . Consequently, theCommissionholds thatEritrea’s four sortiesresultedintwostrikeshittingMekeleairportandtwostrikeshittingtheAyderneighborhoodinMekele .Ne�ertheless,theCommissionisnotpreparedtodrawtheconclusionurgedbyEthiopia,asitisnotcon�incedthatEritreadelib-eratelytargetedaci�ilianneighborhood .Eritreahadob�iousandcompellingreasonstoconcentrateitslimitedairassetsonEthiopia’sairfightingcapabil-ity—itscombataircraftandtheMekeleairport,whichwaswithintwentytotwenty-fi�eminutes’flighttimefromAsmara .Moreo�er,itisnotcrediblethatEritreawouldseead�antageinsettingtheprecedentoftargetingci�ilians,gi�enEthiopia’sapparentairsuperiority .

109 . TheCommissionacknowledgesthelongoddsagainsttwoconsecu-ti�esortiesmakingpreciselythesametargetingerror,particularlyin�iewofEritrea’srepresentationthatthetwoaircraft’scomputerswereprogrammedfortwodifferenttargets .Howe�er,theCommissionmustalsotakeintoaccountthee�idencethatEritreahadlittleexperiencewiththeseweaponsandthattheindi�idualprogrammersandpilotswereutterlyinexperienced,anditrec-ognizesthepossibilitythat,intheconfusionandexcitementofJune5,bothcomputerscouldha�ebeenloadedwiththesameinaccuratetargetingdata .Italsorecognizesthatthepilotscouldreprogramorcoulddroptheirbombswithoutrelianceonthecomputer .Forexample,itisconcei�ablethatthepilotofthethirdsortiesimplyreleasedtooearlythrougheithercomputerorhumanerrororinanefforttoa�oidanti-aircraftfirethatthepilotsofthepre�ioussor-tieshadreported .Itisalsoconcei�ablethatthepilotofthefourthsortiemightha�edecidedtoaimatthesmokeresultingfromthethirdsortie .

110 .TheCommissionbelie�esthatthego�erninglegalstandardforthisclaimisbestsetforthinArticle57ofProtocolI,theessenceofwhichisthatallfeasibleprecautionstopre�entunintendedinjurytoprotectedpersonsmustbetakeninchoosingtargets,inthechoiceofmeansandmethodsofattackandin


theactualconductofoperations .38TheCommissiondoesnotquestioneithertheEritreanAirForce’schoiceofMekeleairportasatarget,oritschoiceofweapons .NordoestheCommissionquestionthe�alidityofEritrea’sargumentthatithadtousesomeinexperiencedpilotsandgroundcrew,asitdidnotha�emorethana�eryfewexperiencedpersonnel .Thelawrequiresall“feasi-ble”precautions,notprecautionsthatarepracticallyimpossible .Howe�er,theCommissionhasseriousconcernsaboutthemannerinwhichtheseoperationswerecarriedout .Thefailureoftwooutofthreebombrunstocomeclosetotheirintendedtargetsclearlyindicatesalackofessentialcareinconductingthem,compoundedbyEritrea’sfailuretotakeappropriateactionsafterwardstopre�entfuturerecurrence .

111 . ThetestimonyofColonelAbraham,DeputyCommanderoftheEritreanAirForce,showedthathewasawareofearlynewsreportsofe�entsatMekele,butalsomadeclearthattheonlyin�estigationafterthebombshitthe

38 Supranote11 .Article57pro�idesinfull:1 . Intheconductofmilitaryoperations,constantcareshallbetakentosparethe

ci�ilianpopulation,ci�iliansandci�ilianobjects .2 . Withrespecttoattacks,thefollowingprecautionsshallbetaken:

(a) thosewhoplanordecideuponanattackshall: (i) doe�erythingfeasibleto�erifythattheobjecti�estobeattackedareneither

ci�iliansnorci�ilianobjectsandarenotsubjecttospecialprotectionbutaremilitaryobjecti�eswithinthemeaningofparagraph2ofArticle52andthatitisnotprohibitedbythepro�isionsofthisProtocoltoattackthem;

(ii) takeallfeasibleprecautionsinthechoiceofmeansandmethodsofattackwitha�iewtoa�oiding,andinanye�enttominimizing,incidentallossofci�ilianlife,injurytoci�iliansanddamagetoci�ilianobjects;

(iii) refrainfromdecidingtolaunchanyattackwhichmaybeexpectedtocauseincidentallossofci�ilianlife,injurytoci�ilians,damagetoci�ilianobjects,oracombinationthereof,whichwouldbeexcessi�einrelationtothecon-creteanddirectmilitaryad�antageanticipated;

(b) anattackshallbecancelledorsuspendedifitbecomesapparentthattheobjecti�eisnotamilitaryoneorissubjecttospecialprotectionorthattheattackmaybeexpectedtocauseincidentallossofci�ilianlife,injurytoci�ilians,damagetoci�ilianobjects,oracombinationthereof,whichwouldbeexcessi�einrelationtotheconcreteanddirectmilitaryad�antageanticipated;

(c) effecti�ead�ancewarningshallbegi�enofattackswhichmayaffecttheci�ilianpopulation,unlesscircumstancesdonotpermit .

3 . Whenachoice ispossiblebetweense�eralmilitaryobjecti�es forobtainingasimilarmilitaryad�antage,theobjecti�etobeselectedshallbethattheattackonwhichmaybeexpectedtocausetheleastdangertoci�ilianli�esandtoci�ilianobjects .

4 . Intheconductofmilitaryoperationsatseaorintheair,eachPartytotheconflictshall,inconformitywithitsrightsanddutiesundertherulesofinternationallawappli-cableinarmedconflict,takeallreasonableprecautionstoa�oidlossesofci�ilianli�esanddamagetoci�ilianobjects .

5 . Nopro�isionofthisarticlemaybeconstruedasauthorizinganyattacksagainsttheci�ilianpopulation,ci�iliansorci�ilianobjects .


Ayderneighborhoodwaslimitedtohisquestioningthepilotofthethirdsor-tie,whomhesaidtoldhimthathehadhithistarget .ColonelAbrahamindi-catedthathedidnotquestionthepilotofthefourthsortie,andhedidnotha�eeitheraircraft,includingitscomputer,inspected .TheCommissionrecei�ednoe�idenceindicatinganychangesinEritreantrainingordoctrineaimedata�oidingpossiblerecurrenceofwhathappenedinthethirdandfourthsor-tiesonJune5,1998 .Eritreadidnotmakea�ailabletotheCommissionanye�idencefromthepilotsandrefusedtoidentifythem,althoughColonelAbra-hamdidacknowledgethatthethirdsortiewasthatpilot’sfirstmission .

112 . Fromthee�idencea�ailabletoit,theCommissioncannotdeter-minewhythebombsdroppedbythethirdandfourthsortieshittheAyderneighborhood .AlloftheinformationcriticaltothatissuewasinthehandsofEritreaorcouldha�ebeenobtainedbyit,andEritreadidnotmakeita�ailable .Inthosecircumstances, theCommissionisentitledtodrawad�erse infer-encesreinforcingtheconclusionsalreadyindicatedthatnotallfeasiblepre-cautionsweretakenbyEritreainitsconductoftheairstrikesonMekeleonJune5,1998 .39

113 . Forthesereasons,theCommissionfindsthatEritreaisliableforthedeaths,woundsandphysicaldamagetoci�iliansandci�ilianobjectscausedinMekelebythethirdandfourthsortiesonJune5,1998 .

K. aksum

114 . EthiopiaclaimsthatEritreaalsobombedtheAksumci�ilianair-portlateonJune5,1998,thesamedaythatMekelewasbombed .Eritreadeniesanysuchbombing .TheCommissionbelie�esthatthereiscrediblee�idencethatabombwasdroppedandsomedamagecausedattheAksumairportonthatdate .ItispossiblethatitwasdroppedbyEritrea’ssortienumberfour,whichmayha�edroppedonlyoneofitstwobombsonMekele .Inanye�ent,theCommissionfindsnoliabilityforthisAksumbombing,asanairfieldisa legitimatetarget,e�enwhentherearenomilitarypersonnel thereat thetime .Thelandingstripandotherfacilitiescouldbeusedlaterformilitarypurposes .

l. adigrat

115 . Ethiopiaclaimsforse�eralairstrikesagainsttargetsinthetownofAdigratandforperiodicshellingofthetown .Itiscontestedwhetheroneoftheclaimedairstrikesoccurred,buttheCommissionneednotdecidethat,astheclaimsfailforlackofproof .Adigratisonamainnorth-southroadwithmanyEthiopianmilitaryinstallationsandtroopsandconsequentlycontainsmany

39 CorfuChannel(UK v. Alb.),Merits,1949I .C .J .Rep .p .4,atp .18(April9) .


legitimatetargets .Ithasnotbeenpro�edthatanybombingorartilleryattacksagainstAdigratwereaimedatunlawfultargetsorwereindiscriminate .

V. aWard

In�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

a. Jurisdiction

1 .AllclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

b. applicable law

1 . WithrespecttomatterspriortoEritrea’saccessiontotheGene�aCon�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

liabilityofaPartyfora�iolationofapplicableinternationallaw .

d. findings of liability for Violations of international law

TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsofinternationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelorbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEritrea:

1 . ForpermittinginMerebLekheWeredafrequentphysicalabuseofci�iliansbymeansofintentionalkillings,beatingsandabductions,aswellaswidespreadlootingandpropertydestructionintheareasthatwereoccupiedbyitsarmedforcesfromMay1998toMay2000;

2 . ForpermittinginAhferomWeredafrequentphysicalabuseofci�il-iansbymeansofintentionalkillings,beatings,abductionsandwoundscausedbysmall-armsfire,aswellaswidespreadlootingandpropertydestructionintheareasthatwereoccupiedbyitsarmedforcesfromMay1998toMay2000;

3 . ForpermittinginGulomakhedaWeredafrequentphysicalabuseofci�iliansbymeansofintentionalkillings,beatingsandabductionsduringthein�asioninJune1998andlessfrequent,butrecurring,physicalabuseofci�il-iansandfrequentlootinganddestructionofci�ilianpropertyintheareasthatwereoccupiedbyitsarmedforcesfromJune1998toJune2000;

4 . ForpermittingthelootingandstrippingofZalambessaTown;

5 . Forthedeliberate,unlawfuldestructionof75%(se�enty-fi�epercent)ofthestructuresinZalambessaTown;

6 . ForpermittinginIrobWeredaarecurringpatternofexcessi�e�io-lencebyEritreansoldiersagainstci�ilians,includingfrequentbeatingsandintentionalkillings,andfrequentse�erebeatingandotherabuseofci�ilianstakenintocustody,aswellaswidespreadlootingandpropertydestructionintheareasthatwereoccupiedbyitsarmedforcesfromMay1998toJune2000;

7 . Forfailingtotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapeofwomenbyitssoldiersinIrobWereda;

8 . Forfailingtoreleaseci�ilianstakenintocustodyinIrobWeredaandtopro�ideinformationregardingthem;and

9 . Forfailingtotakeallfeasibleprecautionstopre�enttwoofitsmili-taryaircraftfromdroppingclusterbombsinthe�icinityoftheAyderSchoolanditsci�ilianneighborhoodinthetownofMekeleonJune5,1998,andfortheresultingdeaths,woundsandsufferingbyci�iliansandthephysicaldam-agetoci�ilianobjects .


e. other findings1 . ClaimsbasedonallegedbreachesbytheRespondentofthejus ad

bellum aredeferredfordecisioninasubsequentproceeding .2 . Allotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .DoneatTheHague,this28thdayofApril,2004,

[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte

[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich

[Signed]JohnR .Crook

[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul

[Signed]LucyReed

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Principes du droit humanitaire...

Documents

Transcript of REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Principes du droit humanitaire...