REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES...

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Civilian Claims - Eritrea's Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27-32

17 December 2004

XXVI pp. 195-247VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT Vi

Partial Award Civilian Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27-32

Decision of 17 December 2004

Sentence partielle Mauvais traitements des populations civiles—

Réclamations de l’Érythrée Nos 15, 16, 23 & 27-32

Décision du 17 décembre 2004

PartialAward,CiviliansClaims—Eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27-32,Decisionof17December2004

Sentencepartielle,Mauvaistraitementsdespopulationsciviles—Réclamationsdel’ÉrythréeNos15,16,23&27-32,

Décisiondu17décembre2004,

Jurisdiction of the Commission—determination of the liability of States forbreachesofinternationalobligations—liabilityonlyforserious�iolationsofinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawaffectingse�eral�ictims—liabilityengagedonlyforsystem-atic,frequentandrecurring�iolations—nojurisdictiono�erindi�idualcrimes—juris-dictionlimitedtoe�entsarisingduringthearmedconflictandsubsequenttoitasaresultofitsending—jurisdictiontohearclaimspresentedbyStatepartiesonbehalfofcertainnon-nationals—absenceofjurisdictiono�erclaimspresentedonbehalfoftheStatefordamagessufferedbynon-nationals—absenceofjurisdictiono�er�iolationsofnationallaw .

Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—Eritreasubjecttocustomaryhumanitar-ianrulesbeforebecomingapartytoGene�aCon�entions—customarystatusofinter-nationalhumanitarianrulesasexemplifiedbytheGene�aCon�entions—ProtocolI�iewedbythePartiesasreflectingbindingcustomaryrulesdespitethedoubtfulstatusofsomeofitsportions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofaGene�aCon�entionorProtocol—protectionofinternationalhumanitarian law maintained throughout the complex process of disengagementandtheimmediateaftermathofthearmedconflict—situationshapedbyse�erallegalregimes—ci�ilianaliensprotectedunderinternationalhumanitarianlaw—ci�iliannationalsprotectedbyhumanrightslaw .

Customary internationalhumanitarian lawprinciples—treatmentof ci�ilianaliensduringwartime—internationalhumanitarianlawconsideredasguarantyingrespectofbasichumanrightsduringwartime—liabilityarisingfrompermittingorproceedingtounlawfulexpulsion—austereanduncomfortableconditionsofdeten-tionofci�ilians forshortperiodwithoutpatternofphysicalabusenotconsideredas�iolationofinternationallaw—detentionofci�iliansforlongperiodinharshandunsanitaryconditionswithfrequentphysicalabusesconsideredascontrarytointer-nationallaw—detentionofalienci�iliansunderappropriatesafeguardsinordertopre�entthemtojointheenemyarmyconsideredasreasonableandlawfulmeasure—unlawfultodetainaliensci�ilianswithprisonersofwar .

Nationality—issuanceofpassportsconsideredase�idenceofacontinuednation-ality—competencyofaStatenotyetrecognisedde jurebytheinternationalcommu-nitytoconferitsnationality—noautomaticlossofapre�iousnationalityimpliedbytheacquisitionofasecondnationality—noper seterminationofdualnationalityduetotheoccurrenceofawar—questionofdualnationalandlossofnationalityinwar-timenotaddressedbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw—limitationoftheState’sdis-cretiontodepri�eitsnationalsha�ingacquiredasecondnationalityofitsnationalitybytherightforeachindi�idualnottobedepri�edarbitrarilyofone’snationalityand

198 Eritrea/Ethiopia

tobecomestateless—obligationtogi�eadequateinformationtotheindi�idualsubjecttoaprocedureofdepri�ationofnationality—lawfuldepri�ationofnationalitytodualnationalsha�ingfreelydecidedtolea�ethecountryduringthewarfortheenemyStateoralreadyli�ingthere—unlawfuldepri�ationofnationalitytoremainingdualnation-alsnotidentifiedasathreattonationalsecurityorwhowereli�inginathirdState .

Expulsionofaliensordualnationalsduringwartime—non-arbitraryexpulsionsconsideredaslawful—lawfulexpulsionofcertainidentifieddualnationalsthoughttoposeathreattosecurity—broadpowerforabelligerenttorequirenationalsofenemyStatetoreturnthere—notreasonabletoproceedtomassexpulsionofallnationalsofanenemyStateatthebeginningofawar—reasonabletoexpelselectedandidentifiedindi�idualsonsecuritygroundsafterin�estigationandaprocessofdeliberation—noStateliabilityarisingfromdecisionsmadebyfamiliesofanexpulsedalientolea�eatthesametimeorlateron—liabilityarisingformthecoerci�eexpulsionoffamilymem-bersofanexpulsedalienwhoarethemsel�esnationalsoftheexpellingState .

Treatmentofaliens—noprohibitionunderinternationallawtoforbidrealprop-ertyownershipbyaliens—liabilityforarbitraryanddiscriminatoryorganisationofsuchsaleofdeportees’assets—impositionofadiscriminatoryandconfiscatorytaxa-tionmeasureconsideredas�iolationofinternationallaw—foreclosureoffundstrans-fersabroadconsideredasreasonableand lawfulmeasure—generalduty toprotectalien’sassets .

Interpretationofaninternationalagreement—consistencywiththemostnaturalmeaningofthewordsofthetext .

Questionofe�idence—requirementofclearandcon�incinge�idenceforcrimesofacertaingra�ity—burdenofproofontheclaimant—creditaccordedtocumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonies—difficultytorelyinmaterialnotpreparedase�idenceinlegalproceedings .

Remedy—requestfordifferenttypesofremedysuchasreinstatementofnational-ity,regainofci�ilrights,restorationofproperty,�oidingofeconomictransactionandfreedomofdetainees,notconsideredasreasonableandappropriate .

Claimsfilingproceedings—furtherreferencestoadditionalinternationallegalauthoritiesorlegalinstrumentstosupportclaimsnotconsideredasanewseparateclaim .

CompétencedelaCommission—déterminationdelaresponsabilitédesEtatspourles�iolationsd’obligationsinternationales—responsabilitélimitéeàdes�iola-tionsimportantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—responsabilitéuniquementengagéepourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécurrentes—absencedecompétencerelati�eauxcrimes indi�iduels—compétencelimitéeauxé�énementsayanteulieupendantleconflitarméainsiqu’auxé�énementspostérieursàcelui-cirésultantdesonachè�ement—compétencepourconnaîtredesréclamationsprésentéespar lesÉtatspartiesaunomdecertainsnon-nationaux—absencedecompétencepourconnaîtredesréclamationsprésentéesaunomdesÉtatspartiespourlesdommagessubispardesnon-nationaux—absencedecompétencerela-ti�eaux�iolationsdudroitnational .

PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 199

Droiten�igueurpendantleconflitarmé—Érythréesoumiseauxrèglesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumiera�antmêmedede�enirPartieauxCon�entionsdeGenè�e—caractèrecoutumierderèglesinternationaleshumanitaires,telqu’illustrépar les Con�entions de Genè�e—Protocole I considéré par les Parties commereflétantlesrèglescoutumièrescontraignantesmalgrélestatutincertaindecertainspassages—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurl’Étatréfutantlestatutcoutumierd’unedispositionparticulièredel’unedesCon�entionsdeGenè�eouProtocole—maintiendelaprotectiondudroitinternationalhumanitairetoutaulongduprocédécomplexededésengagementetdelapériodesui�antimmédiatementleconflit—situationrégiepardifférentsrégimesjuridiques—protectiondesci�ilsétrangersen�ertududroitinternational humanitaire—protection des ci�ils nationaux en �ertu du régimenationaldesdroitsdel’homme .

Principesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumier—traitementdesci�ilsétrangers en temps de guerre—droit international humanitaire considéré commegarantissantlerespectdesdroitsdel’hommelesplusfondamentauxdurantunconflitarmé—responsabilitéengagéeparlefaitdepermettreoudeprocéderàdesexpulsionsillégales—ladétentiondeci�ilspourunecourteduréedansdesconditionsaustèreset inconfortables, sans abus physique, n’est pas considérée comme une �iolationdu droit international—la détention de ci�ils pour une longue période dans desconditionsrigoureusesetinsalubresaccompagnéedemau�aistraitementsphysiquesestconsidéréecommecontraireaudroitinternational—ladétention,souscertainesgaranties,deci�ilsétrangersafindelesempêcherderejoindrel’ennemiestconsidéréecommeunemesureraisonnableetlégale—illégalitédeladétentiondeci�ilsétrangersa�ecdesprisonniersdeguerre .

Nationalité—l’émissiondespasseportsest�uecommeunepreu�edelaconti-nuitédelanationalité—compétenced’unÉtatpasencorereconnude jureparlaCom-munautéinternationaledeconférersanationalité—pasdeperteautomatiquedelanationalitésuiteàl’acquisitiond’unedeuxièmenationalité—pasd’extinctionper sede ladoublenationalitédufaitde lasur�enanced’uneguerreentre lesdeuxÉtatsd’allégeance—questiondeladoublenationalitéetdelapertedenationalitéentempsdeguerrenonrégléeparledroitinternationalhumanitaire—compétencediscrétion-nairedel’Étatdepri�erundesesressortissantsdesanationalitélorsdel’acquisitiond’unedeuxièmenationalitélimitéeparledroitdechaqueindi�idudenepasêtrearbi-trairementpri�édesanationalitéetdenepasde�enirapatride—obligationdedonnerdesinformationsadéquatesàl’indi�idusoumisàuneprocédurededestitutiondelanationalité—destitutionlégaledelanationalitéderessortissantsbinationauxayantlibrementchoisidepartirpourlepaysennemiouyrésidantdéjàdurantlaguerre—destitutionillégaledelanationalitéderessortissantsbinationauxrestantsnonidenti-fiéscommeunemenaceàlasécuriténationaleouquirésidaientdansunÉtattiers .

Expulsiond’étrangersouderessortissantsbinationauxentempsdeguerre—lesexpulsionsnonarbitrairessontconsidéréeslégales—légalitédesexpulsionsdecer-tainsressortissantsbinationauxidentifiéscommereprésentantunemenacepourlasécuriténationale—largepou�oirdubelligérantd’exigerleretourdansleurpaysdesressortissantsdel’Étatennemi—l’expulsionmassi�edetouslesnationauxd’unÉtatennemiaudébutduconflitestconsidéréecommeirraisonnable—l’expulsionsélec-ti�ed’indi�idusidentifiéspourdesraisonssécuritaires,aprèsenquêteetprocéduredélibérati�e,estconsidéréecommeraisonnable—responsabilitéétatiquenonengagée


parladécisiondesmembresd’unefamilled’unexpulsédepartirenmêmetempsouplustard—responsabilitéengagéeparl’expulsionforcéedesmembresdelafamilled’unétrangerexpulsé,quisonteux-mêmesdesressortissantsdel’Étatprocédantàl’expulsion .

Traitementdesétrangers—pasd’interdictionen�ertududroitinternationaldedéfendre aux étrangers de posséder des biens immobiliers—responsabilité engagéepourl’organisationde�entesarbitrairesetdiscriminatoiresdepropriétésd’étrangers—l’impositiondetaxesdiscriminatoiresetconfiscatoiresestconsidéréecommeune�iola-tiondudroitinternational—l’interdictiondetransfertsdefondsàl’étrangerestconsid-éréecommeunemesureraisonnableetlégale—de�oirgénéraldeprotégerlesbiensdesétrangers .

Interprétationd’unaccordinternational—cohérencea�eclesensleplusnatureldesmotsdutexte .

Questiondespreu�es—nécessitédepreu�esclairesetcon�aincantespour lescrimesd’unecertainegra�ité—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurleplaignant—créditaccordéauxtémoignagescumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—difficultédesefierauxdocumentsquin’ontpasétépréparésdanslebutdeser�irdepreu�edanslesprocéduresjuridiques .

Réparation—l’exigencededifférentstypesderéparationtelsquelerétablisse-mentdelanationalité,desdroitsci�ilsetdelapropriété,l’annulationdestransactionséconomiquesainsiquelalibérationdesdétenus,n’estpasconsidéréecommeraison-nableetadéquate .

Procéduredesoumissiondesréclamations—l’ajoutderéférencesàladoctrineinternationaleouàdesinstrumentsjuridiquessupplémentairespourappuyerlesrécla-mations,n’estpasassimiléàlasoumissiond’unenou�elleréclamation .

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Civilians Claims Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27-32

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia


BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

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

TheHague,December17,2004

PARTIAL AWARD—Civilians Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32 between the Claimant,

The State of Eritrea, represented by:

Government of Eritrea

H .E .Mr .MohammedSuliemanAhmed,AmbassadoroftheStateofEri-treatoTheNetherlands

ProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-Agent,LegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresidentofEritrea;HowardM .HoltzmannProfessorofInternationalLaw,YaleLawSchool

Ms .LorraineCharlton,DeputyLegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresi-dentofEritrea

Counsel and Advocates

ProfessorJamesR .Crawford,SC,FBA,WhewellProfessorofInterna-tionalLaw,Uni�ersityofCambridge;MemberoftheAustralianandEnglishBars;MemberoftheInstituteofInternationalLaw

Dr .PayamAkha�an,Esq .

Counsel and Consultants

Ms .GeorgiaAlbert

Ms .SemharAraia

Ms .AmandaCostikyanJones

Mr .YosiefSolomon

Ms .DanielleTully


and the Respondent, The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, represented by:

Government of EthiopiaMr .HabtomAbraha,ConsulGeneral,EthiopianMissioninTheNeth-

erlandsMr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFed-

eralDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMr .HenokMengistu,ThirdSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsofthe

FederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMs .FirdosaAbdulkadir,ThirdSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsof

theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMr .TsegayeDemeke,ConsulateofEthiopiatoTheNetherlands

Counsel and ConsultantsMr .B .Dono�anPicard,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Member

of theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

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

Mr .KnoxBemis,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

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

Ms .VirginiaC .Dailey;PiperRudnick,LLP,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbiaandStateBarofFlorida;MemberoftheLawSocietyofEnglandandWales

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


Table of ConTenTs

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204B . Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

II . FACTUALBACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

III . JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

IV . APPLICABLELAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

V . EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

VI . ERITREA’SCLAIMS:INTRODUCTORYOBSERVATIONS . . . 214

VII . ERITREA’SCLAIMFORDEPRIVATIONOFNATIONALITY 219

VIII . ERITREA’SCLAIMFOREXPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

IX . DETENTIONWITHOUTDUEPROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

X . DEPRIVATIONOFPROPERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

XI . FAMILYSEPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

XII . CLAIMSONBEHALFOFSPECIFICINDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . 243

XIII . AWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245D . FindingonDualNationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245E . FindingsonLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . 246F . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247


i. inTroduCTion

a. summary of the Positions of the Parties

1 . TheseClaims(“Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23and27–32,”“Eritrea’sCi�il-iansClaims”)co�eringexpellees,ci�iliandetaineesand“personsofEritreanextractionli�inginEthiopia,”1ha�ebeenbroughttotheCommissionbytheClaimant,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”)againsttheFederalDemocraticRepub-licofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaandtheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemo-craticRepublicofEthiopiaofDecember12,2000(“theDecember2000Agree-ment”) .TheClaimantaskstheCommissiontofindtheRespondent,Ethiopia,liableforloss,damageandinjuryitsuffered,includingloss,damageandinjurysufferedbyEritreannationalsandalargenumberofotherpersons,resultingfromallegedinfractionsofinternationallawinthetreatmentofci�ilianEri-treannationalsandotherpersonsbyEthiopiainconnectionwiththe1998–2000internationalarmedconflictbetweenthetwoParties .

2 . Ethiopiacontendsthatithasfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitstreatmentofsuchci�ilians .

3 . ThisPartialAwardandthecompanionPartialAwardrenderedtodayinEthiopia’sClaim5(“Ethiopia’sCi�iliansClaims”)arethethirdinaseriesofPartialAwardsbytheCommissiononthemeritsoftheParties’claims .Pre�i-ousPartialAwardsha�eaddressedtheParties’claimsrelatingtothetreatmentofprisonersofwar2andtotheconductofmilitaryoperationsontheCentralFront .3

4 . ThisclaimdoesnotincludeanyclaimssetforthinseparateclaimsbytheClaimant,suchasthoseformistreatmentofprisonersofwar(Eritrea’sClaim17)or formistreatmentofotherEthiopiannationals in theCentralFront(Eritrea’sClaims2,4,5,6,8and22) .

1 Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23&27–32,Memorial,filedbyEritreaonNo� .15,2002,para .1 .01 .

2 PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Eritrea’sClaim17BetweentheStateofEritreaandTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia46(July1,2003)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims],PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Ethiopia’sClaim4BetweenTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandTheStateofEritrea(July1,2003)[here-inafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaims] .

3 PartialAward,CentralFront,Eritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8&22BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticGo�ernmentofEthiopia(April28,2004)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims];PartialAward,CentralFront,Ethiopia’sClaim2BetweentheFederalDemocraticGo�ernmentofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(April28,2004)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims] .


b. Proceedings5 . TheCommission informedthePartiesonAugust29,2001 that it

wouldconductproceedings inGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaims in twostages,firstconcerningliabilityand,second,if liabilityisestablished,con-cerningdamages .PursuanttoArticle5oftheDecember2000Agreement,thisclaimwasfiledonDecember12,2001 .AStatementofDefensewasfiledonJune15,2002,theClaimant’sMemorialonNo�ember15,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialonJanuary15,2004 .BothPartiesfiledaddi-tionale�idenceonFebruary13,2004 .AhearingwasheldatthePeacePalaceinTheHague inMarch2004, inconjunctionwithahearingonEthiopia’srelatedClaim5 .

ii. faCTual baCKGround6 . Eritrea’smainclaimsandEthiopia’sdefensesha�etheiroriginsinthe

unusualcircumstancesleadingtotheemergenceofEritreaasaseparateStateduringtheearly1990s .EritreawasanItaliancolonyfrom1889untiltheBrit-ishdefeatedtheItalianforcestherein1941,earlyintheSecondWorldWar .ItthenremainedunderBritishadministrationuntil1952,whenitenteredintoafederationwiththeEmpireofEthiopia .Thefederationlasteduntil1962,whenthelast�estigesofEritrea’spoliticalautonomyendedandEritreabecameapartofEthiopia .In1991,followingthesuccessoftheirlongandbitterstruggleagainsttheMengisturegimeinEthiopia,thesuccessfulre�olutionarymo�e-mentsthathadassumedpowerinAddisAbabaandAsmaraagreedthat“thepeopleofEritreaha�etherighttodeterminetheirownfuturebythemsel�esand . . . . .thatthefuturestatusofEritreashouldbedecidedbytheEritreanpeopleinareferendum . . . .”4

7 . OrganizingtheReferendumwasalargeandcomplextaskundertakenbytheReferendumCommissionofEritrea(“RCE”)appointedinApril1992 .AReferendumProclamationissuedonApril7,1992establisheddetailedpro-ceduresandlimitedparticipationtopersonso�er18“ha�ingEritreancitizen-ship .”(TheReferendumProclamationandtheassociatedCitizenshipProc-lamationarediscussedbelow .)TheRCEandthePro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritreaemphasizedregistrationofpotential�otersoutsideofEritrea,whereo�er a million Eritreans li�ed . According to a report by the InternationalOrganizationforMigration,66,022personsinEthiopiaregisteredto�oteintheReferendum .TheReferendumwassuccessfullyheldon23–25April1993,withextremelyhighparticipationandalmost99%of�oters�otingforEritrea’sindependence .OnMay4,1993,Ethiopia’sMinistryofForeignAffairsrecog-nizedEritrea’sso�ereigntyandindependence .EritreabecameamemberoftheUnitedNationsonMay28,1993 .

4 LetterfromH .E .MelesZenawitoUNSecretary-GeneralBoutrosBoutros-Ghali,Dec .13,1991,UNDoc .A/C .3/47/5(1992) .


8 . DuringthedecadeswhenEritreadidnotexistasaseparatepoliticalentity,therewasextensi�emo�ementofpopulationbothintoandoutoftheareaofpresent-dayEritrea .Thesepopulationmo�ementswerecompoundedbytumultanddisplacementfromdecadesofbitterinternalconflictwithinEthio-pia .ManyEthiopiansofEritreanancestryknewonlyEthiopiaastheirhome .Manythousandsofpersonswhowerebornorwhoseparentswerebornwithinthepresent-dayboundariesofEritreacametoresideasEthiopiancitizensinAddisAbabaandelsewhereinEthiopia .TheCommissionrecei�ed�aryingestimatesofthenumbersin�ol�ed,butbothPartiesagreedthepopulationwaslarge .AJune12,1998EthiopianMinistryofForeignAffairsstatementconcerning“PrecautionaryMeasuresTakenRegardingEritreansResidinginEthiopia”referredto550,000suchpersons .BothPartiescitedthisfiguredur-ingtheproceedings,althoughEritreaalsoreferredtootherlowerestimates .

9 . Thee�idence indicatedthatmanypersonswithEritreananteced-entsweresuccessfuleconomically,owningpropertyandoperatingbusinessesinEthiopia .Thee�idencealsoindicatedthattherewereacti�epoliticalandsocialorganizationsin�ol�ingpersonsofEritreannationalorigin .ThePartiesdisagreedsharplyregardingthecharacteroftheseorganizationsandoftheiracti�ities .

10 . TheheartofEritrea’scaseisitscontentionthatbeginningsoonaftertheoutbreakofwarinMay1998,Ethiopiawrongfullydenationalized,expelled,mistreatedanddepri�edofpropertytensofthousandsofEthiopiancitizensofEritreanoriginin�iolationofmultipleinternationallegalobligations .Eritreacitede�idenceitbelie�edestablishedthatatleast75,000personsweresoexpelledfromEthiopia,butcontendedthattheactualnumberswerelarger,becausesomegroups,particularlydisplacedruralEritreans,weredifficulttocount .Eritreaalsoallegedmistreatmentofothergroups,includingci�iliansallegedtoha�ebeenwrongfullydetainedasprisonersofwarandotherwise .

11 . Ethiopiaacknowledgedthatitexpelledthousandsofpersonsduringthisperiod,althoughitmaintainedthattherewerefarfewerthanclaimedbyEritrea .Ethiopiacontendedthat,pursuanttoitslaw,theEthiopiannationalityofallEthiopianswhohadobtainedEritreannationalityhadbeenterminatedandthatthoseexpelledwereEritreannationals,andhencenationalsofanenemyStateinatimeofinternationalarmedconflict .ItcontendedthatallofthoseexpelledhadacquiredEritreannationality,mostbyqualifyingtopar-ticipateinthe1993Referendum .Ethiopiafurthercontendedthatitssecurityser�icesidentifiedeachexpelleeasha�ingbelongedtocertainorganizationsorengagedincertaintypesofacti�itiesthatjustifiedregardingthepersonasathreattoEthiopia’ssecurity .Ethiopiadistinguishedbetweentheapproxi-mately15,475personswhoitclaimedwereexpelledasthreatstosecurity,andanadditionalnumberoffamilymemberssaid�oluntarilytoha�eelectedtoaccompanyorfollowthem .Ethiopiacontendedthat21,905familymembersleftwiththeexpelleesontransportpro�idedbyEthiopiaandthatanunknownnumberofothersleftEthiopiabyothermeans .


iii. JurisdiCTion

12 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheDecember2000AgreementestablishestheCommission’sjurisdiction .Itpro�ides,inter alia, thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforall loss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�ernmentoritsnationalsagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconflictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”

13 . SubjectMatterJurisdiction:RelationtotheConflict .EritreaallegesthatEthiopia’streatmentofci�iliansduringtheconflictanditsaftermathwasrelatedtotheconflictand�iolatednumerousrulesofinternationallaw .Erit-reaseeksreliefonaccountofinjuriessufferedbothbyEritreannationalsandbyothersitregardsasEthiopiannationals .(Thejurisdictionalaspectsofthislattergroupwillbediscussedinfra inlightoftheunusualtermsofArticle5oftheDecember2000Agreement .)TheCommissionagreesthatoneParty’streatmentofci�iliansduringandinthewakeoftheinternationalarmedcon-flictbetweentheminthecircumstancesin�ol�edhereclearlyrelatestothatconflict .Claimsthatsuchtreatment�iolatesinternationallawfallwithintheCommission’ssubjectmatterjurisdictionunderArticle5oftheAgreement .

14 . TemporalJurisdiction .UnderArticle5oftheDecember2000Agree-ment,theCommission’sjurisdictionextendstoclaims“relatedtotheconflictthatwasthesubject”ofcertainagreementsbetweentheParties .TheCommis-sionheldinDecisionNo .15thatthecentralreferencepointfordeterminingitsjurisdictionisthearmedconflictbetweentheParties .Howe�er,jurisdictionalsoextendstoclaimsin�ol�ingsubsequente�entsarisingasaresultofthearmedconflictoroccurringinthecourseofmeasurestodisengagecontendingforcesorotherwiseendthemilitaryconfrontation .

15 . This is in harmony with important international humanitarianlawprinciples,whichcontinue topro�ideprotectionthroughout thecom-plexprocessofdisengagingforcesandaddressingtheimmediateaftermathofarmedconflict .Inthisrespect,underArticle6,paragraph2,ofGene�aCon�entionIV,6applicationoftheCon�entionintheterritoryofaPartytotheconflict“shallceaseonthegeneralcloseofmilitaryoperations .”Howe�er,underArticle6,paragraph4,“[p]rotectedpersonswhoserelease,repatriationorreestablishmentmaytakeplaceafter[thisdate] . . .shallmeanwhilecon-tinuetobenefitbythepresentCon�ention .”Further,Article3oftheProtocol

5 CommissionDecisionNo .1:TheCommission’sMandate/TemporalScopeofJuris-diction,issuedJuly24,2001 .

6 Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheProtectionofCi�ilianPersonsinTimeofWar,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3516,75U .N .T .S .p .287[hereinafterGene�aCon�entionIV] .


AdditionaltotheGene�aCon�entionsofAug .12,19497(“ProtocolI”)pro-�idesinpartthat:

theapplicationoftheCon�entionsandofthisProtocolshallcease,intheterritoryofPartiestotheconflict,onthegeneralcloseofmilitaryoperationsand,inthecaseofoccupiedterritories,ontheterminationoftheoccupa-tion,except,ineithercircumstance,forthosepersonswhosefinalrelease,repatriationorre-establishmenttakesplacethereafter .Thesepersonsshallcontinuetobenefitfromtherele�antpro�isionsoftheCon�entionsandofthisProtocoluntiltheirfinalrelease,repatriationorre-establishment .

16 . Eritreamadeclaimsregardinge�entsthatoccurredaftertheconflictformallyendedinDecember2000,inparticularregardingtheallegedforci-bleexpulsionfromEthiopiaof722personsinJuly2001 .Howe�er,therecorddidnotestablishthatthise�entwasrelatedtothedisengagementofforcesorotherwisefellwithinthescopeoftheCommission’sjurisdictionpursuanttoDecisionNo .1 .Accordingly,claimsregardingthedepartureofthesepersonsfromEthiopiaareoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .

17 . The Commission’s Jurisdiction to Hear Claims of Persons NotNationalsoftheClaimingState .Article5,paragraph9,oftheDecember2000Agreementsignificantlydiffersfromgeneralinternationalpractice,whichtyp-icallylimitsclaimsprocedurestoclaimsin�ol�ingtheclaimingparty’snation-als .Article5,paragraph9,pro�idesthat“inappropriatecases,eachpartymayfileclaimson behalf of persons ofEritreanorEthiopianoriginwhomaynotbeitsnationals .SuchclaimsshallbeconsideredbytheCommissiononthesamebasisasclaimssubmittedonbehalfofthatparty’snationals”(emphasisadded) .Thus,theDecember2000Agreementcreatesalex specialis authorizingthePartiestopresentclaimsonbehalfofcertainnon-nationals,andgi�ingtheCommissionjurisdictiontoconsiderthoseclaims .

18 . EthiopiaobjectedtocertainEritreanclaimsin�ol�ingpersonswhowerenotEritreannationals,contendingthattheydidnotfallwithinthisunu-sualgrantofjurisdiction .TheStatementsofClaiminEritrea’sClaims15,16and23allstatethattheclaim“ismadebytheStateofEritreaon behalf of itself, by�irtueofinjuriesandlossessufferedbytheStateofEritreaanditsnation-als(andindi�idualsofEritreanoriginasdesignatedinArticle5,Paragraph9) . . . .” (emphasisadded) .Bycontrast,Eritrea’sClaims27 to32, six sepa-rateindi�idualclaimsfiledbyEritreabeingconsideredbytheCommissionintheseproceedings,areexplicitlyandconsistentlyphrasedasbeingbrought“onbehalfof”thenamedclaimant .8

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

8 See Eritrea’sStatementsofClaim,Claim27(HiwotNemariam);Claim28(BelayRedda);Claim29(SertzuGebreMeskel);Claim30(FekaduAndemeskal);Claim31(Meb-rahtuGebremedhim)andClaim32(MebratGebreamlak),filedbyEritreaonDecember12,2001 .


19 . Thus,EritreadidnotfileClaims15,16and23“onbehalfof”affect-edindi�idualswhowerenotitsnationals .Itinsteadchosetoregardclaimsforthosepersons’injuriesastheStateofEritrea’sownclaims .ThisisnotthestructurecreatedbyArticle5,paragraph9 .Thedifferenceisnotamerematterofform .Article5,paragraph9,createsanexceptionalprocedureempoweringtheCommissiontodecideclaimsforthebenefitofpersonsofEritreanoriginwhoarenotEritreannationals .Thewording“onbehalfof”indicatesthattheclaimremainsthepropertyoftheindi�idualandthatanye�entualreco�eryofdamagesshouldaccruetothatperson .Howe�er,Eritrea’sStatementsofClaiminitsClaims15,16and23presenttheclaimsforinjuriesandlossessufferedbyitsnationalsandbyEthiopiansofEritreanoriginasitsown .Suchclaimsbasedoninjuriestonon-nationalsmadeforEritrea’sownaccount,andnotonbehalfoftheaffectedindi�iduals,areoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .

20 . Consequently,atthesubsequentdamagesportionoftheCommis-sion’sclaimsprocess, theremaybesituationswhere thescopeofpotentialreco�eriesfordamageswillbelimitedbecausetheunderlyingclaimsincludeonlytheclaimsoftheGo�ernmentofEritreaforitsowndirectinjuriesresult-ingfromthetreatmentofEthiopiansofEritreanorigin,forexamplethecostsofresettlement,anddonotincludeclaimsonbehalfoftheaffectedindi�idualsthemsel�es .

21 . Ethiopia disputes Eritrea’s right to claim monetary damages forpersonsremaininginEthiopia .ClaimswithrespecttoEthiopiannationalsremaininginEthiopiaareaddressedintheprecedingparagraphs .Eritrea’sclaimsregardingpossiblefutureinjuriestodualnationalsarediscussedbelow .Thea�ailabilityofamonetaryremedyforEritreaforanypastdamagestoEri-treannationalsremaininginEthiopiaisreser�edforthesubsequentdamagesphaseof theseproceedings .EthiopiaalsocontendedthatsomeofEritrea’sclaimsamountedtoclaimsfor�iolationsofEthiopianlaw .Claimsfor�iola-tionsofnationallawwouldindeedbeoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction,buttheCommissiondoesnotunderstandEritreatoha�epresentedanysuchclaims .Eritreaalsoad�ancedcertainclaimsrelatedtopensions .TheCommis-sionwilladdressallclaimsrelatedtopensionsinconnectionwithitshearingsofallremainingclaimsinApril2005 .Accordingly,pensionclaimsarenotadmissibleinthisproceeding .

22 . Ethiopiaalsourgedthatse�eralotherclaimsreflectedinEritrea’sMemorialwerenotcontainedinitsStatementsofClaim .Theseincludeclaimsforbreachesof�ariousinstrumentsnotcitedintheStatementsofClaim .Ethi-opiaalsochallengedreferencestonewlegaltheoriesnotpresentthere,par-ticularlyassertionsthattheexpulsions�iolatedinternationallawbecausetheywerediscriminatory .Howe�er,theCommissiondoesnotregardreferencestoadditionalinternationallegalauthoritiesorlegalargumentstosupportaclaimpresentedintheStatementsofClaimasconstitutingimpermissiblenewclaims .TheCommissionalsofindsthatEritrea’sargumentsofwrongfuldis-criminationwerepresentedintheStatementsofClaiminsufficientspecificity


anddetailtoputEthiopiaonnoticethattheywerematterstowhichitshouldrespond .

23 . Eritrea’sRequestforAdditionalRemedies .EritreaaskedtheCom-missiontoordera�arietyofremedies .Inter alia, EritrearequestedthattheCommissionorderthereinstatementoftheEthiopiannationalityoftensofthousandsofpeople,thatmanythousandsofpersonsofEritreanheritagebeallowedtoexerciseci�ilrightsinEthiopia,thatdetainedEritreansbefreedfromprison,thatpersonsberestoredtotheirproperty,andthatnumerouseconomictransactionsbe�oided .

24 . InitsDecisionNo .3ofJuly24,2001,theCommissiondecidedthat“inprinciple,theappropriateremedyfor�alidclaims . . .shouldbemonetarycompensation .”9TheCommissiondidnotforeclosethepossibilityofpro�id-ingothertypesofremediesinappropriatecases,“iftheparticularremedycanbeshowntobeinaccordancewithinternationalpractice,andiftheTribunaldeterminesthataparticularremedywouldbereasonableandappropriateinthecircumstances .”Howe�er,therewasnoshowingthattheadditionalrem-ediesrequestedmettherequirementsofDecisionNo .3,andtheCommissionisnotpreparedtograntthem .

25 . EritreaalsoaskedthattheCommissionpro�idereliefforagroupof“hundredsofthousands”ofpersonsofEritrean“descent,bloodoraffiliation”whoha�enotyetexperiencedinjuries .CounselforEritreadescribedtheseaspersons“towhichEthiopiahasnottakenhostileaction,butmay�erywell .”EritreaaskedthattheCommissionrender“adeclarationthattheyareEthio-piancitizens .”Sucharemedyrelatingtospeculati�efutureharmisoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction,whichislimitedtoclaimsrelatedtothe1998–2000conflictandembracese�entsafterDecember2000onlytothelimitedextentindicatedinCommissionDecisionNo .1 .

iV. aPPliCable laW26 . UnderArticle5,paragraph13,oftheDecember2000Agreement,

“inconsideringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinterna-tionallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProceduredefinestherel-e�antrulesinthefamiliarlanguageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheInterna-tionalCourtofJustice’sStatute .TheRuledirectstheCommissiontolookto:

1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,establish-ingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties;

2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;

3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;

9 CommissionDecisionNo .3:Remedies,issuedJuly24,2001 .


4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .

27 . Eritrea’sanalysisoftheapplicableinternationallawreflectedthefactthatsomeofitsclaimsin�ol�edinjuriessufferedbypersonsEritrea�iewedasEthiopiannationalsattherele�anttime .Withrespecttothese,Eritreain�okednumeroushumanrightsinstrumentsregulatingrelationsbetweenStatesandtheirnationals .Howe�er,manyof thecited instrumentswerenot in forcebetweenEritreaandEthiopiaattherele�anttimes,andEthiopiadeniedtheirapplicability .Thecontentsofpotentiallyrele�antcustomarynormswerenotaddressedindetailduringtheproceedings .Eritreadidcitetwoinstrumentsthatwereinforceatsomerele�anttimes:theCon�entionontheRightsoftheChild,10whichenteredintoforcebetweenthePartiesin1994,andtheAfricanCharteronHumanandPeople’sRights(“theAfricanCharter”),whichbecamebindingbetweenEritreaandEthiopiaonApril14,1999 .11TheCommissionhastakentheseintoaccountasappropriate .

28 . IntheCommission’s�iew,customaryinternationalhumanitarianlawwasthemostsignificantlegalcomponentintheParties’relationshipwhenmanyofthesee�entstookplace .InitsPartialAwardsonPrisonersofWarandtheCentralFront,theCommissionheldthatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimsbeforeAugust14,2000(whenEritreaaccededtothefourGene�aCon�en-tionsof194912)wascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .13TheCom-missionheldfurtherthatthoseCon�entionsha�elargelybecomeexpressionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw,andconsequentlythatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimswascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entions .Thosehold-ingsapplyaswellhereand,indeed,toalltheclaimsbeforetheCommission .Hence,Ethiopia’streatmentofEritreannationalswassubjecttotherele�ant

10 Con�entionon theRightsof theChild,No� .20,1989,DOCA/RES/44/25,28I .L .M .p .1448(1994) .

11 AfricanCharterofHuman&People’sRights, June27,1981,OAUDoc .CAB/LEG/67/3re� .5;21I .L .M .p .58(1982) .EthiopiasignedtheAfricanCharteronJune15,1998andratifieditonJune22,1998 .EritreasignedonJanuary14,1999andratifiedonMarch15,1999 .

12 Gene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickinArmedForcesintheField,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3114,75U .N .T .S .p .31;Gene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWounded,SickandShipwreckedMembersofArmedForcesatSea,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3217,75U .N .T .S .p .85;Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3316,75U .N .T .S .p .135;Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6 .

13 See PartialAward inEritrea’sPOWClaims, supra note2, atpara .38;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atpara .29;PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .21;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .15 .


principlesarticulatedinGene�aCon�entionIVinadditiontootherpoten-tiallyrele�antnorms .

29 . AspectsofProtocolIarealsorele�ant .WhileportionsofProtocolIreflectprogressi�ede�elopmentofthelaw,throughouttheseproceedings,bothPartiestreatedcoreProtocolIpro�isionsgo�erningtheprotectionofci�iliansasreflectingbindingcustomaryrules .TheCommissionagrees,andrecallsitsearlierholdingthat,duringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,mostofthepro�isionsofProtocolIexpressedcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .14

30 . TheCommission�iewsArticle75ofProtocolIasreflectingpar-ticularlyimportantcustomaryprinciples .Article75articulatesfundamentalguaranteesapplicabletoall“personswhoareinthepowerofaPartytotheconflictwhodonotbenefitfrommorefa�orabletreatmentundertheCon�en-tionsorunderthisProtocol .”Itthusappliese�entoaParty’streatmentofitsownnationals .Theseguaranteesdistillbasichumanrightsmostimportantinwartime .15Gi�entheirfundamentalhumanitariannatureandtheircorre-spondencewithgenerallyacceptedhumanrightsprinciples,theCommission�iewstheserulesaspartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .

31 . Article75ofProtocolI“actsasa‘legalsafetynet’guaranteeingaminimumstandardofhumanrightsforallpersonswhodonotha�eprotec-tiononothergrounds .”16Itconfirmstheirrighttobe“treatedhumanelyinallcircumstances . . .withoutanyad�ersedistinctionbasedupon . . .national . . .origin . . .oronanyothersimilarcriteria .”TheArticlefurtheraffirmsimpor-tantproceduralrightsofpersonssubjectedtoarrest,detainmentorintern-ment .Theymustbepromptlyinformedwhythesemeasuresha�ebeentaken;theymustthenbereleased“withtheminimumdelaypossibleandinanye�entassoonasthecircumstancesjustifyingthearrest,detentionorinternmentha�eceasedtoexist .”

V. eVidenCe

32 . AsintheParties’priorcases,therearedeepandwide-rangingcon-flictsinthee�idence .ThehundredsofsworndeclarationssubmittedbythetwoPartiescontaineddisagreementsonmanykeyfacts .Therearesharpcon-flictsregardingmattersasfundamentalasthenumbersofpersonswholeftEthiopia(Eritrea’se�idenceindicatingatleasttwicethenumbersindicatedbyEthiopia’s);thetreatmentofexpellees’familymembers;theroleoftheInter-nationalCommitteeoftheRedCross(“ICRC”);thetreatmentofexpellees’

14 See PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .23;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .17 .

15 The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictsp .233(DieterFlecked .,1995)[hereinafterHandbook of Humanitarian Law] .

16 Id. p .281 .


property;andotherbasicissues .Thesemassi�econflictsinthee�idenceagainshowthedifficultyofdeterminingthetruthintheaftermathofabitterarmedconflict .Insuchcircumstances,astheCommissionhasnotedbefore,therecanindeedbe“nationalizationofthetruth .”17Howe�er,thissituationposedsignificantdifficultiesfortheCommission .

33 . BothPartiesweremindfuloftheextensi�econflictsinthee�idenceandofthefrequentdisputesaboutwitnesses’accuracyandcredibility .BothaccordinglydrewtotheCommission’sattentioninsupportoftheirpositionsthereportsofoutsideobser�erssuchastheICRC,UnitedNationsbodies,theBritishHomeOffice,theUnitedStatesDepartmentofStateandinternationalhumanrightsnon-go�ernmentalorganizations .

34 . Howe�er,thePartiesalsonotedthepotentialpitfallsandlimitationsofuncriticalrelianceonsuchmaterials,whichwerenotpreparedase�idenceinlegalproceedings .TheCommissionismindfuloftheseconcerns .Third-partyreportsmayindeedbebasedonincompleteorinaccurateinformationthatthereportingentitycannottestor�erify,includinginformationpro�idedbyoneortheotheroftheParties .Suchreportsmayreflecttheinterestsoragendasofthereportersorthosewhopro�idedthemwithinformation .How-e�er,gi�entheextensi�econflictsintheParties’e�idence,andbothParties’referencetomaterialsfrom�ariousoutsideobser�ers,theCommissionhasalsodrawnuponsuchmaterialsinseekingtoresol�econflicts,althoughithasbeenmindfulofsuchmaterials’potentiallimitations .

35 . AsintheParties’priorcases,theCommissionhasrequiredproofofliabilitybyclearandcon�incinge�idence .Thus,conflicting,yetcredible,e�idencehasperhapsresultedinfewerfindingsofunlawfulactsthaneitherPartymightha�eexpected .TheCommissionagainhastakenitsfundamentalresponsibilitytobetoconcentrateonpersistentandwidespreadpatternsofmisconduct,ratherthanindi�idualacts .

36 . At the hearing, the Commission heard the following witnesses:ForEritrea:

Ms .AidaMohammedHagos

Mr .SeyoumWoldu

Mr .AbrahaYohannesHaile

ForEthiopia:

Mr .WoldeselassieWoldemichael

Mr .GirmayKebede

17 JuliusStone,Legal Controls of International Conflictpp .321–323(1954) .


Vi. eriTrea’s Claims: inTroduCTory obserVaTions

37 . Eritrea’s Memorial and presentations at the hearing alleged fi�emajor substanti�e breaches of international law, and the Commission hasstructureditsanalysiscorrespondingly:

(A) MassExpulsion;

(B) Denationalization;

(C) DetentionWithoutDueProcess;

(D) Depri�ationofProperty;and

(F) ForcibleFamilySeparation .

EritreaalsocontendedthatEthiopianactionsoftenreflectedlegallyprohib-iteddiscrimination,notablydiscriminationagainstthoseofEritreanheritage .Howe�er,theCommissionunderstandsthoseargumentstoha�ebeenofferedasanadditionalgroundfortheillegalityofchallengedconduct,notasasepa-rateheadofclaim .

38 . IntersectingLegalRegimes .Attheoutset,theCommissionnotesthechallenges in�ol�edindeterminingwhetherorhowse�eralpotentiallyrele�antbodiesofinternationallawmightapplyinthe�eryunusual—indeed,perhapsunique—wartimefactualcircumstancespresentedhere .BothPartiesreferredtorulesofinternationallawgenerallyregulatingtheacquisitionandlossofnationalityandtheexpulsionofpersonsbyaState,buttheserulesdidnotstandinisolation .Othersignificantfactorsalsoshapedthelegalsituation .First,thePartieswerein�ol�edinafar-reachinglegalandpoliticaltransfor-mation .ThenewStateofEritreahademergedfromtheterritoryofEthiopiaafewyearsbeforethewarbegan,andimportantquestionsofindi�idualstatusandothermatterswerenotyetsettledbetweenthetwo .Moreimportantly,theParties’bitter internationalarmedconflict fundamentallychangedthenatureoftheirrelationshipandbroughtinternationalhumanitarianlawintooperation .TheCommission’schallengewastoassessasituationinfluencedbyse�eralbodiesofinternationallawrules .

39 . The1993ReferendumanditsLegalConsequences .KeyissuesinthisclaimarerootedintheemergenceofthenewStateofEritrea,particularlytheApril1993ReferendumonEritreanindependence .Inbrief,Eritreaclaimedthat,afterthewarbegan,Ethiopiawronglydepri�edthousandsofEthiopiancitizensofEritreanoriginoftheirEthiopiancitizenshipandexpelledthem,allcontrarytointernationallaw .Ethiopiarespondedthattheexpelleeshad�oluntarilyacquiredEritreannationality,mostbyqualifyingtoparticipateinthe1993Referendum,andindoingsohadforegonetheirEthiopiannational-ityunderEthiopianlaw .Ethiopiafurthermaintainedthatallthoseexpelled


hadalsocommittedotheractsjustifying�iewingthemasthreatstoEthiopia’ssecurity .

40 . BecauseoftheimportanceoftheReferendumandrelatede�entstoEritrea’sclaims,theyaredescribedhereinsomedetail .OnApril6,1992,thePro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritreaissuedProclamationNo .21/1992,spellingout�ariousrequirementsforacquiringEritreancitizenship .PersonsborntoeitheramotherorafatherwhoresidedinEritreain1933acquirednationalitybybirth(Article2);�ariousothergroupsofpersons,includingthosemarriedtoEritreans,couldacquireEritreannationalitythroughanaturalizationproc-ess(Articles4and6) .18Thee�idenceindicatedthatProclamationNo .21/1992remainsthebasiclegalinstrumentregulatingtheacquisitionofEritreanciti-zenship .

41 . Thenextday,Eritrea’sPro�isionalGo�ernmentissuedProclamationNo .22/1992,establishingdetailedproceduresforparticipatingintheReferen-dum .Itexpresslylimitedparticipationtopersonsha�ingEritreancitizenship .Article24stated:

Anypersonhaving Eritrean citizenship pursuant to Proclamation No. 21/1992 onthedateofhisapplicationforregistrationandwhowasof theageof18yearsorolderorwouldattainsuchageatanytimeduringtheregistra-tionperiod,andwhofurtherpossessedanIdentificationCardissuedbytheDepartmentofInternalAffairs,shallbequalifiedforregistration .19

42 . ThefirststepinregisteringfortheReferendumwastoobtainan“EritreanNationality IdentityCard”(emphasisadded)documentingthattheapplicantmetthenationalityrequirementsofProclamationNo .22/1992 .(Thiswasdifferentfromandinadditiontoa�oteridentificationcardusedonlytotakepartintheReferendum .)TheEritreanDepartmentofInternalAffairsdeli�ered theNationality IdentityCardafteracheckingprocess, inwhichexternal�oterswereheldtothesamenationalitystandardsasinternal�oters .Althoughthenationalitycardswereissuedbythe“Pro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritrea,”theywerenot“pro�isional”orlimitedindurationoreffecti�eness .TheCommissionheardtestimonythatbearersofthecardscouldusethemas

18 Acquisitionofnationalitybymarriagewassubjecttosubstantialrestrictions .Thespousehadtoli�einEritreawiththeEritreanspouseforatleastthreeyears;renounceforeignnationality;andsignanoathofallegiance .TheEritreanNationalityProclamationNo .21/1992,Apr .6,1992,art .6 .

19 The Eritrean Referendum Proclamation No . 22/1992, Apr . 7, 1992 (emphasisadded) .


tra�eldocumentstomakebordercrossingsbetweenEthiopiaandEritreaintheyearsbeforethewar .20

43 . TheParties’Contentions .Ethiopia�iewedregistrationasanEritreancitizentoparticipateintheReferendumasamatteroffreechoice,andsawtheEritreannationalitysoacquiredanddocumentedasgenuineandeffecti�e .Inits�iew,thosewhoacquiredEritreannationalitytherebylosttheirEthio-piannationalitybyoperationofArticle11ofthe1930Ethiopiannationalitylaw,whichpro�idesthatEthiopiannationalityislostwhenapersonacquiresanothernationality .

44 . Eritreaattackedtheseargumentsas post-hoc lawyer’srationaliza-tions,contendingthatacquiringanEritreannationalitycarddidnotha�elegalsignificancebecauseEritreawasnotyetaStatecapableofconferringnational-ity .Therewasonlya“pro�isional”EritreanGo�ernment;theStateofEritreaonlycameintobeingafterconfirmationbytheReferendum .Eritreaaddedthatmanyexpellees(particularlythosefromruralareas)didnotparticipateintheReferendumprocess,andsocouldnotha�eacquiredEritreannationalityunderEthiopia’stheory .ItpointedoutthatunderArticle33oftheEthiopianConstitution,noEthiopiancitizencouldbedepri�edofcitizenshipwithoutconsent .

45 . EthiopiarespondedthatEritreahadde facto emergedasaStatepriortotheReferendum,andwascapableofconferringnationalitythatwaseffecti�easamatterofinternationallaw,e�enbeforeEritreawasgenerallyrecognizedbyotherStatesandbecameamemberoftheUnitedNations .InEthiopia’s�iew,thePro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritreaexercisedeffecti�eauthorityo�erterritoryandapopulationandwascarryingonimportantinternationalrela-tions,includingsubstantialnegotiationswithEthiopiaandwithinternationalorganizations .EritreaconcludedmultipleagreementswithEthiopia,includingagreementsdeclaringAssabandMassawafreeportsopentoEthiopia,con-cerningacommoncurrencyandestablishingthefreemo�ementofcitizensandtrade .Moreo�er,Eritreacarriedoutcomplexandlegallysophisticatedadministrati�eactionsase�idencedbythe1992NationalityandReferendumProclamations .

46 . EritreaalsourgedthatEthiopiaaffirmati�elyencouraged�otingintheReferendumwithoutgi�inganyindicationthatthosewho�oted,manyofwhomknewonlyEthiopiaasahome,wouldlosetheirEthiopiannationalitybyoperationofthe1930law .Indeed,Eritreapresentedsubstantiale�idencethatEthiopiadidnothingbeforeMay1998suggestingthatitsawpersonswho

20 TranscriptoftheEritrea-EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofMarch2004,PeacePalace,TheHague,atpp .631,645 .TheCommissionconsidersitrele�antthattheEritreanauthoritieschosetoaddressthequestionofnationalityinaseparateandearlierproclamation,notaspartofProclamationNo .22/1992 .Incorporatingthenationalitypro-�isionsintotheReferendumProclamationmightha�eindicatedthatthedeterminationofnationalitywasforalimitedpurpose,i.e. solelyfortheReferendum .ThatwasnotthecourseEritreachose .


qualifiedto�ote intheReferendumasha�ing lost theirEthiopiancitizen-ship .Eritrea’sdocumentarye�idenceincludednumerousEthiopianpassports,�oterregistrationcardsandotherofficialdocumentsissuedorrenewedaftertheReferendum,indicatingthebearers’subsequentunimpededexerciseofimportantattributesofEthiopiancitizenship .Referendumparticipantsalsocontinuedtoholdimmo�ableproperty(arightforbiddenforforeignersunderArticle390oftheEthiopianCi�ilCode),toholdbusinesslicenses,andtoprac-ticeprofessionsreser�edtoEthiopiannationals .

47 . EthiopiamaintainedthatitcontinuedtoissuethesepassportsandotherofficialdocumentsbecauseitandEritreahadbeenplanningtoworkoutarrangementsthatwouldpermitthenationalsofbothcountriestotradeandin�estineithercountry .Itwasexpectedthat,whenthesearrangementswereinplace,eachofthoseEritreanswhohadalsobeenenjoyingEthiopiannationalitywouldha�etochooseoneofthosenationalities .Untilthattime,Ethiopiaintendedtorefrainfromimplementingitsnationalitylaw .Howe�er,EthiopiacontendedthatallofthoseexpectationsweredestroyedbyEritrea’sattackinMay1998andtheensuingwar,andthatthisfundamentalchangeincircumstancesjustifiedtheimmediateimplementationofitsnationalitylaw .Ethiopiaurgedthatitshouldnotnowbepenalizedbecauseofactionsbetween1993and1998thatwereintendedtobehelpfulforthoseEthiopianswhohadobtainedEritreannationality .

48 . Withrespecttothesearguments,theCommissionisnot,ontheonehand,persuadedbyEritrea’sargumentthatregistrationasanEritreannationalinordertoparticipateinthe1993Referendumwaswithoutimpor-tantlegalconsequences .Thego�erningentityissuingthosecardswasnotyetformallyrecognizedasindependentorasamemberoftheUnitedNations,butitexercisedeffecti�eandindependentcontrolo�eradefinedterritoryandapermanentpopulationandcarriedoneffecti�eandsubstantialrelationswiththeexternalworld,particularlyineconomicmatters .Inalltheserespects,itreflectedthecharacteristicsofaStateininternationallaw .21

49 . Ontheotherhand,neitheristheCommissionpersuadedbyEthio-pia’sargumentthatthecontinuedissuanceofEthiopianpassportsandotherofficialdocumentswasnote�idenceofcontinuedEthiopiannationality .Pass-portsinparticularcontaintheissuingState’sformalrepresentationtootherStatesthatthebearerisitsnational .Thedecisiontoissuesuchadocument,intendedtobepresentedtoandrelieduponbyfriendlyforeignStates,isaninternationallysignificantact,notacasualcourtesy .

50 . TheCommissionisnotinsensiti�etothehumandimensionsandcostsof theunusual,perhapsunique,puzzleofnationality,depri�ationofnationality,and(asaddressedseparatelybelow)expulsionthatitfaces .Inpar-

21 SeeIanBrownlie,Principles of Public International Lawpp .70–72(6thed .2003);Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Lawpp .75–81(PeterMalanczuk,ed .,7thre� .ed .1997) .


ticular,theCommissionisawarefromthee�idencethatsomeproportionofEthiopiannationalsofEritreanoriginwhoregisteredto�oteintheReferen-dum,withofficialencouragementfromtheGo�ernmentofEthiopia,didnotintendtoabandonorprejudicetheirEthiopiannationality,didnotforeseetherisktothatnationalitythatwouldariseinthee�entofwarbetweenEritreaandEthiopia,and,hadtheyforeseenit,wouldnotha�eregistered .Muchoftheconflict,andtragedy,infusingtherecordintheseclaimsstemsfromtherealitythatmanyEthiopiansofEritreanoriginwhoregisteredto�oteintheReferendumhadnoideaofthelegalimpactoftheiractionandofitspotentialriskstothem .Oncethewarbeganin1998,manydeclarantswhohadresidedonlyinEthiopiaandwhoconsideredalltheirimportantconnectionstobeinEthiopia,expressedconfusionandshockthattheirGo�ernment—theGo�-ernmentofEthiopia—haddepri�edthemoftheirEthiopiannationalityandtreatedthemasnationalsofanenemyState—Eritrea .

51 . Nonetheless, nationality is ultimately a legal status . Taking intoaccounttheunusualtransitionalcircumstancesassociatedwiththecreationofthenewStateofEritreaandbothParties’conductbeforeandafterthe1993Referendum,theCommissionconcludesthatthosewhoqualifiedtopartici-pateintheReferenduminfactacquireddualnationality .TheybecamecitizensofthenewStateofEritreapursuanttoEritrea’sProclamationNo .21/1992,butatthesametime,Ethiopiacontinuedtoregardthemasitsownnationals .

52 . TheCommission’sconclusionisreinforcedbyanimportantunder-takingbythePartiessuggestingthatthosewhoacquiredEritreannationalityretainedtheirEthiopiannationality .In1996,seniorofficialsofbothPartiessignedaformalAgreedMinutestatingthat

[o]nthequestionofnationalityitwasagreedthatEritreanswhoha�esofarbeenenjoyingEthiopiancitizenshipshouldbemadetochooseandabidebytheirchoice .Itwasdecidedthattheimplementationofthisagreementshouldawait,howe�er,decisionongrantingthefreedomtotradeandtoin�estineithercountryforbothnationalsofEthiopiaandEritrea .22

53 . Whetherthe1996AgreedMinutewasatreatybindingundertheinternationallawoftreatieswasdiscussedinconclusi�elyatthehearing .WhiletheCommissionseestheAgreedMinuteasha�ingimportantattributesofaninternationallybindinglegalinstrument,itslegalstatusneednotbedecided .Whate�eritsstatus,thedocumentindicatesbothParties’awarenessofthecitizenshipissuesresultingfromtheseparationofEritreaandtheirdetermi-nationtoresol�ethemthroughanorderly,mandatoryfuturechoiceofeitherEthiopianorEritreannationalitybyaffectedindi�iduals .Howe�er,thatchoicewouldonlyberequiredafterthePartiessetthegroundrulesgo�erningtheirfutureeconomicrelations .

22 AgreedMinutesoftheFourthEthio-EritreanJointHighCommissionMeeting(August1996),para .4 .3 .4 .


54 . ItwasurgedthattheAgreedMinuteaddressedonlyanarrowgroupcomposedofEthiopianswhowerenotyetEritreannationalsbutwhowereentitledtoacquireEritreannationality .TheCommissiondoesnotfindthisnarrowreadingpersuasi�e .Itisnotconsistentwiththemostnaturalmean-ingofthewordsofthetext .Moreo�er,anyindi�idual’sentitlementtooptforEritreannationalityatsomefuturetimewouldnotdependonanagreementbetweenStatesbutonEritreannationalitylaw .

55 . Thead�entofthewardidnotper se endthesepeople’sdualnation-ality,butitfundamentallychangedtheircircumstancesandplacedtheminanunusualandpotentiallydifficultposition .Inwartime,aStatemaylaw-fullyassignsignificantandsometimespainfulconsequencestoeitherofadualnational’snationalities,lea�ingsuchpersonspotentiallysubjecttohea�ybur-densflowingfrombothnationalities:

[I]fheisbothacitizen . . .andanenemynational,heis,asamatteroflaw,liabletothemilitaryandotherobligationsofsuchcitizensandinhislattercapacitytointernmentandsimilarmeasures . . .Dualnationalityisnothalfonenationalityandhalfanother,buttwocompletenationalitiesandintimeofwar�erilyadamnosa hereditas. AsRidlyJ .saidinExparte Freyberger[citeomitted],‘suchapersonisnothalfasubjectofoneStateandhalfofanotherState . . .heiscompletelyasubjectofeachState .’23

56 . Eritrea’sMemorialpresenteditsmassexpulsionclaimsfirst, fol-lowedbyitsclaimsforwrongfuldepri�ationofnationalityandothermat-ters .WhiletheCommissionwouldnormallyconsiderclaimsinthesequencepresentedbytheParties,thesetwoclaimsarecloselyintertwinedlegallyandfactually .Tofacilitateitsanalysis,theCommissionwillbeginwithEritrea’sclaimsfordepri�ationofnationality .

Vii. eriTrea’s Claim for dePriVaTion of naTionaliTy

57 . NeitherinternationalhumanitarianlawnoranytreatyapplicablebetweenthePartiesduringthewaraddressesthelossofnationalityorthesituationofdualnationalsinwartime .Withrespecttocustomaryinterna-tionallaw,Ethiopiacontendedthatcustomaryinternationallawgi�esaStatediscretiontodepri�eitsnationalsofitsnationalityiftheyacquireasecondnationality .Foritspart,Eritreaemphasizede�eryone’srighttoanationality,asexpressedinArticle15oftheUni�ersalDeclarationofHumanRights,24particularlytherightnottobearbitrarilydepri�edofone’snationality .Eritrea

23 LordMcNair&ArthurD .Watts,TheLegalEffectsofWarp .70(4thed .1966) .

24 Uni�ersalDeclarationonHumanRights,G .A .Res .217A(III),U .N .Doc .A/810(1948) .


maintainedthatthoseexpelledhadnotacquiredEritreannationality,andsowereunlawfullyrenderedstatelessbyEthiopia’sactions .

58 . TheCommissionagreeswithbothPartiesregardingtherele�anceof the customary law rules they cited . The problem remains, howe�er, toapplytheminthecircumstanceshere .ThequestionbeforetheCommissioniswhetherEthiopia’sactionswereunlawfulintheunusualcircumstancesofthecreationofthenewStateofEritreafollowedbytheoutbreakofwarbetweenEritreaandEthiopia .

59 . WithrespecttoEthiopia’scontention,theCommissionrecognizesthatsomeStatespermittheirnationalstopossessanothernationalitywhileothers do not . International law prohibits neither position . Accordingly,internationallawwouldha�eallowedEthiopiatotakeappropriatemeasurestoimplementits1930nationalitylawatthetimeofthe1993ReferendumastopersonswhoacquiredEritreannationalitythen .Forreasonsthatappeartoha�ebeenquitecommendable,Ethiopiadidnotdoso .ItinsteadallowedEthiopianswhohadalsoacquiredEritreannationalitytocontinuetoexer-cisetheirEthiopiannationality,whileagreeingwithEritreathatthesepeoplewouldha�etochooseonenationalityortheotheratsomefuturetime .Thewarcamebeforethesematterswereresol�ed .

60 . WithrespecttoEritrea’scontention,theCommissionalsorecog-nizesthatinternationallawlimitsStates’powertodepri�epersonsoftheirnationality .Inthisregard,theCommissionattachesparticularimportancetotheprincipleexpressedinArticle15,paragraph2,oftheUni�ersalDeclarationofHumanRights,that“nooneshallbearbitrarilydepri�edofhisnationality .”Inassessingwhetherdepri�ationofnationalitywasarbitrary,theCommissionconsideredse�eralfactors,includingwhethertheactionhadabasisinlaw;whetheritresultedinpersonsbeingrenderedstateless;andwhethertherewerelegitimatereasonsforittobetakengi�enthetotalityofthecircumstances .

61 . AstothelegalbasisofEthiopia’saction,therewasnoproclama-tionorsimilardocumentintherecordrecordingthedecisiontoterminatetheaffectedpersons’Ethiopiannationality,butcounsel indicatedthat thiswasdonepursuanttoEthiopia’s1930nationalitylaw,alawoflongstandingcomparabletolawsofmanyothercountries,whichpro�idesthatEthiopiannationalityislostwhenanEthiopianacquiresanothernationality .25NeitherPartyhaspointedtoanyotherEthiopianlawthatcouldha�ebeenabasisfortheterminationbyEthiopiaofthenationalityofanyEthiopians .Consequent-ly,theCommissionacceptsthatallterminationsofEthiopiannationalityforwhichEritreaisclaimingweremadeonthebasisofthatlaw .

25 Ethiopia’ssubsequentcallforregistrationofEritreannationalsinAugust1999,infra atpara .74,clearlyreferstopersonsacquiringEritreannationalityinconnectionwithparticipationintheReferendum .ThisisatoddswithEritrea’sclaimthatEthiopia’spositionregardingthelossofEthiopiannationalitywasde�isedafter-the-factforpurposesoflegalargument .


62 . IfEthiopia’snationalitylawwereproperlyimplementedinaccord-ancewithitsterms,onlydualnationalscouldbeaffected,andthatlaw,byitself,couldnotresultinmakinganypersonstateless .Gi�enthefact,howe�er,thatEthiopiadidnotimplementthatlawuntilsometimein1998withrespecttoitsnationalswhohadacquiredEritreannationalitybetween1993and1998,thepossibilitycouldnotbeexcludedthatsomepersonswhohadacquiredEritreannationalityhadsubsequentlylostitandthusweremadestatelessbyEthiopia’saction .Perhapsmorelikely,statelessnesswouldresultifEthiopiaerroneouslydeterminedthatoneofitsnationalshadacquiredEritreannationalitywhen,infact,heorshehadnotdoneso .SuchanunfortunateresultmightbemostlikelytooccurwithrespecttoEthiopiannationalsnotresidentinEthiopia,butitcouldoccure�enwithrespecttoEthiopiansresidentinEthiopia .Thee�idenceindicatesthatEthiopiaappearstoha�emadeatleastafewerrorsinthisprocess .WhileEritreacannotclaimforthelosssufferedbythepersonswhowerethe�ictimsofthoseerrors,EthiopiaisliabletoEritreaforanydam-agescausedtoitbythoseerrors .

63 . ItremainsfortheCommissiontoconsiderthegroundsforEthiopia’sactionsastheyaffecteddualnationalsinlightofthefactualcircumstancesoftheemergenceofthenewStateofEritreaandofthearmedconflictbetweenthetwo .Ethiopiacontendedthatitcannotbearbitraryandunlawfulintimeofwarforittoha�eterminatedtheEthiopiannationalityofanyonewho,withinthepastfi�eyears,hadchosentoobtainthenationalityoftheenemyState .Eritreacontendedthatthosedepri�edoftheirEthiopiannationalityhadnotbeenshowntothreatenEthiopia’ssecurity,andthatitwasarbitraryforEthio-pia,whichhadencouragedpeopletoparticipateintheReferendumwithoutnoticeofthepotentialimpactontheirEthiopiannationality,todepri�ethemofEthiopiannationalityfordoingso .

64 . TheCommissionwillexamineseparatelyEritrea’sclaimsregardingse�eralgroupsdepri�edoftheirEthiopiannationality .

65 . Dual Nationals Depri�ed of their Ethiopian Nationality andExpelledforSecurityReasons .Ethiopiacontendedthatwhenthewarbrokeout,itsdurationandextentcouldnotbeforeseen .Ethiopiansecurityofficialsweresaidtobedeeplyconcernedaboutthepotentialsecuritythreatsposedbyo�er66,000Ethiopianresidentswhohadshownasignificantattachmenttothenow-enemyStatebyacquiringEritreannationalityinordertoregisterfortheReferendumorotherwise .

66 . Ethiopiainsistedthatitdidnot�iewEritreannationalityaloneassufficienttodeemanyoneasecuritythreatsubjecttolossofnationalityandexpulsion .Forthat,additionaltiesoractionsindicatingapossiblethreattoEthiopia’ssecuritywererequired .TheprincipalindicatorswereraisingmoneyonbehalfofEritreaorparticipatinginorganizationspromotingEritreanGo�-ernmentinterestsorencouragingcloserlinksbetweenexpatriateEritreansandEritrea .In�ol�ementintwoorganizationsdrewparticularscrutiny .


67 . ThefirstwasthePopularFrontforDemocracyandJustice(“PFDJ”) .Thee�idenceshowedthatthePFDJwastherulingpoliticalpartyinEritrea,but itwasmore thanawestern-stylepoliticalparty . Itwasmoreakintoanationalmo�ement,constitutingasignificantelementinEritrea’smachineryofgo�ernment .Thee�idenceshowedthatthePFDJmaintainedastructureoflocalgroupsatnumerouslocationsinEthiopia,whichwereusedtopromotetheinterestsofEritrea .

68 . Ethiopia’sscreeningprocessalsofocusedonpersonsacti�eintheEritreanCommunityAssociations .TheCommunityAssociationswerelesso�ertlypoliticalthanthePFDJ .Ne�ertheless,thee�idenceshowedthattheyraisedfundstosupportEritreaandpromotednationalisticsolidarityamongtheirmembers .

69 . Thee�idenceindicatedthattheo�erallstructureanddirectionofthesecurityeffortwastheresponsibilityofEthiopia’snationalsecurityagency,“SIRAA .”Personswereidentifiedthroughadecentralizedstructureimple-mentingguidancefromthecentralauthorities .Ethiopia’se�idenceportrayedacomplexprocessbywhichatierofsecuritycommittees,includingcommitteesatthewereda,tabiaandkebelele�el,identifiedpersonsmeetingthecriteriaaspotentialsecuritythreats .SIRAAofficialsapparentlyre�iewedrecommenda-tionsandcontrolledthisprocess .

70 . Persons identified through this process were then indi�iduallydetained,broughttocollectioncentersandthenexpelled,usuallywithinafewdays .Expellees’passportsandotherdocumentsindicatingEthiopiannation-alitywereconfiscated,andEthiopiasubsequentlytreatedthemasha�inglosttheirEthiopiannationality .Eritrea’se�idencewasconsistentwithEthiopia’sclaimthattheprocessin�ol�eddeliberationandselectionofindi�iduals .Eri-treanwitnessesregularlydescribedEthiopiansecuritypersonnelcomingtotheirresidencesorplacesofworkseekingthemindi�iduallybyname .

71 . Depri�ationofnationalityisaseriousmatterwithimportantandlastingconsequencesforthoseaffected .Inprinciple,itshouldfollowproce-duresinwhichaffectedpersonsareadequatelyinformedregardingthepro-ceedings,canpresenttheircasestoanobjecti�edecisionmaker,andcanseekobjecti�eoutsidere�iew .Ethiopia’sprocessoftenfellshortofthis .Theprocesswashurried .Detaineesrecei�ednowrittennotification,andsomeclaimedtheywerene�ertoldwhatwashappening .Ethiopiacontendedthatdetain-eescouldorallyapplytosecurityofficialsseekingrelease .Therecordincludessomedeclarationsofpersonswhowerereleased,butitalsoincludesseniorEthiopianwitnesses’statementssuggestingthattherewerefewappeals .Somedeclarantsclaimthattheyweredepri�edofEthiopiannationalityandexpellede�enthoughtheydidnotqualifyto�oteintheReferendumormeetEthiopia’sotherselectioncriteria .

72 . Notwithstanding the limitations of the process, the record alsoshowsthatEthiopiafacedanexceptionalsituation .ItwasatwarwithEritrea .ThousandsofEthiopianswithpersonalandethnictiestoEritreahadtaken


stepstoacquireEritreannationality .SomeoftheseparticipatedingroupsthatsupportedtheEritreanGo�ernmentandoftenactedonitsbehalf .Inresponse,Ethiopiade�isedandimplementedasystemapplyingreasonablecriteriatoidentifyindi�idualdualnationalsthoughttoposethreatstoitswartimesecu-rity .Gi�entheexceptionalwartimecircumstances,theCommissionfindsthatthelossofEthiopiannationalityafterbeingidentifiedthroughthisprocesswasnotarbitraryandcontrarytointernationallaw .Eritrea’sclaimsinthisregardarerejected .

73 . DualNationalsWhoChosetoLea�eEthiopiaandGotoEritrea .Thereweremanydualnationalswhodecidedtolea�eEthiopiaduringthewarandgotoEritrea .Thetotalnumberisuncertain .Ethiopiacounted21,905fam-ilymemberswhoaccompaniedthosewhowereexpelledforsecurityreasons .Othersleftbyaircraftorothermeans .Whilemany,butnotall,ofthesewererelati�esofthosewhowereexpelledforsecurityreasons,theCommissionrec-ognizesthat,whate�ertheirindi�idualmoti�esmayha�ebeen,itwasaseri-ousactthatcouldnotbewithoutconsequencesforanydualnationaloftwohostilebelligerentstochoosetolea�eonefortheotherwhiletheywereatwarwitheachother .TheCommissiondecidesthattheterminationoftheEthio-piannationalityofthesepersonswasnotarbitraryandwasnotin�iolationofinternationallaw .

74 . DualNationalsRemaining inEthiopia:“Yellow-CardPeople .” ItisundisputedthataconsiderablenumberofotherdualnationalsremainedinEthiopiaduringthewar,thatEthiopiadepri�edthemoftheirEthiopiannationalityand, inAugust1999, required themtopresent themsel�esandregisterasaliensandobtainaresidencepermit .TheAugust1999callforreg-istrationorderedthat“anyEritreanofeighteenyearsofageando�er,whohasacquiredEritreannationalitytakingpartintheEritreanindependencereferendumorthereafter”mustreportandberegistered .Thosewhodidnotcomply“willbeconsideredanillegalpersonwhohasunlawfullyenteredthecountryandshallbetreatedassuchaccordingtothelaw .”

75 . Thosewhoregisteredrecei�eddistincti�eyellowalienidentitycards,and were referred to at the hearing as “yellow-card people .” The numbersaffectedweredisputed .CounselforEritreaestimatedthatabout50,000per-sonswereaffected .Ethiopiastatedthatamuchsmallergroup—about24,000persons—registeredandobtainedtheyellowidentitycards .Eritreacontendedthatpersonsinthisgroupwerewronglydepri�edoftheirEthiopiannation-ality .Whate�erthenumbersaffected,therewasnoe�idenceindicatingthatthedualnationalsinthisgroupthreatenedEthiopiansecurityorsuggestingotherreasonsfortakingawaytheirEthiopiannationality .Therewasnoproc-esstoidentifyindi�idualswarrantingspecialconsiderationandnoapparentpossibilityofre�ieworappeal .Consideringthatrightstosuchbenefitsaslandownershipandbusinesslicenses,aswellaspassportsandothertra�eldocu-mentswereatstake,theCommissionfindsthatthiswide-scaledepri�ationof


EthiopiannationalityofpersonsremaininginEthiopiawas,underthecircum-stances,arbitraryandcontrarytointernationallaw .

76 . DualNationalsWhoWereinThirdCountriesorWhoLeftEthio-piaToGotoThirdCountries .EritreaalsocontendedthatanundeterminednumberofthepersonsfoundbytheCommissiontoha�ebeendualnationalswerepresentinothercountrieswhenEthiopiadeterminedthattheywouldnolongerbeacceptedasEthiopiannationals .Aswiththe“yellow-cardpeople,”thereisnoe�idenceindicatingthatthesepeople,bytheirmerepresenceinthirdcountriescouldreasonablybepresumedtobesecuritythreatsorthattheywerefoundtobepotentialthreatsthroughanyindi�idualizedassess-mentprocess .Moreo�er,theonlymeansbywhichtheycouldcontesttheirtreatmentwastoapproachEthiopiandiplomaticorconsularestablishmentsabroad,andthee�idenceshowedthatthosewhodidsotoseekclarificationorassistanceweresentaway .TheCommissionfindsthatthemembersofthisgroupwerealsoarbitrarilydepri�edoftheirEthiopiancitizenshipin�iolationofinternationallaw .

77 . DualNationalsWhoWereinEritrea .TherecorddoesnotindicatehowmanydualnationalswereinEritreawhenthewarbeganinMay1998andsoonthereafter,whenEthiopiaterminatedtheEthiopiannationalityofErit-rea-Ethiopiadualnationals,buttheCommissionmustassumethatsomewerethere .WhileitcouldnotfairlybeassumedthatmerepresenceinEritreawasproofthatsuchdual-nationalsweresecurityrisks,theCommissionfindsthatthee�identrisksandtheinabilitytocontactthemunderwartimeconditionsmadesuchterminationnotarbitraryorotherwiseunlawful .

78 . DualNationalsExpelledforOtherReasons .WhileEthiopiaassert-edthatnoonewasexpelledexceptforholdersofEritreannationalityfoundtobesecurityrisksthroughtheprocesspre�iouslydescribed,thee�idenceshowsthatanunknown,butconsiderable,numberofdualnationalswereexpelledwithoutha�ingbeensubjecttothisprocess .Particularlyinsmallertownsandinagriculturalareasneartheborder,mostoralldualnationalsweresome-timesroundedupbylocalauthoritiesandforcedintoEritreaforreasonsthatcannotbeestablished .Thereisalsoe�idencetosuggestthattheseexpulsionsincludedsomedualnationalrelati�esofpersonswhohadbeenexpelledassecurityrisksandmayha�eincludedsomedualnationalswhowereexpelledagainsttheirwill .TheCommissionholdsthattheterminationoftheEthiopiannationalityofallsuchpersonswasarbitraryandunlawful .

Viii. eriTrea’s Claim for eXPulsion79 . EritreaallegedthatEthiopia�iolatedinternationallawbyengag-

inginamassexpulsionofEthiopiannationalsofEritreanorigin,contendingthatEthiopia’sactionsamountedto“ethniccleansing .”Ethiopiadeniedthatitengagedinanymassexpulsionor,indeed,anyexpulsionofitsownnation-als,anddeniedtheallegationofethniccleansing .Ethiopiamaintainedthatit


expelledtoEritreaonlypersonsofEritreannationality,andthatinternationalhumanitarianlawrecognizestherightofabelligerenttorequirenationalsoftheenemyStatetoreturntotheStateoftheirnationality .BothPartiessug-gestedthatthemassexpulsionofallnationalsofanenemyStateatthebegin-ningofawarmightbeinconsistentwiththelaw,butEthiopiadeniedha�ingdonethis .ItassertedthatithadexpelledonlyselectedEritreannationalsforsecurityreasonsbasedonindi�idualin�estigationanddetermination .

80 . The Commission will initially address Eritrea’s allegations thatEthiopiaengagedinprohibitedethnicallybasedmassexpulsionsorethniccleansing .Ethiopiamaintainedthat15,475personswithEritreannationalitywereindi�iduallyidentifiedthroughitssecurityprocessandthendepri�edofEthiopiannationalityandexpelled .Thisisalargegroup,butitislessthan25%ofthemorethan66,000personsinEthiopiawhoqualifiedto�otefortheReferendum .Itis3%ofthemorethan500,000personsinEthiopiabothPartiescitedasha�ingEritreanantecedents .EritreadisputedEthiopia’sfig-ure,bute�enifthetotalweremuchhigher,therecordindicatesanexpulsionprocessin�ol�ingdeliberationandselection,notindiscriminateround-upsandexpulsionsbasedonethnicity .Eritrea’sclaimsthatEthiopiaengagedinindiscriminatemassexpulsionsbasedonethnicityorinethniccleansingarerejectedforlackofproof .

81 . Internationalhumanitarianlawgi�esbelligerentsbroadpowerstoexpelnationalsoftheenemyStatefromtheirterritoryduringaconflict .TheCommissionnotesinthisregardthefollowingstatementoftherele�antinter-nationallawbyaleadingtreatise:26

Therightof states toexpelaliens isgenerally recognized . Itmattersnotwhetherthealienisonatemporary�isitorhassettleddownforprofes-sional,businessorotherpurposesonitsterritory,ha�ingestablishedhisdomicilethere .Ontheotherhand,whileastatehasabroaddiscretioninexercisingitsrighttoexpelanalien,itsdiscretionisnotabsolute .Thus,bycustomaryinternationallawitmustnotabuseitsrightbyactingarbitrar-ilyintakingitsdecisiontoexpelanalien,anditmustactreasonablyinthemannerinwhichiteffectsanexpulsion .Beyondthis,howe�er,customaryinternationallawpro�idesnodetailedrulesregardingexpulsionande�ery-thingaccordinglydependsuponthemeritsoftheindi�idualcase .Theoryandpracticecorrectlymakeadistinctionbetweenexpulsionintimeofhos-tilitiesandintimeofpeace .Abelligerentmayconsideritcon�enienttoexpelallhostilenationalsresiding,ortemporarilystaying,withinitsterritory:

26 IOppenheim’s International Law§413,pp .940–941(SirRobertJennings&SirArthurWattseds .,1996) .


althoughsuchameasuremaybe�eryhardonindi�idualaliens,itisgener-allyacceptedthatsuchexpulsionisjustifiable .27

82 . TheCommissionconcludedabo�ethatEthiopialawfullydepri�edasubstantialnumberofdualnationalsoftheirEthiopiannationalityfollowingidentificationthroughEthiopia’ssecuritycommitteeprocess .Ethiopiacouldlawfullyexpelthesepersonsasnationalsofanenemybelligerent,althoughitwasboundtoensurethemtheprotectionsrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIVandotherapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Eritrea’sclaimthatthisgroupwasunlawfullyexpelledisrejected .

83 . Howe�er,Eritreaalsocontendedthatsomeexpelleesdidnotpar-ticipate in the Referendum process and could not ha�e acquired Eritreannationalityinthatway,sothattheirexpulsion�iolatedtheinternationallawrulebarringStatesfromexpellingtheirownnationals .Ethiopiadeniedthesecontentions .Twogroupswereemphasized .

84 . RuralExpellees .Inadditiontothedualnationalsfromruralareasreferredtoabo�einthesectiondealingwithnationality,thee�idenceindicatesthatmanyotherpersonswereforcedoutofruralareasneartheborderintoEritrea .Eritreacontendedthatse�eralthousandpersonswithEritreanante-cedentsinruralareas,particularlyinTigrayPro�ince,wereforciblyroundedupbylocalsecurityforcesandcollecti�elyexpelled .Eritreaindicatedthatthenumbersaffectedwereuncertainbecauseoftheremoteareasin�ol�ed .Con-sideringthedeclarationsofcampadministratorswhoassistedthesepeopleinEritrea,Eritreaestimatedthat10,000to15,000ruralpeoplewereforciblyexpelled .Thereisnofirme�idenceastotheirnationality,butEritreacontend-edthatbecauseoftheremoteareasin�ol�ed,fewifanyoftheseexpelleeswerelikelytoha�eparticipatedinthe1993Referendumprocessortoha�eacquiredEritreannationalityinotherways .Fromthesmallnumberofdeclarationsbyruralexpellees,theCommissionbelie�esthatmostofthesepersonshadbeeninEthiopiaforanumberofyears .

27 Writersoninternationalhumanitarianlawaretothesameeffect .See,e .g .,KarlDoehring,Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation,in8Encyclopedia of Public International Lawp .16(1985)(“[A]Statemaynonethelessbejustifiedinexpellingsuchagroupwithoutregardtotheindi�idualbeha�iourofitsmembers, ifthesecurityandexistenceoftheexpellingStatewouldotherwisebeseriouslyendangered,forexample . . .duringastateofwar .”);GeraldDraper,The Red Cross Conventionspp .36–37(1958),quoted in10Digest of International Lawp .274(MarjorieWhitemaned .,1968)(citing“thecustomaryrightofastatetoexpelallenemyaliensattheoutsetofaconflict”);Handbook of Humanitarian Law,supranote15,at§589(5),p .287(forced“repatriation[ofnationalsofanenemystate]mustbeconsideredaspermissible”);McNair&Watts,supranote23,atp .76(“Thereisnorulewhichrequiresabelligerenttoallowenemysubjectstoremaininhisterritoryandheisentitledtoexpelthemifhechooses”) .Gene�aCon�entionIVdoesnotexplicitlyaddressexpulsionofnationalsoftheenemystateorotheraliens,insteademphasizingtherightofalienswhowishtolea�etheterritoryofabelligerenttodoso .SeeArt .35 .


85 . EthiopiarespondedthatEritrea failed topro�e that thesee�entsoccurred .Italsoarguedthatanydisplacementsthatmightha�eoccurredwereprobablytheuna�oidableresultofmilitaryoperations .

86 . Eritrea’se�idenceincludedfirst-handaccountsofforcedroundupsduringthewarofpersonsofEritreanbackgroundinruralareasandoftheirsubsequentexpulsions,aswellasstatementsbycampadministratorsin�ol�edinrecei�ingandattemptingtoresettletheseexpelleesinEritrea .28Thee�idenceshowedthattheroundupsandexpulsionswerenottheuna�oidableresultofcombatoperations,butwereforcedbylocalpeopleandcrowds,includinglocalofficials .Therewasnoe�idencethattheywereorganizedordirectedbycentralgo�ernmentauthorities .Theseruralexpulsionsoftenin�ol�edharshjourneystoreachtheborder,sometimesonfoot .

87 . The e�idence concerning forced rural expulsions prior to theDecember2000Agreement isnotasextensi�eas thatconcerningsomeofEritrea’sotherclaims .Howe�er,theCommissionfindsitsufficienttopro�eEritrea’sclaimthatthesee�entsoccurred,andthatEthiopiafailedtorebutthate�idence .

88 . Gi�entheremotelocationsandthenatureofthepopulationsaffect-ed, theCommissionfinds itunlikely thatmany, ifany,of theruralexpel-leesparticipatedintheReferendumprocessandsoacquireddualnationality .Therewasnoe�idencethattheyconstitutedathreattoEthiopia’snationalsecurity .Instead,thoseexpelledappeartoha�ebeenlargely,ifnotexclusi�ely,EthiopiannationalsroundedupandforciblyexpelledfromEthiopiabecauseoftheirEritreanethnicity .

89 . Theforcibleexpulsionoftheseruralpeople,particularlyifbasedonethnicityasapparentlyhappenedhere,clearly�iolatesinternationallaw .Therewasnoe�idencethattheseexpulsionsresultedfromanynationalpolicy,andtheyappeartoha�ebeencarriedoutbylocalfarmers,militiaorpolice .Ne�ertheless,theStateofEthiopiaremainsresponsibletoEritreaunderinter-nationallawforanydamagesandlossestoEritreacausedbytheseactions,as theyoccurredin itsso�ereignterritoryandin�ol�edstateagentswhosemisconductEthiopiadidnotpre�ent .

90 . TheCommissionheldearlierthat,e�enundertheunusualjuris-dictionalpro�isionsofArticle5oftheDecember2000Agreement,theStateofEritreacouldnotclaimforinjuriestoitselfbaseduponinjuriessufferedbypersonswhoweresolelyEthiopiannationalswhentheywereinjured .29Mostifnotallofthepersonsco�eredbythisportionofEritrea’sclaimwerenationals

28 Eritrea’se�idencealsoincludedse�eraldeclarationsfromruralpeopleforciblyexpelledfromTigrayinmid-2001ande�idenceofinternationalprotestsbytheUNSec-retary-Generalandothersregardingthe2001expulsions .Howe�er,asindicatedsupra, atpara .16,claimsforthe2001expulsionsareoutsidetheCommission’stemporaljurisdic-tion .

29 See paras .19and20supra.


ofEthiopiaandonlyofEthiopiawhentheywereexpelled .Accordingly,inthesubsequentdamagesportionoftheCommission’sproceedings,itwillnotbeopentoEritreatoclaimdamagesinrespectoftheirindi�idualinjuries .How-e�er,Eritreacanseektopro�eanymonetarydamagesitmayha�eincurredasaresultofthesee�ents .

91 . FamilyMembers .Asecondmajorgroupofdeporteesraisedduringtheproceedingsin�ol�esthefamilymembersofpersonswhowereexpelledafterbeingidentifiedthroughEthiopia’ssecurityprocess .ThePartiesagreethatmanythousandsofexpellees’ familymembers leftEthiopia, includingspouses,children,dependentsiblings,andparents,butthenumbersaffectedandthecircumstancesoftheirdeparturesaredisputed .Ethiopiacontendedthato�er20,000 familymembers leftEthiopia�oluntarily to joinEritreanexpellees .EritreamaintainedthatthenumberwasfarlargerandthatmanyleftunderphysicalcompulsionorbecauseEthiopiafosteredhostileconditionsforfamilymembersinEthiopia,oftenwomenwhosehusbandshadbeenexpelledearlier,lea�ingthemnopracticalchoicebuttofollow .

92 . TheCommissionnotedabo�ethatinternationallawallowsabel-ligerenttoexpelthenationalsoftheenemyStateduringwartime .Thus,totheextentthatthoseexpelledwereEritreannationals,theirexpulsionwaslawful,e�enifharshfortheindi�idualsaffected .

93 . Howe�er,thee�idenceisnotclearregardingthenationalityofmanyfamilymembers,andthematterwasnotclarifiedduringtheproceedings .30Theprincipale�idencea�ailabletotheCommissionisEritrea’sNationalityProc-lamationNo .21/1992 .31Article6ofthatProclamationdoesnotautomaticallyconferEritreannationalityonEritreannationals’spouses,insteadrequiringanaturalizationprocessincludingthreeyearsofresidenceinEritrea .Moreo-�er,itisunclearwhetherchildrenofEritreansareEritreannationalsbybirth,as indicatedinArticle2,orwhetherArticle4appliestothemandfurtheractionisrequired .Thee�idencedoesnotshowtheextenttowhichtheselegalrequirementswerecompliedwithsothattheEthiopianspousesandoffspringofEritreannationalsalsobecameEritreannationals .

94 . Thee�idence isalsomixedregardingthecircumstancesof fam-ilymembers’departures .It indicatesthatfamilymembers leftunder�ary-ingcircumstances,withmembersofasinglefamilysometimeslea�ingunderquitedifferentconditions .Thee�idencedoesnotpermitjudgmentsastothefrequencyorextentof�aryingtypesofdepartures .Thefollowingsituationsappeartoha�eoccurredfrequently:

30 Eritrea maintained throughout that only Ethiopian nationals were expelled .EthiopiamaintainedthatitonlyexpelledEritreannationals“whohadbeenindi�iduallydeterminedtobeEritreannationals(aswellasthreatstoEthiopia’snationalsecurity .”)(Ethiopia’sCounter-Memorial,filedbyEthiopiaonJan .15,2004,p .109,para .6 .85 .)

31 See para .40supra.


–Familymemberschose(orwereselectedbythefamily)toaccompanyapersonbeingexpelledonsecuritygroundsatthetimeofdeporta-tion .Manyexpelleeswereaccompaniedbytheirminorchildren,andsomewereaccompaniedbyspousesorotheradultfamilymembers;

–Familymembersdecidedtolea�eEthiopiaaftertheexpulsionofafamilymember,anddidsoutilizingnormalemigrationandtra�elproceduresortheassistanceoftheICRC .Suchdeparturesin�ol�ed�aryingmeansoftransportationand�ariousdestinations .

95 . TheCommissiondoesnotregardEthiopiaasha�inganyliabilityfordeparturesinthesesituations,wheredeparturesresultedfromchoicesmadebytheaffectedindi�idualsortheirfamilies .AsabelligerentcanlawfullyexpelanationaloftheenemyState,familymembers’decisionstoaccompanytheexpellee,eitherattheinitialexpulsionorthereafter,arelawfulaswell .

96 . Howe�er, thee�idencealso indicates thatsomefamilymemberswereforciblyexpelled .ManyEritreandeclarantsspeakbroadlyoftheirfam-ilymembersbeingexpelledordeportedfollowingthedeclarant’sexpulsion .Itoftenisnotclearwhetherthewords“expelled”or“deported”areusedinatechnicalwayandwhetherthesedeparturesinfactresultedfromcompulsionbyEthiopianofficials .Ne�ertheless,somedeclarationsclearlydescribedirectcoercionbeingusedtodetainandforciblyexpelfamilymembers,includingwi�esandyoungchildren .

97 . TotheextentthatfamilymemberswhodidnotholdEritreannation-alitywereexpelled,theexpulsionwascontrarytointernationallaw .Gi�enthelimitationsofthee�idence,theCommissioncannotdeterminetheextenttowhichthisoccurred .Aswiththeruralexpellees,thisfindingissubjecttotheCommission’searlierfindingthatEritreacannotclaimforinjuriestoitselfbaseduponinjuriessufferedbypersonswhoweresolelyEthiopiannationalswhentheywereinjured .32InthesubsequentdamagesportionoftheCommis-sion’sproceedings,Eritreacannotclaimdamagesinrespectoftheirindi�idualinjuries,butitcanseektopro�eanymonetarydamagesitmayha�eincurredasaresultofEthiopia’streatmentofthesepersons .

98 . OtherDualNationals .Asdiscussedinparagraph78abo�e,inaddi-tiontoruralresidents,thee�idenceshowsthatanunknown,butconsiderable,numberofdualnationals,includingsomerelati�esofdualnationalspre�iouslyexpelledassecurityrisks,wereroundedupbylocalauthoritiesandforcedintoEritreaforreasonsthatcannotbeestablished .TheCommissionhasheldthattheterminationoftheirEthiopiannationalitywasarbitraryandconsequentlyunlawfulandthatEthiopiaisliableforpermittingittooccur .AstheCommis-sionindicatedinparagraph92abo�e,therighttoexpelthenationalsoftheenemyStateinwartimeisarightofabelligerent,anditcanbeexercisedlaw-fullyonlybyabelligerent .Ethiopia,thebelligerent,didnotconduct,authorize,

32 Supra paras .19and20 .


orratifytheseexpulsions .Consequently,theywereunlawfulunderapplicableinternationallaw,andEthiopiaisliableforpermittingthemtooccur .

99 . Physical Conditions of Expulsion . Eritrea also claimed that thephysicalconditionsunderwhichpersonswereexpelledfromEthiopiawereinhumaneandunsafe .Internationalhumanitarianlawrequiresthatalldepar-tures,whetherlawfulornot,beconductedhumanely,“insatisfactorycondi-tionsasregardssafety,hygiene,sanitationandfood .”33Eritreacontendedthattheseconditionswerenotmet;Ethiopiacontendedthattheywere .Thetwosidespresentedextensi�eandsharplyconflictinge�idence .

100 . Expelleesgenerallydescribedtheirexperiencesinsimilarterms .Ethiopiansecuritypersonnel,oftenaccompaniedbyarmedpoliceormilitia,tookexpelleesintocustodyindi�iduallyattheirhomesorworkplacesandthentookthemtoanassemblyfacility .Theywereheldtherewithotherdetainees,generally forabriefperiodof threetofi�edays,whileasufficientnumberofdetaineeswascollected .Manyassemblyfacilities,particularlyinsmallertowns,wereimpro�isedandlackedadequatesanitaryorcookingfacilities;expelleesoftenrecei�edfoodfromtheirfamilies .Expelleeswerekeptunderarmedguard .Whiletherewereaccountsof�erbalharassment,physicalabusedoesnotappeartoha�ebeencommon .

101 . Whena“criticalmass”ofse�eralhundredexpelleeswascollected,theywereloadedontoacon�oyofbuses;armedguardsusuallyrodeoneachbus .Thecon�oyswerecrowdedanduncomfortable,andthejourneywastypi-callylong,hot,andunpleasant .Stopswereinfrequentandcloselyguarded .Somedetaineesreportedspendingthenightonthefloorsofschoolsorotherfacilitiesenroute;othersdescribedbeingheldo�ernightonsealedandhotbuses,particularlyascon�oysnearedtheborder .

102 . ThePartiesdisputedtheadequacyofthefoodandwaterpro�ided,buttheweightofthee�idenceindicatesthattheygenerallywereinadequate .Numerous declarations described wholly insufficient food and water . Thedetailsofthesestatements�arysomewhat,suggestingthatconditions�ariedfromonetripandplacetoanother,butthepre�ailingpictureisnotfa�ora-ble .

103 . Eritreacontendedthatmanyexpulsioncon�oysunnecessarilyuti-lizeddesertroutessubjectingexpelleestoextremeheat,andthatexpelleeswereforcedtolea�ethebusesnearthefrontlinesandtocrossonfoot,exposedtolandminehazardsandwithoutcoordinationwithEritreanforcesontheotherside .Eritreacitedthereportsofinternationalobser�ers,includingtheICRCandUNICEF,criticaloftheconditionsofparticulartransports .

104 . Se�eraldeclarants referred to thecurtainsandwindowsof thebusesbeingclosedwhile tra�ellingandwhiledetaineesremained in themo�ernight .Itwasnotapparentwhetherthiswasdonetopre�entescapesorfor

33 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,atart .36(1);ProtocolI,supra note7,atart .75 .


otherreasons .Ethiopiacontendedthatthecurtainsweredrawnonlywhenrequiredforsecurity,aswhenbuseswerepassingthroughmilitaryzones,butthee�idencedoesnotsupportthiscontention .Combinedwithcrowdedcon-ditionsandEthiopiansummerheat,theclosedcurtainsandwindowswouldha�egreatlyincreasedthepassengers’suffering .

105 . Ethiopia countered Eritrea’s allegations by contending that theICRC was frequently in�ol�ed in the transports, pro�iding an importantsafeguardagainstabuses .Thee�idenceindicatesthattheICRCdidfacilitatesomebordercrossings,butitdoesnotindicateconsistentICRCin�ol�ementinmo�ementstotheborder .ItappearsthatmanytransportswerenotnotifiedtotheICRCorforotherreasonsdidnotha�eICRCin�ol�ement .

106 . Basedon the totalityof the record, theCommissionconcludesthat,despitesomeeffortstopro�ideforexpelleesduringsometransports,thephysicalconditionsfrequentlyfailedtocomplywithinternationallawrequire-mentsofhumaneandsafetreatment .

iX. deTenTion WiTHouT due ProCess107 . Introduction .Eritrea’sthirdmajorclaimisthatEthiopiawrong-

fullydetainedlargenumbersofci�iliansunderharshconditionscontrarytointernationallaw .Thisclaimin�ol�esseparategroups,including(a)personsheldpendingtheirexpulsion,oftenforbriefperiodsandintemporaryfacili-ties;(b)thoseheldinjailsorprisonsforlongerperiods,manybasedonsus-picionsthatthedetaineewasaspyorotherwiseacti�elyassistedtheEritreanwareffort;and(c)ci�iliansclaimedtobewronglydetainedandthenwronglyconfinedtogetherwithprisonersofwar .34ThislastcategoryincludedagroupofEritreanuni�ersitystudentsdetainedbyEthiopiaattheoutbreakofthewar .Foreachgroup,Eritreacontendedboththattheinitialdetentionswereillegalandthatthedetaineeswereheldinpoorandabusi�econditionsthatdidnotsatisfylegalrequirements .

108 . Applicablelaw .Theapplicablelawdependeduponthestatusornationalityofthosein�ol�ed .SomewereEritreannationalsprotectedbyinter-nationalhumanitarianlawapplicableininternationalarmedconflicts .AstoEthiopiannationals,internationalhumanrightslawpro�idedrele�antrules .Incasesofuncertaintyregardingpersons’status,the“safetynet”pro�isionsofArticle75ofProtocolIpro�idedprotection .Howe�er,allpotentiallyappli-cable legalrulesrequiredhumanetreatmentandpro�idedbroadlysimilarprotection .

109 . PersonsDetainedShort-Term .Thisgroupprimarilyin�ol�edper-sonsheldforshortperiodspendingtheirexpulsionfromEthiopia .ManyEri-treanwitnessaccountsdescribeuncomfortablebutshort-termdetentionasgroupsofexpelleeswereassembled,oftenintemporaryfacilities,fortransport

34 See PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atparas .24and28 .


totheborder .Therewasconflictinge�idenceregardingthea�ailabilityoffood,waterandbedding;conditionsmayha�e�ariedbylocationando�ertime .Therewerefewallegationsofphysicalabuse,butallegationsof�erbalabuseweremorecommon .

110 . WhiletheCommissionbelie�esthatthephysicalcircumstancesofpersonsbeingheldpendingdeportationwereoftenaustereanduncomfort-able,theperiodsin�ol�edweregenerallyshort,andtherewerefewallegationsofphysicalabuse .TheCommissionfindsthatthee�idenceisinsufficienttoshowawidespreadorsignificantfailurebyEthiopiatopro�ideinternationallyrequiredstandardsoftreatmentforpersonsheldinshort-termdetentionpriortotheirexpulsion .

111 . PersonsDetainedinPrisonsorJails .Thesecondgroupin�ol�espersonstakenintocustodybytheEthiopiansecurityforcesandthenheld,oftenforlongperiods,inEthiopianprisonsorjails .Theseprisoners’accountssuggestthatmanyweredetainedonsuspicionofespionageorotheroffens-esagainstEthiopianstatesecurity .Thenumbersin�ol�edarenotclear .TheICRCreportedregistering664ci�iliandetainees inEthiopia,andtheU .S .StateDepartmentestimated1,200 .Howe�er,thesefiguresdonotdistinguishbetweenthoseheldinjailsandprisonsonsecuritygroundsandthoseheldforotherreasonsorunderlessharshconditions .Inaddition,thee�idenceinclud-edse�eralprisoneraccountsofbeingshiftedbetweenplacesofdetention;thedeclarantsmaintainedthiswasdonetopre�enttheICRCfromidentifyingandregisteringthem .

112 . Theaccountsofthoseimprisonedonsecurity-relatedsuspicionsor charges consistently describe �ery harsh conditions, with crowded andunsanitaryli�ingarrangementsandlimitedandpoorfood .Therewerefre-quent,recurringallegationsofbeatingsandotherbrutalphysicalabuse .Mostprisonerswereheldwithoutbeingformallychargedorbroughtbeforeajudge .Nonementionsaccesstolegalcounselorotheroutsidead�isers .

113 . TheCommissionconcludesonthebasisofthee�idencethatthosedetainedinprisonsandjailsonsecurity-relatedcharges,EthiopiansandEri-treansalike,wereheldinharshandunsanitaryconditionsandsubjectedtophysicalabuse,contrarytointernationallaw .

114 . Other Ci�ilian Internees . Eritrea next contended that EthiopiawrongfullyinternedotherEritreanandEthiopianci�ilianswithoutproperjustificationandunderunlawfulconditions .EritreacitedArticle42ofGene�aCon�entionIV,whichallowsinternmentorassignedresidence“onlyifthesecurityoftheDetainingPowermakesitabsolutelynecessary,”andtheCon-�ention’sdetailedrequirementsfordetentionfacilities .EthiopiadeniedErit-rea’sclaims .

115 . TheExchangeStudents .EritrearaisedthefirstsuchgroupinitsPrisonerofWarClaim(Eritrea’sClaim17),whichcitedtheallegedlyunlawfuldetentionandtreatmentofabout85Eritreanuni�ersitystudentsstudyingin


EthiopiawhowereinitiallydetainedinJune1998soonafterthewarbegan .Therecordindicatesthattheirdetentionbecameaninternationalcause celè-bre, leadingtonumerousinternationalappealsfortheirrelease .Theywereconfinedunderallegedlyharshconditionsfor�aryinglengthsoftime;somewerereleasedearlyin1999whileotherswereheldmuchlonger .InitsPartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim17,theCommissiondeferreddecisionregard-ingthestudents,findingthat“allmistreatmentofci�iliansisthesubjectofotherclaimsbybothParties,whicharetobeheardanddecidedinaseparateproceeding .”35

116 . Therecordindicatesthatthestudentswereofmilitaryageandthatsomehadrecei�edmilitarytraininginEritrea .EthiopiacontendedthattheirinternmentwasjustifiedunderArticle35,paragraph1,ofGene�aCon�entionIV .Underthatpro�ision,nationalsofanenemystateha�etherighttolea�eabelligerent’sterritory“unlesstheirdepartureiscontrarytothenationalinter-estsofthestate .”“TheHandbookofHumanitarianLaw”explainsthat“[t]hisreferencetothenationalinterestofthestateofresidenceisintendedabo�ealltoenablethestatetoprohibitresidentssuitableformilitaryser�icefromlea�-ing .”36LeslieGreensimilarlydescribesArticle35asallowingabelligerenttopre�ent“thedepartureofthoselikelytobeofassistancetothead�ersepartyinitswarefforts .”37

117 . Thee�idenceinthisandotherclaimsbeforetheCommissionindi-catesthatsomemo�ementofci�iliansbetweenthetwocountriescontinuedduringthewar .Ethiopiacouldreasonablyha�efearedthatthestudents—andotherEritreansofmilitaryage,particularlythosewithmilitarytraining—mightha�ereturnedtoEritreaandjoinedtheEritreanforcesifleftatlarge .TheirinternmentwasconsistentwithArticle35,paragraph1,ofGene�aCon-�entionIV .Further,whiletheconditionsinwhichtheyweredetainedmayha�ebeendifficultandaustere,particularlyincomparisontothosetheypre-�iouslyexperiencedinEthiopia,therecorddoesnotestablishasubstantialorwidespreadfailuretomeetGene�aCon�entionrequirementswithrespecttotheirtreatment .

118 . Itisnotapparentfromtherecordwhetherthestudentshadindi-�idualopportunitiestoappealeithertheirconfinement,aspro�idedinArticle43ofGene�aCon�entionIV,orEthiopia’srefusaltoallowthemtolea�e,aspro�idedinArticle35 .Gi�enthepaucityoftherecordandtherequirementforclearandcon�incinge�idence,theCommissioncannotfindanyliabilityconcerningthisaspectoftheirtreatment .

119 . Ci�iliansallegedlyconfinedwithPOWS .EritreaalsoallegedinitsPrisonerofWarClaimthatEritreanci�ilianswerewronglyclassifiedandheldasprisonersofwar,andwerebadlymistreatedwhilesoheld .TheCom-

35 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atpara .28 .36 Handbook of Humanitarian Law,supranote15,at§583(p .281) .37 LeslieC .Green,The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflictp .89(2ded .2000) .


mission’sPartialAwardinEritrea’sPrisonerofWarClaimsalsodeferredtheseclaimstobeconsideredinthecontextofthepresentproceeding .38

120 . Eritrea’sprisonerofware�idenceincludesmultipleaccountsofEritreanfarmersandotherlocalresidentsli�ingclosetothemilitaryfrontswhoweretakenprisonerbytheEthiopianArmyandthenheldasprisonersofwar,sometimesforyears .Theseindi�idualsmaintainedthattheywerenotsol-diersandtooknopartinmilitaryoperations .Somewereintheirearlyteens;otherswereoldermen,somewellabo�emilitaryage .Eritreaalsopresentede�idenceofotherEritreanci�iliansli�ingfarfromthefrontswhoweresimi-larlydetainedandheldasprisonersofwar .

121 . Ethiopiadidnotrebutthee�idencethatEritreanci�ilians,includ-ingbothci�iliansli�ingclosetothefrontandothersfromelsewhereinEthio-pia,weredetainedandthenheldasprisonersofwar .Whileinternationallawallowstheinternmentofci�iliannationalsofanenemyStateunderspecifiedconditionsandappropriatesafeguards, therecorddidnotshowthat theserequirementsweremet .39Accordingly,theircontinueddetentionwascontrarytointernationallaw .Inaddition,underArticle84ofGene�aCon�entionIV,prisonersofwarmustbeheldseparatelyfromci�ilians .EthiopiadidnotrebutEritrea’se�idenceshowingthatEritreanci�ilianswerewronglyheldasprison-ersofwarinbreachoftheserequirements .

122 . Conditionsoftreatment .Theseci�ilianswereheldinDedessaandotherEthiopiancampsastowhichtheCommissionmadefindingsinitsPar-tialAwardonEritrea’sPrisonerofWarClaims .40Whiletheywerenotlegallyentitledtothesametreatmentasprisonersofwarinallrespects,Ethiopiawaslegallyrequiredinallinstancestoaccordthemhumanetreatment .41 TheCom-mission’sfindingsinitsearlierPartialAwardregardingEthiopia’sfailurestopro�ideadequatedietandcareforprisonersinitsprisonerofwarcampsarelikewiseapplicabletotheseindi�iduals .

X. dePriVaTion of ProPerTy

123 . EritreaallegedthatEthiopiaimplementedawidespreadprogramaimedatunlawfullyseizingEritreanpri�ateassets,includingassetsofexpel-leesandofotherpersonsoutsideofEthiopia,andoftransferringthoseassetstoEthiopiango�ernmentalorpri�ateinterests .Ethiopiadeniedthatittook

38 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atpara .28 .39 Asnotedabo�e,underArticle35ofGene�aCon�entionIV,abelligerentcanpre-

�entnationalsofanenemybelligerentfromlea�ingits territoryif theymayassist theopposingwareffort .Suchpersonscanalsobeassignedresidenceorinternediftherequire-mentsofArticle41aremet .

40 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atPartV .D .41 SeeGene�aCon�entionIV,supranote6,atart .27;ProtocolI,supranote7,at

art .27 .


anysuchactions .Itcontendedthatanylossesresultedfromthelawfulenforce-mentofpri�ateparties’contractrights,orthenondiscriminatoryapplicationoflegitimateEthiopiantaxorotherlawsandregulations .

124 . BothParties’argumentsemphasizedthecustomaryinternationallawrules limitingStates’rightstotakealiens’propertyinpeacetime;bothagreedthatpeacetimerulesbarringexpropriationcontinuedtoapply .How-e�er,thee�entsatissuelargelyoccurredduringaninternationalarmedcon-flict .Thus,it isalsonecessarytoaddresstheroleofthejus in bello, whichgi�esbelligerentssubstantiallatitudetoplacefreezesorotherdiscriminatorycontrolsonthepropertyofnationalsoftheenemyStateorotherwisetoactinwayscontrarytointernationallawintimeofpeace .Forexample,underthejus in bello, thedeliberatedestructionofaliens’propertyincombatoperationsmaybeperfectlylegal,whilesimilarconductinpeacetimewouldresultinStateresponsibility .

125 . Thestatusof thepropertyofnationalsofanenemybelligerentunderthejusin bello hase�ol�ed .Untilthenineteenthcentury,nodistinctionwasdrawnbetweenthepri�ateandpublicpropertyoftheenemy,andbothweresubjecttoexpropriationbyabelligerent .42Howe�er,attitudeschanged;asearlyas1794,theJayTreaty43boundtheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKing-domnottoconfiscatetheother’snationals’propertye�eninwartime .Thisattitudecametopre�ail;the1907HagueRegulations44reflectadeterminationtoha�ewaraffectpri�atecitizensandtheirpropertyaslittleaspossible .45

126 . Themodern jus in bello thuscontainsimportantprotectionsofaliens’property,beginningwiththefundamentalrulesofdiscriminationandproportionalityincombatoperations,whichprotectbothli�esandproperty .Article23,paragraph(g),oftheHagueRegulationssimilarlyforbidsdestruc-tionorseizureoftheenemy’spropertyunless“imperati�elydemandedbythenecessitiesofwar .”Article33ofGene�aCon�entionIVprohibitspillage46andreprisalsagainstprotectedpersons’property,bothinoccupiedterritoryand

42 IIInternational Law: A Treatise: Disputes, War and Neutralityp .326(H .Lauter-pachted .,7thed .1952)[hereinafterDisputes, War and Neutrality] .Therewasamajorcaseofconfiscationofpri�ateenemypropertyin1793,attheoutbreakofwarbetweenFranceandGermany .Id.

43 TreatyofAmity,CommerceandNa�igationbetweenGreatBritainandtheUnitedStates,No� .19,1794,52Consol .T .S .p .243 .

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

45 GeorgeSchwarzenberger,IIInternational Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals—The Law of Armed Conflictp .259(1968) .

46 Canada’slawofarmedconflictmanualdefinespillageas“the�iolentacquisitionofpropertyforpri�atepurposes . . . .Pillageistheft . . . .”OfficeoftheJudgeAd�ocateGen-eral,TheLawofArmedConflictattheOperationalandTacticalLe�el,B-GG-005–027/AF-021,p .6–6 .


intheParties’territory .47Article38ofGene�aCon�entionIVisalsorele�ant .Itestablishesthat,exceptformeasuresofinternmentandassignedresidenceorotherexceptionalmeasuresauthorizedbyArticle27,“thesituationofpro-tectedpersonsshallcontinuetoberegulated,inprinciple,bythepro�isionsgo�erningaliensintimeofpeace .”

127 . Howe�er,thesesafeguardsoperateinthecontextofanotherbroadandsometimescompetingbodyofbelligerentrightstofreezeorotherwisecontrolorrestricttheresourcesofenemynationalssoastodenythemtotheenemyState .Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,importantStatesincludingFrance,Germany, theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStatesha�efrozen“enemy”property,includingpropertyofci�ilians,sometimes�estingitforthe�estingState’sbenefit .AsRousseausummarizes:

Durant la guerre de 1914, presque tous les Etats belligérents . . . ont pris des measures restrictives très rigoreuses, allant du simple séquestre (France) à la liquidation et à la vente des biens des sujets ennemis (Grande-Bretagne, Allemagne). . . . [Durant la guerre de 1939]: ‘Un régime analogue á celui de 1914—construit autour des trois idées de contrôle, de séquestre et de liquida-tion—fut appliqué par tous les belligerents .’48

Suchcontrolmeasuresha�ebeenjudgednecessarytodenytheenemyaccesstoeconomicresourcesotherwisepotentiallya�ailabletosupportitsconductofthewar .

128 . States ha�e not consistently frozen and �ested enemy pri�ateproperty .Inpractice,States�estingtheassetsofenemynationalsha�edonesoundercontrolledconditions,andforreasonsdirectlytiedtohigherstateinterests;commentatorsemphasizetheselimitations .49Thepost-wardisposi-tionofcontrolledpropertyhasoftenbeenthesubjectofagreementsbetweentheformerbelligerents .Theseauthorizetheuseofcontrolledor�estedassetsforpost-warreparationsorclaimssettlements,therebymaintainingatleast

47 Propertyinoccupiedterritoryrecei�esspecialprotection .Article53ofGene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,prohibitsdestructionofpri�atepropertythereexceptwhere“renderedabsolutelynecessarybymilitaryoperations .”Article47oftheHagueRegula-tions,supra note44,forbidspillageinoccupiedterritory .Otherrele�antpro�isionsincludeArticles49,51and52(limitingle�ies,contributionsandrequisitionsinoccupiedterritory)andArticle53(allowingoccupyingforcestotakepossessiononlyofStateproperty)oftheHagueRegulations .

48 Ch .Rousseau,droit international public, pp .346–347(septième, 1973) .(“DuringtheFirstWorldWar,almostallbelligerentStates . . .took�eryrigorousrestricti�emeas-ures,rangingfromsimplefreezing(France)totheliquidationandsaleoftheassetsofenemysubjects(GreatBritain,Germany) . . . .[DuringtheSecondWorldWar]:aregimeanalogoustothatof1914–constructedaroundthethreeideasofcontrol, freezingandliquidation—wasappliedbyallbelligerents .”)

49 Brownlie,supra note21,atp .514;Disputes, War and Neutrality,supra note42,atpp .326–331 .


theappearanceofconsentforthetaking .ThisoccurredbothintheVersaillesTreatyafterWorldWarI50andinpeacetreatiesafterWorldWarII .51

129 . EritreadidnotcontendthatEthiopiadirectlyfrozeorexpropriatedexpellees’property .Instead,itclaimedthatEthiopiadesignedandcarriedoutabodyofinterconnecteddiscriminatorymeasurestotransferthepropertyofexpelledEritreanstoEthiopianhands .Theseincluded:

– Pre�enting expellees from taking effecti�e steps to preser�e theirproperty;– Forcingsalesofimmo�ableproperty;– Auctioningofexpellees’propertytopayo�erduetaxes;and– Auctioningofexpellees’mortgagedassetstoreco�erloanarrears .

Eritreaassertsthatthecumulati�eeffectofthesemeasureswastoopenupEritreanpri�atewealthforlegalizedlootingbyEthiopians .

130 . Preser�ation of Property—Powers of Attorney . The principalmeansbywhichexpelleessoughttosafeguardtheirpropertywasbyappoint-ingagentsbymeansofpowersofattorney .Eritreaclaimednumerousdeficien-ciesinthisprocess,contendingthatmanypersonsinpre-expulsiondetentioncouldnotexecuteeffecti�epowersofattorney .Se�eraldetaineesallegedthattheyhadnoopportunitytoappointanagent .Otherswhowereabroadcouldnotmakeeffecti�eappointmentsbecauseEthiopianconsularofficialswouldnotpro�ideconsularformalities .

131 . Eritreaarguedthatdetaineeshadtoolittletimetoidentifyasuit-ableagent,executeapowerofattorneyandotherwisearrangetheiraffairs .(Asnotedabo�e,theperiodbetweenarrestandexpulsionwasoftenjustafewdays .)Somepowersofattorneywerenotsignedintheagents’presence,lea�ingtheagenttoguessabouttheactionrequired .Someappointmentswerene�erdeli�ered,oragentslackedtheknowledgeorexpertisetoperformrequiredfunctions,orwerethemsel�esimprisonedorexpelled .Suchcircumstancesweresaidtoleadtomismanagement,spoilageorlossofexpellees’propertyforwhichEthiopiawasclaimedtoberesponsible .

132 . Ethiopiarespondedthatitpro�idedexpelleeswithadequatemeanstoappointrepresentati�estoprotecttheirinterests .Itse�idencedetailedspe-cialprocedurescreatedtoallowdetaineestoexecutelegallyeffecti�epowersofattorneywhileindetention .ThecapacitytoauthenticatepowersofattorneywasexceptionallydelegatedbytheAddisAbabaCity“ActsandCi�ilStatusDocumentationSer�ices”topoliceofficers .Theywouldsignthedocument,andtheagentwouldgototheresponsibleofficetoha�eitauthenticatedand

50 TreatyofPeaceatVersailles,June28,1919,225Consol .T .S .p .188 .Ontheliquida-tionofGerman-ownedpri�atepropertybytheAlliedandAssociatedPowersundertheTreatyofVersailles,see Schwarzenberger,supra note45,atpp .84–88 .

51 TreatyofPeacewithItaly(art .79),withBulgaria(art .25),andwithHungary(art .29) .


registeredbasedonasampleofthepoliceofficer’ssignaturekeptonfile .Coun-selforEthiopiarepresentedthatthissystemwasappliedinthewholecountry,andEthiopiasubmittede�idenceofagentsabletouseapowerofattorneycre-atedutilizingthisprocedure .

133 . TheCommissionrecognizestheenormousstressesanddifficul-tiesbesettingthosefacingexpulsion .Theresurelywerepropertylossesrelatedtoimperfectlyexecutedorpoorlyadministeredpowersofattorney .Howe�er,particularlyinthesewartimecircumstances,wherethee�idenceshowsEthio-pianefforts tocreatespecialprocedures to facilitatepowersofattorneybydetainees,theshortcomingsofthesystemofpowersofattorneystandingalonedonotestablishliability .

134 . Compulsory sale of immo�able property . Eritrea next assertedEthiopia’sresponsibilityforexpellees’lossescausedbyforcedsalesresultingfromenforcementofprohibitionsonalienownershipofimmo�ablepropertyunderEthiopia’s1960LawonForeignOwnershipofProperty .Thee�idenceindicatedthatifthedeporteehadanEthiopianspouse,co�eredpropertycouldbetransferredtothespouse .IftherewasnoEthiopianspouse,theexpellee’sagentcouldselltheproperty .Otherwise,theEthiopianauthoritiessolditatauction .Thee�idenceshowedthatEthiopiacreatedaspecialinstitution,the“EritreanPropertyHandlingCommittee,”too�erseesaleofEritreanexpel-lees’property .

135 . Prohibiting real property ownership by aliens is not barred bygeneralinternationallaw;manycountriesha�esuchlaws .TheCommissionacceptsthatdualnationalsdepri�edoftheirEthiopiannationalityandexpelledpursuanttoEthiopia’ssecurityscreeningprocesscouldproperlyberegardedasEritreansforpurposesofapplyingthislegislation .Further,Ethiopiaisnotinternationally responsible for losses resulting from sale prices depressedbecauseofgeneraleconomiccircumstancesrelatedtothewarorothersimilarfactors .

136 . Ne�ertheless,theCommissionhasseriousreser�ationsregardingthemannerinwhichtheprohibitiononalienownershipwasimplemented .Thee�idenceshowedthattheEthiopianGo�ernmentshortenedtheperiodformandatorysaleofdeportees’assetsfromthesixmonthsa�ailabletootheralienstoasinglemonth .Thiswasnotsufficienttoallowanorderlyandbenefi-cialsale,particularlyfor�aluableorunusualproperties .AlthoughrequiringEritreannationalstodi�estthemsel�esofrealpropertywasnotcontrarytointernationallaw,Ethiopiaactedarbitrarily,discriminatorily,andinbreachofinternationallawindrasticallylimitingtheperioda�ailableforsale .

137 . The Location Value Tax . Eritrea next contended that Ethiopiaunlawfullyappropriatedasignificantportionofthe�alueofexpellees’prop-ertybyimposinga“100%location�alue”taxonforcedrealestatesales .Thee�idenceindicatedthatinmid-2000theAddisAbabaCityFinanceBureauissueda“Directi�efortheProcedureofTransferofLandHoldingsandHousesofEritreansDeportedBecauseofNationalSecurity .”Thisdocumentreferred


to a federal directi�e by the Ethiopian Economic Affairs Office regardingtransactionsbetweendeporteesandEthiopians,butitwasnotintherecord .

138 . TheDirecti�erequiredthatforsalesbyalien�endorsbeforethewarbeganinMay1998,a30%“capitalgaintax”wastobeapplied .(Smallsaleswereexempted .)Forforcedsalesthereafter,thetaxontheadded�alueonthehouseremainedat30%,butanother100%taxwasappliedtothe“location�alue,”i.e., the�alueoftheland .Thee�idenceincludedofficialdocumentsshowingthistaxbeingappliedto100%ofthe�alueofexpellees’realproperties .

139 . EthiopiacontendedthatthisDirecti�ereflectedanerroneouslocalpolicy .Thetaxwasalsodefendedonthebasisthatpersonswhoacquiredlandinthecourseofpri�atizationafterthefalloftheMengisturegimein1991didnotpayforitandsoshouldnotbenefitfromitssale .Howe�er,thee�idenceindicatedthatthetaxwasnotgenerallyappliedtoallsalesofrealproperty,asthisrationalewouldrequire .Samplesalesdocumentsshowedthetaxwasnotmentionedontheformsnormallyusedtorecordtaxesonrealestatetransac-tions,andwasinsteadwritteninbyhandinsalesofexpellees’property .Thee�idencealsoshowedthatthe100%locationtaxwasnotimposedonsalesbybankscollectingonloanstoexpellees .

140 . TheCommissionconcludesthatthe100%“locationtax”wasnotataxgenerallyimposed,butwasinsteadimposedonlyoncertainforcedsalesofexpellees’property .Suchadiscriminatoryandconfiscatorytaxationmeasurewascontrarytointernationallaw .

141 . ForeclosuresofExpellees’Loans .EritreanextcontendedthatEthi-opiawrongfullyfacilitatedorparticipatedintheprocessofcollectingexpel-lees’bankloansthroughenforcedsalesofcollateral .TheprincipalactorinsuchsaleswastheCommercialBankofEthiopia .ThecollectionprocesswasdescribedintheBank’sJanuary2001“GeneralReportonEritreanExpelleesBankLoanCollectionProcessandItsResults”:

Afterrecei�ingalistofEritreanswho left the country fromtheGo�ernment,theBankhasbeenengagedinthetaskofidentifyingtheirloansandcol-lectingontheirdebts[ . . .]Iftheyfailedtopaytheirdebtsinfullwithin30days,itisrequestedinwritingthattheRegistrarBureau(AddisAbabaAdministrationWorksandUrbanDe�elopmentBureau),whichwasestab-lishedtoexecutetheForeclosureLaw,assistintheauctioningofcollateralproperties .

Asimilarprocessappliedtotheauctioningof�ehiclesfinancedbytheBank .142 . Itdoesnotappearthatperformingloanswereaccelerated .Instead,

loansindefaultwerecollectedinaccordancewiththeirtermsandwithlegis-lationinforcewhenthewarbegan .Whilesomeoralloftheothermeasuresdiscussedinthissectionmayha�econtributedtoexpellees’inabilitytokeeptheirloanscurrent,therecorddoesnotshowthatthemeasurestocollecto�er-dueloanswereinthemsel�escontrarytointernationallaw .Thisclaimmustbedismissed .


143 . TaxCollection .EritreaattackedaspecialprocesscreatedbyEthio-piatocollecttaxesallegedlyduefromexpellees .AnofficialintheAddisAbabaCityAdministrationFinanceBureau(“CAFB”)describedtheprocess:

DuringtheconflictwithEritrea,theCAFBwasnotifiedofpotentialexpel-leesandsentwrittentaxassessmentnoticestothoseindi�iduals .Thenoticesga�ethepotentialexpelleesadeadlinebywhichtaxesweredueandnotifiedthemthat,iftheyfailedtopaytheirassessedtaxes,theirpropertywouldbeattachedandauctionedtosatisfytheamountindefault .TheCAFBusedtheseprocessestocollectonthelawfuldebtowedbythetaxpayer .

Eritreacontendedthatthistaxassessmentandcollectionprocesswasarbitraryanddiscriminatoryinoperation .

144 . International lawdidnotprohibitEthiopiafromrequiringthatexpelleessettletheirtaxliabilities,butitrequiredthatthisbedoneinarea-sonableandprincipledway .Thee�idenceindicatesthatitwasnot .Theamountdemandedwassimplyanestimate .Therewasnoeffecti�emeans formostexpelleestore�ieworcontestthisamount .Therewas�erylittletimebetweenissuanceofthetaxnoticeanddeportation(if indeedthenoticewasissuedbeforethetaxpayerwasexpelled) .Therewasnoassurancethatexpelleesortheiragentsrecei�edthenotices .Iftheydid,thepaymentoftaxescouldbeimpossiblebecauseofbankforeclosureproceedingsagainstassetsandthearrayofothereconomicmisfortunesbefallingexpellees .Viewedo�erall,thetaxcollectionprocesswasapproximateandarbitraryandfailedtomeettheminimumstandardsoffairandreasonabletreatmentnecessaryinthecir-cumstances .

145 . RestrictedAccounts .Thee�idencesuggested thatanyproceedsremainingtoexpelleesafterforcedpropertysalesandcollectionofoutstand-ingloansandtaxescouldbedepositedintoanaccountopenedbytheEthio-pianauthoritiesintheformerowner’snameintheCommercialBankofEthio-pia .Theseaccountsrequiredtheownertocomeinpersonwiththepassbooktoaccessthefunds .Eritreacontendedthatexpelleescouldnotaccesstheseaccounts,eitherbecausetheydidnotpossessthepassbookorcouldnotcomeinperson .

146 . Therewase�idencesuggestingthatafewaccountholdersorper-sonsauthorizedtoactontheirbehalfwereabletoaccesssuchaccounts .Par-ticularlyinlightoftherightsofbelligerentstofreezetheassetsofpersonspresentinanyenemyStateandtoblocktransfersoffundsthere,itwasnotille-galforEthiopiatoestablishtheseaccountsinawaythateffecti�elyforeclosedfundtransfersabroad .Eritrea’sclaimswithrespecttothesebankaccountsaredenied .

147 . HornInternationalBank .EritreamadeparticularreferencetothecaseofHornInternationalBank(“HIB”),contendingthatEthiopiaarbitrar-ilywithdrewtheBank’sbusinesslicence,destroyingtheenterprise’s�aluein�iolationofinternationallaw .TherecordindicatedthattheHornInternationalBankwasbeingorganizedinEthiopiainthemonthspriortothewar .The


circumstancesofitscreationarenotclear,butitappearsthattheBank’sorgan-izersincludedpersonsprominentintheaffairsoftheEritreancommunityinEthiopia,andthatsomestart-upfundswerepro�idedbytheGo�ernmentofEritreathroughaloanorgrantchannelledthroughanofficialintheEritreanEmbassyinAddisAbaba .

148 . TherecordalsoshowsthatEthiopianbankinglaw(Proclamation84/94)prohibitedforeignersfromundertakingbankingoperationsinEthio-pia .TheNationalBankofEthiopia(“NBE”)initiatedanin�estigationofHIBinDecember1997,beforethewar,andinstructeditnottobeginoperationsuntilfurthernotice .Thisin�estigationsoughttodeterminewhethertheHIBwas�iolatingtheprohibitiononforeignparticipationinthebankingsector .Counsel forEthiopia represented that theNBEdisco�ered that twoof theBank’sfoundingmembershadstrongconnectionswithEritrea,thatstart-upfundingwaspro�idedbyorthroughtheEritreanEmbassy,andthattherewerequestionsregardingtheshareholders’nationality .

149 . Notwithstanding the December NBE directi�e, the HIB beganbankingoperations .ItsassetsthenwerefrozenonJune17,1998,shortlyafterthewarbegan .AnEthiopiancourtpronounced theBank’sdissolutiononJune1,2000onthegroundofpresentationoffalsee�idence .

150 . Therecordbefore theCommission indicates that theproblemsbefallingtheHornInternationalBankresultedfromaregulatoryproceedingin�ol�ingapplicationoflimitsonforeignparticipationinthebankingsec-torsimilartothoseimposedbymanycountries .Eritrea’sclaimsofunlawfulconductinrelationtotheHornInternationalBankaredismissedforlackofproof .

151 . TheCumulati�eWeightofEthiopia’sMeasures .Inadditiontoitsfindingsabo�eregardingparticularEthiopianeconomicmeasures,theCom-missionbelie�esthatthemeasures’collecti�eimpactmustbeconsidered .Wargi�esbelligerentsbroadpowerstodealwiththepropertyofthenationalsoftheirenemies,butthesearenotunlimited .IntheCommission’s�iew,abel-ligerentisboundtoensureinsofaraspossiblethatthepropertyofprotectedpersonsandofotherenemynationalsarenotdespoiledandwasted .Ifpri�atepropertyofenemynationalsistobefrozenorotherwiseimpairedinwartime,itmustbedonebytheState,andunderconditionspro�idingfortheproperty’sprotectionanditse�entualdispositionbyreturntotheownersorthroughpost-waragreement .52

152 . TherecordshowsthatEthiopiadidnotmeettheseresponsibilities .Asaresultofthecumulati�eeffectsofthemeasuresdiscussedabo�e,manyexpellees, includingsomewithsubstantialassets, lost�irtuallye�erythingtheyhadinEthiopia .SomeofEthiopia’smeasureswerelawfulandotherswere

52 See, e.g., Article38ofGene�aCon�entionIV,requiringthat“thesituationofpro-tectedpersonsshallcontinuetoberegulated,inprinciple,bythepro�isionsconcerningaliensintimeofpeace .”


not .Howe�er,theircumulati�eeffectwastoensurethatfewexpelleesretainedanyoftheirproperty .Expelleeshadtoactthroughagents(ifareliableagentcouldbefoundandinstructed),facedrapidforcedrealestatesales,confisca-torytaxesonsaleproceeds,�igorousloancollections,expeditedandarbitrarycollectionofothertaxes,andothereconomicwoesresultingfrommeasuresinwhichtheGo�ernmentofEthiopiaplayedasignificantrole .Bycreatingorfacilitatingthisnetworkofmeasures,Ethiopiafailedinitsdutytoensuretheprotectionofaliens’assets .

Xi. family seParaTion

153 . Finally,EritreacontendedthatEthiopia’sactionsresultedintheseparationoffamiliesandfailurestoassuretheprotectionofchildrencon-trarytointernationallaw .EritreaallegedthatthereweremanyinstancesinwhichEthiopia’sdetentionandexpulsionprocessesledtoforcibleseparationofspouses,forcibleseparationofchildrenfromoneorbothparents,andchil-drenbeingleftwithoutpropercare .Initsdefense,EthiopiadeniedthatEritreahadestablishedaprima facie caseandcontendedthatithadcompliedwithinternationalhumanitarianlawbytakingwhatstepsitcouldtoprotectchil-drenandtheunityoffamiliesdespitedetentionsanddeportationsfornationalsecurityreasons .EthiopianotedthatmanyofthedeparturesfromEthiopiacited inEritrea’sclaims in�ol�edchildrenandother familymemberswhoaccompaniedEritreansbeingexpelled .IturgedthatitwasunreasonableforEritreatoclaimthatEthiopiahadactedillegallybothbyseparatingfamiliesandbyallowingfamiliestolea�eEthiopiatogether .

154 . Internationalhumanitarianlawimposesclearburdensonbellig-erentswithrespecttotheprotectionofchildrenandtheintegrityoffamilies .Article27ofGene�aCon�entionIV,forexample,pro�idesthatallprotectedpersonsareentitled inallcircumstances torespect for their familyrights .Howe�er,bothinternationalhumanitarianlawandhumanrightslaw,whichEritreaemphasized,alsorecognizethat,regrettably,absoluteprotectionofthefamilycannotbeassuredinwartime .WhileArticle9oftheCon�entionontheRightsoftheChild53statesthatchildrenshouldnotbeseparatedfromtheirparentsagainsttheirwill,italsorecognizesseparationmayresultinthecourseofarmedconflictduetodetentionordeportationofoneorbothparents .Inthefaceoftherealitiesofwar,Article24ofGene�aCon�entionIVsetsoutspecialprotectionsforchildrenundertheageoffifteenwhoareseparatedfromtheirfamiliesororphaned:

Thepartiestotheconflictshalltakethenecessarymeasurestoensurethatchildrenunderfifteen,whoareorphanedorareseparatedfromtheirfami-liesasaresultofthewar,arenotlefttotheirownresources,andthattheir

53 See para .27supra.


maintenance,theexerciseoftheirreligionandtheireducationarefacilitatedinallcircumstances .

FurtherguidanceappearsinArticle38oftheCon�entionontheRightsoftheChild,whichcallsforpartiestotake“allfeasiblemeasurestoensureprotectionandcareofchildrenwhoareaffectedbyanarmedconflict .”

155 . Eritrea’se�idenceprimarilyin�ol�edasmallnumberofdeclara-tionsfromalleged�ictimsoffamilyseparation,whorecountedseriouspsycho-logicalandfinancialdamagesasaresult .Eritrea’sMemorialalsocited�ariousarticlesandreports,includingstatisticsonthenumberofseparatedchildrenfromapressreportdescribingaUNICEFsur�eyunderthetitle“UNICEFreportonsituationofdeportees .”54Whilethestatisticsreportedinthatarticlemightbecompelling,theCommissioncannotaccordthesur�eycon�incingweightbecauseEritreasubmittedonlythepressaccountunderanEmbassyofEritreabyline .

156 . InadditiontochallengingEritrea’sfailuretomakeaprima facie case,Ethiopiacontendedthat it tookfeasiblemeasurestoa�oidseparatingfamiliesbyallowingdetaineestobringtheirchildrenintodetentionwiththemandbyallowingfamilymembersofexpelleestolea�eEthiopiaeithersimul-taneouslyorsubsequently .EthiopiapointedtoEritreanwitnessstatementsofexpelleeswhowereallowedtobringallmembersofentirefamilies,someoftheirchildren(lea�ingotherswiththeparentremaininginEthiopia)and,inthecaseofmotherswhowereexpelled,theirinfantsandyoungchildreninparticular .Wherefamiliesorchildrencouldnotaccompanytheexpellee,reunionsoccurredrelati�elyquicklythereafter,oftenfacilitatedbytheICRC .

157 . TheCommissionhasbeenconcernedwithissuesoffamilyprotec-tionthroughouttheseproceedings,andsoughtatthehearingtoclarifytheParties’positionsandthenatureandqualityofthee�idence .Ha�ingre�iewedtheentirerecord,theCommissionissatisfiedthatEritreafailedtopro�eapat-ternoffrequentinstancesofforciblefamilyseparationorfailurestoassuretheprotectionofchildreninconnectionwithEthiopia’sdetentionandexpulsionprocesses .Therecordisnotde�oidoftroublinginstancesofforcibleseparationofyoungchildrenfromtheirparentsandofentirefamiliesseparatedfromthebread-winningparent .Withoutsanctioningtheinstancesjustmentioned,theCommissiondismissesEritrea’sfamilyseparationclaimsforfailureofproof .

Xii. Claims on beHalf of sPeCifiC indiViduals158 . In addition to Eritrea’s claims on its own behalf in Claims 15,

16and23,theCommissionalsohadbeforeitintheseproceedingsEritrea’sClaims27–32 .TheseareclaimsbroughtbyEritreaonbehalfofindi�idualsalleginginjuryresultingfromthebroaderpatternsofconductconsideredinthisPartialAward .Claim27(HiwotNemariam)allegedthatMs .Hiwotwas

54 UNICEF report on situation of deportees,AfricaNews(Aug .19,1998) .


“adenationalizedEthiopiancitizenofEritreanorigin,whowasunlawfullyarrested,detainedandexpelledfromEthiopiaonJuly6,1998andwhosebankaccountsandotherpropertywereconfiscatedbyEthiopia .”Claim28(BelayRedda,thehusbandofMs .Hiwot)issimilar .

159 . Theotherfourclaimsinthisgroup(Claim29,Mr .SertzuGebreMeskel;Claim30,Mr .FekaduAndemeskal;Claim31,Mr .MebrehtuGebreme-dhim;andClaim32,Ms .MebratGebreamlak)eachreflectthedifferentfactualsituationsoftheindi�idualclaimants,butallofthemallegeinjuryresultingfromEthiopia’sactionsin�ol�ingdepri�ationofcitizenshipandexpulsionandEthiopianmeasuresaffectingexpellees’property .

160 .ThisPartialAwardappliestoalloftheclaimsbeforeitinthesepro-ceedings,includingClaims27–32 .TheCommission’sfindingsofliabilityapplyfullytothoseclaimstotheextentindicatedbytheirparticularfacts .Theappli-cationoftheCommission’sfindingstothefactsofeachoftheseclaimswillbeassessedinthefuturedamagesphaseoftheseproceedings .

Xiii. aWard

In�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

a. Jurisdiction

1 . Eritrea’sclaimsregardingtheallegedforcibleexpulsionfromEthio-piaof722personsinJuly2001aredismissedforlackofjurisdiction .

2 . Eritrea’sclaimsbasedoninjuriestonon-nationalsmadeforEritrea’sownaccount,andnotonbehalfoftheaffectedindi�iduals,areoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .

3 . Thea�ailabilityofamonetaryremedyforanypastdamagestoper-sonswhoremaininEthiopiaisreser�edforthesubsequentdamagesphaseoftheseproceedings .

4 . Eritrea’srequestsforremediesotherthanmonetarycompensationwerenotshowntomeettherequirementsofCommissionDecisionNo .3andaredenied .

5 . Eritrea’srequestfordeclaratoryreliefrelatingtopossiblefutureinju-riesisoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdictionandisdenied .

6 . Eritrea’sclaimsrelatingtopensionswillbeconsideredbytheCommis-sioninsubsequentproceedingsandarenotadmissibleinthisproceeding .

7 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .


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-tions,includingArticle75thereof,wereexpressionsofcustomaryinternation-alhumanitarianlawapplicableduringtheconflict .HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�isionofProtocolIshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcus-tomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwouldha�ebeenontheassertingparty,butthatdidnothappen .

5 . CustomarylawconcerningtheprotectionofhumanrightsremainedinforceduringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,withparticularrel-e�anceinanysituationsin�ol�ingpersonsnotfullyprotectedbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw .

6 . The Agreement of December 12, 2000 was the transition pointbetweentheregimeofGene�aCon�entionIVandpeacetimerulesofinter-nationallaw .Howe�er,internationalhumanitarianlawprotectionscontinuedtoapplyafterDecember12,2000withrespecttopersonswhoremainedindetentionorintheprocessofrepatriationorre-establishment .

C. evidentiary issues

TheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishtheliabilityofaPartyfor�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .

d. finding on dual nationality

EthiopiannationalswhoacquiredEritreannationalitythroughqualifyingtoparticipateinthe1993ReferendumonEritreanself-determinationacquireddualnationalityascitizensofboththeStatesofEritreaandofEthiopia .


e. findings on liability for Violation of international law

TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsofinternationallawin�ol�ingactsoromissionsbyitsci�ilianofficials,militarypersonnelorothersforwhoseconductitisresponsible:

1 . Forerroneouslydepri�ingat least someEthiopianswhowerenotdualnationalsoftheirEthiopiannationality;

2 . Forarbitrarilydepri�ingdualnationalswhoremainedinEthiopiaduringthewaroftheirEthiopiannationality;

3 . Forarbitrarilydepri�ingdualnationalswhowerepresentinthirdcountriesduringthewaroftheirEthiopiannationality;

4 . Forarbitrarilydepri�ingdualnationalswhowereexpelledtoEritreabutwhowerenotscreenedpursuanttoEthiopia’ssecurityre�iewprocedureoftheirEthiopiannationality;

5 . Forpermittinglocal farmers,militiaorpolicetoforciblytoexpelruralpeople,manyormostofwhomweresolelyEthiopiannationals,fromruralareasneartheborder;

6 . ForpermittingtheforcibleexpulsiontoEritreaofsomemembersofexpellees’familieswhodidnotholdEritreannationality;

7 . For permitting local authorities to forcibly to expel to Eritrea anunknown,butconsiderable,numberofdualnationalsforreasonsthatcannotbeestablished;

8 . Forfrequentlyfailingtopro�idehumaneandsafetreatmenttoper-sonsbeingexpelledtoEritreafromEthiopia;

9 . ForholdingEritreanci�iliansonsecurityrelatedchargesinprisonsandjailsunderharshandunsanitaryconditionsandwithinsufficientfood,andforsubjectingthemtobeatingsandotherabuse;

10 . For detaining Eritrean ci�ilians without apparent justification,holdingthemtogetherwithprisonersofwar,andsubjectingthemtoharshandinhumanetreatmentwhilesoheld;

11 . Forlimitingtoonemonththeperioda�ailableforthecompulsorysaleofEritreanexpellees’realproperty;

12 . Forthediscriminatoryimpositionofa100%“locationtax”onpro-ceedsfromsomeforcedsalesofEritreanexpellees’realestate;

13 . FormaintainingasystemforcollectingtaxesfromEritreanexpel-leesthatdidnotmeettherequiredminimumstandardsoffairandreasonabletreatment;and

14 . For creating and facilitating a cumulati�e network of economicmeasures,somelawfulandothersnot,thatcollecti�elyresultedinthelossof


allormostoftheassetsinEthiopiaofEritreanexpellees,contrarytoEthiopia’sdutytoensuretheprotectionofaliens’assets .

f. other findingsAllotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .DoneatTheHague,this17thdayofDecember,2004,

[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte

[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich

[Signed]JohnR .Crook

[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul

[Signed]LucyReed

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES...

Documents

Transcript of REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES...