REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES...

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Prisoners of War - Eritrea's Claim 17

1 July 2003

XXVI pp. 23-72VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT ii

Partial Award Prisoners of War—Eritrea’s Claim 17

Decision of 1 July 2003

Sentence partielle Prisonniers de guerre—Réclamation de l’Érythrée No 17

Décision du 1er juillet 2003

PartialAward,Prisonersofwar—Eritrea’sclaim17,Decisionof1july2003

Sentencepartielle,Prisonniersdeguerre—Réclamationdel’ÉrythréeNo17,Décisiondu1erjuillet2003

Jurisdiction of the Commission—determination of the liability of States forbreachesofinternationalobligations—liabilityonlyforserious�iolationsofinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawaffectingse�eral�ictims—liabilityengagedonlyforsystem-atic,frequentandrecurring�iolations—nojurisdictiono�erindi�idualcrimes .

Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—Eritreasubjecttocustomaryhumani-tarianrulesbeforebecomingapartytoGene�aCon�entions—customarystatusofinternationalhumanitarianrulesasexemplifiedbytheGene�aCon�entions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofaGene�aCon�ention .

Successiontotreaties—noautomaticsuccessiontoGene�aCon�entionsbyErit-reaafteritsseparationfromEthiopia—rebuttaloftheusualpresumptioninfa�ourofsuccessionin�iewofthestatementsofEritrea .

Customary international humanitarian law principles—training soldiers torespectrulesgo�erningtreatmentofPOWs—pre�enting�iolations—in�estigatingandprosecuting�iolationsthatoccurred .

TreatmentofPOWs—POWs’sur�i�alandwell-beingconsideredastheprincipalobjecti�eofhumanitarianrules—standardofmedicalcarecontingentonthecircum-stancesandequipmenta�ailable—scarcityoffinancialresourcesandinfrastructurenotanacceptableexcuseforthelackofmedicalcare—obligingPOWstowalkbarefootduringe�acuationsconsideredinhumanetreatment—liabilityincurredasaresultofpermittingtheconfiscationofPOWs‘personalpropertywithoutissuanceofareceiptforitsfuturereturn—systematicseparation,segregationandcompulsoryindoctri-nationofPOWsconsideredasmentalabuse—absenceofliabilityarisingfrompoorconditionsofdetentionnotendangeringthehealthofPOWs—obligationtorepatriatePOWsdiligently—reciprocitynotrequiredforrepatriationofPOWs—arequestforclarificationofthefateofanumberofmissingcombatantsdeemedareasonableandappropriaterequest,aswellasthesuspensionofrepatriation .

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

Claimfilingproceedings—clearstatementoffacts—clearidentificationof�iola-tionsofinternationallaw—necessitytogi�etotheotherPartyafairwarningofclaimspresentedandapossibilitytoreply—furtherrefinementoflegaltheoryordetailedpresentationoffactsnotconsideredasanadditionalclaim—requirementofbalancedandinformedarbitrationproceedings .

26 eritrea/ethiopia

Remedy—monetarycompensationforstolenpersonalpropertyofPOWs—resti-tutionnotconsideredasinaccordancewithinternationalpracticenorasappropriateoreffecti�e .

Compétence de la Commission—détermination de la responsabilité étatiquepour �iolationd’obligationsinternationales—responsabilité limitéeaux�iolationsimportantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—respon-sabilitéuniquementengagéepourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécur-rentes—absencedecompétences’agissantdescrimesindi�iduels .

Droiten�igueurpendantleconflitarmé—Érythréesoumiseauxrèglesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumiera�antmêmedede�enirPartieauxCon�entionsdeGenè�e—caractèrecoutumierderègleshumanitairesinternationalestelqu’illustréparlesCon�entionsdeGenè�e—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurl’Étatréfutantlecara-ctèrecoutumierd’unedispositionparticulièredel’unedesCon�entionsdeGenè�e .

Successionauxtraités—absencedesuccessionautomatiquedel’ÉrythréeauxCon�entionsdeGenè�eaprèssaséparationd’a�ecl’Éthiopie—réfutationdelaprésomp-tionhabituelleenfa�eurdelasuccessionrésultantdesdéclarationsdel’Érythrée .

Principesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumier—formationdessoldatsàrespecterlesrèglesrelati�esautraitementdesprisonniers—pré�entiondesinfractions—in�estigationsetmiseenoeu�redepoursuitesàl’égardde�iolationsayanteulieu .

Traitementdesprisonniers—sur�ieetbien-êtredesprisonniersconsidéréscom-meobjectifprincipaldesrègleshumanitaires—standarddessoinsmédicauxdépendantdescirconstancesetdel’équipementdisponible—réfutationdel’argumentselonlequellemanquederessourcesfinancièresetd’infrastructuresseraituneexcuseacceptablepourlemanquedepriseenchargemédicale—assimilationdel’obligationpourlesprisonniersdemarcherpieds-nuslorsdesé�acuationsàuntraitementinhumain—responsabilitéengagéeparlaconfiscationdesaffairespersonnellesdesprisonnierssansreçupermettantleurfuturerestitution—séparationsystématique,ségrégationetl’endoctrinementobligatoiredesprisonniersassimilésàdessé�icesmoraux—absencederesponsabilitépourdemau�aisesconditionsdedétentiondesprisonniersnemet-tantpasendangerleursanté—obligationderapatrierlesprisonniersdemanièredili-gente—pasderéciprocitéexigéeenmatièrederapatriementdeprisonniers—demanded’éclaircissementrelati�eausortdeplusieurscombattantsdisparusconsidéréecommeraisonnableetappropriée,demêmequelasuspensionconsécuti�edurapatriement .

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

Procédure de soumission de réclamation—claire exposition des faits—claireidentificationdes�iolationsdudroitinternational—nécessitédedonneràl’autrePartieuneindicationsurlesréclamationsprésentéesainsiqu’unepossibilitéd’yrépondre—affinementsubséquentdelathéoriejuridiqueouprésentationplusdétailléedesfaitsnonconsidéréscommeunenou�elleplainte—nécessitéd’uneprocédured’arbitragepondéréeetinformée .

PartII—prisonersofwar eritrea’sclaim17 27

Réparation—indemnisationpécuniairepourlaconfiscationdeseffetspersonnelsdesprisonniers—restitutionnonconsidéréecommeconformeàlapratiqueinterna-tionale,niappropriéeouadéquate .

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Prisoners of War Eritrea’s Claim 17

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

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

TheHague,July1,2003

ParTial aWard—Prisoners of War—eritrea’s Claim 17 between the Claimant,

The state of eritrea, represented by:

Government of EritreaHisExcellency,AliSaidAbdela,MinisterofForeignAffairs,Agentfor

theGo�ernmentofEritreaProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-AgentfortheGo�ernmentofEritrea

Counsel and ConsultantsProfessorJamesCrawfordMr .PayamAkha�anMs .SemharAraia

28 eritrea/ethiopia

Ms .MeganMunzertMs .AmandaJones

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

Government of Ethiopia

HisExcellencyMr .SeyoumMesfin,MinisterofForeignAffairsoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,Agent

HisExcellencyAmbassadorFissehaYimer,PermanentRepresentati�eoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,Gene�a,Co-Agent

Mr .SeifeselassieLemma,Minister,PermanentMissionof theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,NewYork

Mr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFed-eralDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbaba

Counsel and Consultants

Mr .B .Dono�anPicard,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Memberof theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

Mr .W .DeVierPierson,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesProfessorSeanD .Murphy,GeorgeWashingtonUni�ersityLawSchool,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheStateBarofMaryland

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

Ms .LynnM .VanBuren,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofWisconsin

Mr .MichaelMcDonald,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .


Table of ConTenTs

I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30B . EthiopianPOWCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30C . GeneralCommentbytheCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

II . Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

III . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

A . Jurisdictiono�erClaimsArisingSubsequenttoDecember12,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

B . Jurisdictiono�erClaimsNotFiledbyDecember12,2001 . . . . 35C . AdditionalRelief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

IV . TheMerits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1 . QuantumofProofRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 . ProofofFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 . E�idenceundertheControloftheICRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

C . ViolationsoftheLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 . OrganizationalComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432 . MistreatmentofPOWsatCaptureanditsImmediateAf-

termath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 . TakingofthePersonalPropertyofPOWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 . PhysicalandMentalAbuseofPOWsinCamps . . . . . . . . . . 495 . UnhealthyConditionsinCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516 . InadequateMedicalCareinCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 . UnlawfulAssaultonFemalePOWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638 . DelayedRepatriationofPOWs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

V . AWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71D . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . . 71E . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

30 eritrea/ethiopia

i. introduction

a. summary of the Positions of the Parties1 . ThisClaim(“Eritrea’sClaim17;”“ER17”)hasbeenbroughttothe

CommissionbytheClaimant,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”),pursuanttoArti-cle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .TheClaimseeksafindingoftheliabilityoftheRespondent, theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”), forloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimantasaresultoftheRespond-ent’sallegedunlawfultreatmentofitsPrisonersofWar(“POWs”)whowerenationalsoftheClaimant .InitsStatementofClaim,theClaimantrequestedmonetarycompensation,costs,andsuchotherreliefasisjustandproper .InitsMemorial,theClaimantrequestsadditionalreliefintheformoforders:(a)thattheRespondentcooperatewiththeInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross(“ICRC”)ineffectinganimmediatereleaseofallremainingPOWsitholds;(b)thattheRespondentreturnpersonalpropertyofPOWsconfiscatedbyit;and(c)thattheRespondentdesistfromdisplayinginformationandpho-tographsofPOWstopublic�iew .

2 . TheRespondentassertsthatitfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitstreatmentofPOWs .TheRespondentdeniesthattheCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erclaimsrelatingtotherepatriationofPOWsando�erse�eralclaimsthatitallegeswerenotfiledbyDecember12,2001,andconsequentlywereextinguishedby�irtueofArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreement .TheRespondentalsoobjectstotheClaimant’srequestsfortheadditionalreliefintheformofordersasinappropriateandunnecessaryand,withrespecttorepatriation,asbeyondthepoweroftheCommission .

b. ethiopian PoW Camps3 . Ethiopia interned a total of approximately 2,600 Eritrean POWs

betweenthestartoftheconflictinMay1998andNo�ember29,2002,1whenallremainingEritreanPOWsregisteredbytheICRCwerereleased .

4 . Ethiopia utilized six permanent camps, some only briefly: Fiche,Bilate,FeresMai,MaiChew,MaiKenetalandDedessa .EthiopiaclosedeachcampupontransferofthePOWstotheirnextcamp .

5 . Ethiopiaalsooperatedse�eraltransitcamps,wherePOWswereheldforse�eraldaysorweeksupone�acuationfromthe�ariousfronts,includ-ing:Shogolle,Sheraro,Biyara,Agebe,AdiGrat,Bishuka,DedaLalay,EdagaHamus,ShelaloandSheshebit .EthiopiausedShogolle,whichislocatedonthe

1 TheICRCreportedregistering2,600EritreanPOWsatthetimeoftheAgreement .ICRC,ICRC repatriates 24 Ethiopian prisoners of war,ICRCPressRelease01/40(Gene�a,October10,2001) .


outskirtsofAddisAbaba,asamaintransitcampfromthebeginningoftheconflictuntilOctober2001 .POWsweretypicallyheldatShogolleforonetotwoweeksbeforebeingtransferredtopermanentcamps .

6 . In1998,EritreanPOWstakenintheearlystagesoftheconflictweretransferredfromShogolletoFicheandBilate .InJuneandJuly1998,approxi-mately148maleandfi�efemalePOWswereinternedatFiche,whichwaslocatedinthehighlandsintheOromiaregionapproximately120kilometersnorthofAddisAbabaoutsidethetownofFiche .InJuly1998,theFichePOWsweretrans-ferredtoBilatewherethey,alongwithsomesixtyadditionalprisoners,remaineduntiltheyweretransferredtoDedessainJune1999 .BilatewaslocatedontheflooroftheRiftValleyarea,450kilometerssouthofAddisAbaba .

7 . FromFebruarytoJune1999,EthiopiainternednewEritreanPOWsatFeresMai,aftere�acuatingthemfromtheDedaLalayorSherarotransitcamps .FeresMaiwaslocatedinthenorthwesternTigrayregion,betweenthetownsofAdwaandEnticho .Some300to400EritreanPOWs,includingsomefortywomen,weree�entuallyinternedatFeresMai .

8 . InJune1999,alloftheFeresMaiPOWswererelocatedtotheMaiChewcamp .MaiChewwaslocatedintheTigrayregion,northofAddisAbabaandabout120kilometerssouthofMekelejustoutsidethetownofMaiChew .Approximately360maleandfortyfemalePOWswereinternedatMaiChewuntil,inSeptember1999,theyweretransferredtoDedessa .

9 . FromMaytoJune2000,EritreanPOWswhowerecapturedontheWesternFrontwerefirstheldintheBiyaraandSherarotransitcampsandthentransferredtoMaiKenetal .MaiKenetal,whichwasinoperationfromMay2000untilJanuary2001,waslocatedintheTigrayregion,approximatelythirtykilometerssouthofAdwa .Some1,500to2,000Eritreanprisoners,includingeighttotenwomen,wereinternedatMaiKenetal .InAugust2000,themajor-ityofthePOWsweretransferredtoDedessa;someofthesickandwoundedremaineduntiltheirrepatriationinDecember2000andJanuary2001 .

10 . AlloftheremainingEritreanPOWsweree�entuallytransferredtotheDedessacamp,whichwasopenedinJune1999 .DedessawasoriginallyconstructedbytheDerg,thepriorEthiopiango�ernment,asamilitarytrain-ingbase .WhentheMaiKenetalprisonersweremo�edtoDedessainAugust2000,theyjoinedotherPOWsformerlyheldatBilate,MaiChewandFeresMai .Dedessa is located in theOromiaregion in the�alleyof theDedessaRi�er,300kilometerswestofAddisAbaba .DedessawasuseduntilNo�ember29,2002,whenallremainingEritreanPOWswerereleased .

C. General Comment by the Commission11 . AsthefindingsinthisAwardandintherelatedAwardinEthiopia’s

Claim4describe,thereweresignificantdifficultiesinbothParties’perform-

32 eritrea/ethiopia

anceofimportantlegalobligationsfortheprotectionofPOWs .Ne�ertheless,theCommissionmustrecordanimportantpreliminarypointthatpro�idesessentialcontextforwhatfollows .Basedontheextensi�ee�idenceadducedduringtheseproceedings,theCommissionbelie�esthatbothPartieshadacommitmenttothemostfundamentalprinciplesbearingonprisonersofwar .BothPartiesconductedorganized,officialtrainingprogramstoinstructtheirtroopsonprocedures tobe followedwhenPOWsare taken . Incontrast tomanyothercontemporaryarmedconflicts,bothEritreaandEthiopiaregu-larlyandconsistentlytookPOWs .Enemypersonnelwhowerehors de combatweremo�edawayfromthebattlefieldtoconditionsofgreatersafety .Further,althoughthesecasesin�ol�etwoofthepoorestcountriesintheworld,bothmadesignificanteffortstopro�ideforthesustenanceandcareofthePOWsintheircustody .

12 . Thereweredeficienciesofperformanceonbothsides,sometimessignificant, occasionally gra�e . Ne�ertheless, the e�idence in these casesshowsthatbothEritreaandEthiopiaendea�oredtoobser�etheirfundamen-talhumanitarianobligationstocollectandprotectenemysoldiersunabletoresistonthebattlefield .TheAwardsinthesecases,andthedifficultiesthattheyidentify,mustbereadagainstthisbackground .

ii. Proceedings

13 . TheCommissioninformedthePartiesonAugust29,2001thatitintendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerning liability,andsecond, if liability is found,con-cerningdamages .ThisClaimwasfiledonDecember12,2001 .AStatementofDefensewasfiledonApril15,2002 .TheClaimant’sMemorialwasfiledonAugust1,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialwasfiledonNo�em-ber1,2002 .AhearingontheissueofliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceinDecember2002inconjunctionwithahearingintherelatedClaim4oftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia .

iii. Jurisdiction

a. Jurisdiction over Claims arising subsequent to december 12, 2000

14 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementdefinesthejurisdictionoftheCommission .Itpro�ides,inter alia,thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforallloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�-ernmentagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconflictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”


15 . InthisClaim,asinEthiopia’sClaim4,eachPartycontendsthattheother’streatmentofPOWsfollowingtheoutbreakofhostilitiesinMay1998didnotmeetgo�erningstandardsofinternationallaw .BothClaimsproceedfromthepremise,whichtheCommissionfullyshares,thattheAgreementclearlyestablishestheCommission’sjurisdictiono�erclaimsregardingthetreatmentofPOWsintheperiodafterhostilitiesbeganinMay1998untiltheconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000 .ClaimsrelatingtothetreatmentofPOWsduringthatperiodclearlyrelatetotheconflict;areforloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�ernmentagainsttheother;andin�ol�ealleged�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .

16 . ThePartiesdonotagree,howe�er,whethertheCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erclaimsin�ol�inge�entsaftertheAgreementwasconclud-ed .Eritreahasbroughttwotypesofclaimsin�ol�inge�entsafterDecember12,2000:(a)continuedtreatmentofPOWsthatdidnotmeetthestandardsrequired by international law, and (b) the failure of Ethiopia to repatriatePOWswithoutdelayafterthecessationofhostilitiesasrequiredbycustomaryinternationallawandbyArticle118oftheGene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,August12,1949(“Gene�aCon�entionIII”) .2EthiopiamaintainsinthisClaimandinitsrelatedClaim4,thattheAgree-mentdoesnotgranttheCommissionjurisdictiono�erclaimsbaseduponthetreatmentofPOWsthatarosesubsequenttoDecember12,2000,includingclaimsfordelaysintheirrepatriation .Consequently,Ethiopiamadenoclaimsofthatsort .Howe�er,initsMemorialinitsClaim4andduringthehearing,Ethiopiaassertedthat,shouldtheCommissiondeterminethatithasjurisdic-tiono�er�iolationsoftheGene�aCon�entionIIIrequirementofrepatriationofPOWswithoutdelayafterthecessationofacti�ehostilities,“theCommis-sionshouldalsofindthatEritreafailedtorepatriateEthiopianPOWswithallduedispatchinaccordancewiththejus in bello.”3

17 . InitsCounter-MemorialforthisClaim,EthiopiareferredtoArti-cle2oftheAgreement,which,inrele�antpart,pro�ides:

Article 21 . In fulfilling theirobligationsunder internationalhumanitarian law,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entionsrelati�etotheprotectionof�ictimsofarmedconflict(“1949Gene�aCon�entions”),andincooperationwiththeInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross,thepartiesshallwithoutdelayreleaseandrepatriateallprisonersofwar .

18 . EthiopiapointedoutthattheCommissionhadearlierdecided,initsDecisionNo .1,that“claimsregardingtheinterpretationorimplementationoftheAgreementassucharenotwithin[its]grantofjurisdiction .”EthiopiaassertsthatrepatriationofPOWsisgo�ernedbyArticle2oftheAgreement,

2 75U .N .T .S .p .135;6U .S .T .p .3316 .3 Ethiopia’sClaim4,PrisonersofWar,Memorial,filedbyEthiopiaonAugust1,

2002,p .283[hereinafterET04MEM] .

34 eritrea/ethiopia

ratherthanbyGene�aCon�entionIII,thattheCommissioncouldnotdecideEritrea’sclaimswithrespecttorepatriationofPOWswithouttherebydecidingcompliancewithArticle2,andthattheseareadditionalreasonswhytheCom-missionhasnojurisdictiono�erclaimsrelatingtorepatriation .

19 . Priortothefilingofclaims,theCommissionhadaddressedthetem-poralscopeofitsjurisdictioninitsDecisionNo .1,issuedonJuly24,2001 .Thatpartofthedecision,renderedfollowingconsultationswiththeParties,wasasfollows:

TheCommissionhasconcludedthatcertainclaimsassociatedwithe�entsafter12December2000mayalso“relateto”theconflict,ifapartycandem-onstratethatthoseclaimsaroseasaresultofthearmedconflictbetweentheparties,oroccurredinthecourseofmeasurestodisengagecontendingforcesorotherwisetoendthemilitaryconfrontationbetweenthetwosides .Thesemightinclude,forexample,claimsbyeitherpartyregardingalleged�iolationsofinternationallawoccurringwhilearmedforcesarebeingwith-drawnfromoccupiedterritoryorotherwisedisengagingintheperiodafter12December2000 .AnysuchclaimsmustbefiledwithinthefilingperiodestablishedbytheAgreement .Moreo�er,asnotedinPartAabo�e,theCom-missiondoesnotha�ejurisdictiono�erclaimsforallegedbreachesoftheAgreement .

20 . ItisbeyonddisputethatallthepersonswhoarethesubjectofthepresentclaimsbecamePOWsduringthearmedconflictthatendedwiththeconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000 .TheCommissionbelie�esthatthetimelyreleaseandrepatriationofPOWsisclearlyamongthetypesofmeasuresassociatedwithdisengagingcontendingforcesandendingthemilitaryconfrontationbetweenthetwoPartiesthatfallwithinthescopeofitsDecisionNo .1 .Inthatconnection,internationallawandpracticerecognizetheimpor-tanceofthetimelyreleaseandreturnofPOWs,asdemonstratedbyArticle118ofGene�aCon�entionIIIwhichrequires that suchPOWs“bereleasedandrepatriatedwithoutdelayfollowingthecessationofacti�ehostilities .”

21 . TheCommissionholdsthataclaimbaseduponallegedmistreat-mentofsuchPOWssubsequenttoDecember12,2000,andaclaimbaseduponanallegedlyunjustifieddelayintheirsubsequentreleaseandrepatriationareclaimsthataroseasaresultofthearmedconflictbetweenthePartiesandrelatetothatconflictwithinthemeaningofitsDecisionNo .1 .Consequently,theCommissionfindsthatthemerefactthataclaimrelatestoallegedmis-treatmentofPOWssubsequenttoDecember12,2000,doesnotdepri�etheCommissionofjurisdictiono�erthatclaim .

22 . TheCommissionfindsuncon�incingEthiopia’sfurtherargumentsthatArticle2oftheAgreementeffecti�elyreplacedArticle118ofGene�aCon-�entionIIIasthego�erninglawandthattheCommissioncouldnotexercisejurisdictiono�erEritrea’sclaimbasedonArticle118withouttherebydecidingwhetherEthiopiawasinbreachofitsobligationsunderArticle2oftheAgree-ment .Itfrequentlyoccursininternationallawthatapartyfindsitselfsubject


tocumulati�eobligationsarisingindependentlyfrommultiplesources .4Arti-cle2itselfrecognizesthattherele�antrepatriationobligationsareobligations“underinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�en-tions . . . .”Article5oftheAgreementgrantstheCommissionjurisdictiono�erallclaimsrelatedtotheconflictthatresultfrom�iolationsofthe1949Gene�aCon�entionsorfromother�iolationsofinternationallaw .TheCommissionfindsnobasisinthetextofeitherArticle2orArticle5fortheconclusionthatitsjurisdictiono�erclaimsco�eredbyArticle5isrepealedorimpairedbythepro�isionsofArticle2 .Consequently,theCommissionfindsthatithasjuris-dictiono�erEritrea’sclaimsconcerningtherepatriationofPOWs .Ne�erthe-less,indealingwiththoseclaims,theCommissionshallexercisecaretoa�oidassumingorexercisingjurisdictiono�eranyclaimsconcerningcompliancewithArticle2oftheAgreement .

b. Jurisdiction over Claims not filed by december 12, 2001

23 . EthiopiachallengesthejurisdictionoftheCommissiono�erse�-eralclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialwhich,Ethiopiaasserts,werenotincludedinEritrea’sStatementofClaimonDecember12,2001,andcon-sequentlywereextinguishedbythetermsofArticle5,paragraph8,of theAgreement .ThePartiesagreethattheAgreementextinguishedanyclaimsnotfiledwiththeCommissionbythatdate .ThequestionbeforetheCommission,therefore, is todeterminewhetheranyclaimsassertedbyEritreawerenotamongtheclaimspresentedinitsStatementofClaim .

24 . ThefollowingclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialaresubjecttothischallenge:

1 . TheclaimthatPOWsweresubjectedtoinsultsandpubliccuriosity,con-trarytoArticle13ofGene�aCon�entionIII,includingtherelatedrequestforanorder;2 . TheclaimthatfemalePOWswereaccordedinappropriatehousingandsanitationconditions,contrarytoArticles25and29;3 . TheclaimthePOWsweremistreatedduringtransfersbetweencamps,contrarytoArticle46;and4 . The claim for mistreatment of non-POW ci�ilians held in POWcamps .25 . TheCommissionfindsthatthefirstthreeoftheseclaimswerenot

identifiedinEritrea’sStatementofClaimsufficientlytosatisfythejurisdic-tionalrequirementsoftheAgreement .TheCommission’sRulesofProcedureindicatetherequirementsforfilingaclaim .UnderArticle24(3)(c)and(d)oftheRules,StatementsofClaimmustinclude“astatementofthefactssupport-

4 CaseconcerningMilitaryandParamilitaryActi�itiesInandAgainstNicaragua(Nicar. v. U.S.),1986I .C .J .p .14paras .174–178(June27) .

36 eritrea/ethiopia

ingtheclaimorclaims”andidentify“the�iolationor�iolationsofinterna-tionallawonthebasisofwhichtheclaimorclaimsareallegedtoha�earisen .”Theserequirementsarenotemptyformalities .Theyser�ethe�italfunctionofensuringthatRespondentsaregi�enafairindicationfromtheoutsetofwhattheymustanswerintheclaimsfiledagainstthem .Thisisparticularlyimpor-tantintheseproceedings,whereeachsidehasonlytwowrittenpleadingsandlimitedtimetode�elopitsdefensestoaclaim .

26 . MostoftheclaimsassertedinEritrea’sMemorialwereindicatedquitespecificallyinitsStatementofClaim,inwhichboththenatureoftheallegedillegalactandtherele�antspecificpro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIIIwereindicated .Thesefirstthreechallengedclaimsareofadifferentcharac-ter .TheclaimthatPOWswerewronglysubjectedtoinsultsandpubliccurios-ityrestslargelyonallegationsthatEthiopiaplacedphotographsandpersonalinformationconcerningnumerousPOWsonawebsite .Howe�er,thesematterswerenotmentionedintheDecember2001StatementofClaim .Indeed,dur-ingthehearing,Eritreaacknowledgedthatithadonlylearnedofthewebsitese�eralmonthsaftertheclaimswerefiled .5Neitheroftheothertwochallengedclaims(failuretopro�idefemaleprisonerswithproperhousingandsanitaryfacilitiesandtheabuseofprisonersduringtransfer)wasidentifiedwiththedegreeofclarityrequiredtopermitbalancedandinformedproceedings .Therearese�eralgeneralreferencestoallegedmistreatmentoffemalePOWs,dealtwithelsewhereinthisAward,andgeneralizedallegationsofphysicalabuseofPOWsinEritrea’sStatementofClaim,butthesewerenotsufficienttogi�etheRespondentfairwarningofwhatithadtoanswer .Consequently,thefirstthreeclaimslistedabo�ewereextinguishedpursuanttoArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreementandcannotbeconsideredbytheCommission .

27 . ThisrulingdoesnotmeanthattheStatementsofClaimfreezetheissues before the Commission . The Commission understands that, duringtheproceedings,thePartiesmaywishtorefinetheirlegaltheoriesorpresentmoredetailedoraccurateportrayalsoftheunderlyingfacts .Article26oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedurepermitsthiswithinappropriatelimits .TheCommissionalsorecognizesthatcertaine�idencesubmittedinsupportoftheseextinguishedclaimsisappropriateforconsiderationinthecontextofotherproperlyfiledclaims,andithasconsideredsuche�idenceindecidingthoseclaims .

28 . TheCommissionalsoagrees that the fourthof thesechallengedclaimsisnotbeforeitinthepresentclaim,butthatisforadifferentreason .Allmistreatmentofci�iliansisthesubjectofotherclaimsbybothParties,whicharetobeheardanddecidedinaseparateproceeding .

29 . AllotherclaimsassertedbyEritreainthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

5 Transcriptof theEritrea/EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofDecember3–14,2002,PeacePalace,TheHague,p .44[hereinafterTranscript] .


C. additional relief30 . Withrespect toEthiopia’sobjectionstoEritrea’srequests inthis

Claimforadditionalrelief intheformoforders,theCommissionreser�esthoseissuestobedealtwithaspartofitsdecisionsonthemerits .

iV. The merits

a. applicable law31 . Article5,paragraph13,oftheAgreementpro�idesthat“inconsid-

eringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedureismodeledonthefamiliarlanguageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice .ItdirectstheCommissiontolookto:

1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,establishingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties;2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;4 . Judicial andarbitraldecisionsand the teachingsof themosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeter-minationofrulesoflaw .32 . Themostob�iouslyrele�antsourceoflawforthepresentAwardis

Gene�aCon�entionIII .BothPartiesreferextensi�elytotheCon�entionintheirpleadings,andthee�idencedemonstratesthatbothPartiesrelieduponitfortheinstructionoftheirarmedforcesandfortherulesofthecampsinwhichtheyheldPOWs .ThePartiesagreethattheCon�entionwasapplicablefromAugust14,2000,thedateofEritrea’saccession,buttheydisagreeastoitsapplicabilitypriortothatdate .

33 . EthiopiasignedthefourGene�aCon�entionsin1949andratifiedthemin1969 .Consequently,theywereinforceinEthiopiain1993whenErit-reabecameanindependentState .SuccessorStatesoftenseektomaintainsta-bilityoftreatyrelationshipsafteremergingfromwithinthebordersofanotherStatebyannouncingtheirsuccessiontosomeorallofthetreatiesapplicablepriortotheirindependence .Indeed,treatysuccessionmayhappenautomati-callyforcertaintypesoftreaties .6Howe�er, theCommissionhasnotbeenshowne�idencethatwouldpermitittofindthatsuchautomaticsuccessiontotheGene�aCon�entionsoccurredintheexceptionalcircumstanceshere,desirablethoughsuchsuccessionwouldbeasageneralmatter .FromthetimeofitsindependencefromEthiopiain1993,seniorEritreanofficialsmadeclearthatEritreadidnotconsideritselfboundbytheGene�aCon�entions .

6 CaseconcerningtheGabcíko�o-NagymarosProject(Hung ./Slo� .),1997I .C .J .p .7para .123(Sept .25) .

38 eritrea/ethiopia

34 . Duringtheperiodofthearmedconflictandpriortotheseproceed-ings,EthiopialikewiseconsistentlymaintainedthatEritreawasnotapartytotheGene�aCon�entions .7TheICRC,whichhasaspecialinterestandrespon-sibilityforpromotingcompliancewiththeGene�aCon�entions,likewisedidnotatthattimeregardEritreaasapartytotheCon�entions .8

35 . Thus,itise�identthatwhenEritreaseparatedfromEthiopiain1993ithadaclearopportunitytomakeastatementaffirmingitssuccessiontotheCon�entions,butthee�idenceshowsthatitrefusedtodoso .Itconsistentlyrefusedtodososubsequently,andin2000,whenitdecidedtobecomeapartytotheCon�entions,itdidsobyaccession,notbysuccession .Whileitmaybethatcontinuityoftreatyrelationshipsoftencanbepresumed,absentfactstothecontrary,nosuchpresumptioncouldproperlybemadeinthepresentcasein�iewofthesefacts .Theseunusualcircumstancesrenderthepresentsituation�erydifferentfromthataddressedintheJudgementbytheAppealsChamberoftheInternationalTribunalfortheFormerYugosla�iaintheČelebići Case.9ItisclearherethatneitherEritrea,EthiopianorthedepositoryoftheCon�en-tions,theSwissFederalCouncil,consideredEritreaapartytotheCon�entionsuntilitaccededtothemonAugust14,2000 .Thus,fromtheoutbreakoftheconflictinMay1998untilAugust14,2000,EritreawasnotapartytoGene�aCon�entionIII .Ethiopia’sargumenttothecontrary,inrelianceuponArticle34oftheViennaCon�entiononSuccessionofStatesinRespectofTreaties,10cannotpre�ailo�erthesefacts .

36 . AlthoughEritreawasnotapartytotheGene�aCon�entionspriortoitsaccessiontothem,theCon�entionsmightstillha�ebeenapplicabledur-ingthearmedconflictwithEthiopiapursuanttothefinalpro�isionofArticle2commontoallfourCon�entions,whichstates:

AlthoughoneofthePowersinconflictmaynotbeapartytothepresentCon�ention,thePowerswhoarepartiestheretoshallremainboundbyitintheirmutualrelations .TheyshallfurthermorebeboundbytheCon�entioninrelationtothesaidPower,ifthelatteracceptsandappliesthepro�isionsthereof .

7 BothPartiesreferredtotheStatementbyMr .MinelikAlemu,Obser�erforEthio-piaattheFiftiethSessionoftheU .N .Sub-CommissiononthePre�entionofDiscrimina-tionandProtectionofMinoritiesunderItem10on“FreedomofMo�ement”intheExer-ciseoftheRightofReply(Gene�a,August24,1998),available at<http://www .ethemb .se/s980824_2 .htm> .SeeET04MEMp .34note97,p .57note241,p .146note616;ProfessorBrilmayer,Transcriptp .62 .

8 ICRC,“Ethiopia-Eritrea:Aidformedicalfacilitiesandthedisplaced”,ICRC News 98/23,June12,1998,inEritrea’sClaim17,PrisonersofWar,Memorial,filedbyEritreaonAugust1,2002,DocumentaryAnnexp .40[hereinafterER17MEM] .

9 ČelebićiCase(The Prosecutor v. Delalicetal .),2001ICTYAppealsChamberJudge-mentCaseNo .IT-96-21-A(Feb .20) .

10 1946U .N .T .S .p .3;17I .L .M .p .1488 .


37 . Howe�er,thee�idencereferredtoabo�eclearlydemonstratesthat,priortoitsaccession,EritreahadnotacceptedtheCon�entions .Thisnon-acceptancewasalsodemonstratedbyEritrea’srefusaltoallowtherepresenta-ti�esoftheICRCto�isitthePOWsithelduntilafteritsaccessiontotheCon-�entions .

38 . Consequently,theCommissionholdsthat,withrespecttomatterspriortoAugust14,2000,thelawapplicabletothearmedconflictbetweenEritreaandEthiopiaiscustomaryinternationallaw .Initspleadings,Eritrearecognizesthat,formostpurposes,“thedistinctionbetweencustomarylawregardingPOWsandtheGene�aCon�entionIIIisnotsignificant .”11Itdoes,howe�er,offerasexamplesofthemoretechnicalanddetailedpro�isionsoftheCon�entionthatitconsidersnotapplicableascustomarylawtherightoftheICRCto�isitPOWs,thepermissionoftheuseoftobaccoinArticle26,andtherequirementofcanteensinArticle28 .ItalsosuggeststhatpaymentofPOWsforlaborandcertainburialrequirementsfordeceasedPOWsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationallaw .12Eritreacitesthevon LeebdecisionoftheAlliedMilitaryTribunalin1948assupporti�eofitspositiononthisquestion .13

39 . Gi�enthenearlyuni�ersalacceptanceofthefourGene�aCon�en-tionsof1949,thequestionoftheextenttowhichtheirpro�isionsha�ebecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawarisestodayonlyrarely .TheCommissionnotesthatthevon Leebcase(whichfoundthatnumerouspro�isionsatthecoreofthe1929Con�entionhadacquiredcustomarystatus)addressedtheextenttowhichthepro�isionsofacon�entionconcludedin1929hadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawduringtheSecondWorldWar,thatis,aconflictthatoccurredtentosixteenyearslater .InthisClaim,theCommissionfacesthequestionoftheextenttowhichthepro�isionsofacon�entionconcludedin1949andsinceadheredtobyalmostallStateshadbecomepartofcustom-aryinternationallawduringaconflictthatoccurredfiftyyearslater .Moreo-�er,treaties,liketheGene�aCon�entionsof1949,thatde�elopinternationalhumanitarianlaware,bytheirnature,legaldocumentsthatbuilduponthefoundationlaidbyearliertreatiesandbycustomaryinternationallaw .14Thesetreatiesareconcludedforthepurposeofcreatingatreatylawforthepartiestothecon�entionandfortherelatedpurposeofcodifyingandde�elopingcustomaryinternationallawthatisapplicabletoallnations .TheGene�aCon-�entionsof1949successfullyaccomplishedbothpurposes .

11 ER17MEMp .19 .12 Eritrea’sClaim17,PrisonersofWar,Counter-MemorialtoER17MEM,filedby

EthiopiaonNo�ember1,2002,pp .27–28[hereinafterER17CM] .13 U.S. v. Wilhelm von Leeb,etal .,inTrials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg

Military Tribunals under Control Council Law,No .10,VolumeXI,p .462(UnitedStatesGo�ernmentPrintingOffice,WashingtonD .C .1950) .

14 SeeRichardR .Baxter,Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary Interna-tional Law,41Brit .Y .B .Int’lL .pp .275,286(1965–66) .

40 eritrea/ethiopia

40 . Certainly,thereareimportantmodernauthoritiesfortheproposi-tionthattheGene�aCon�entionsof1949ha�elargelybecomeexpressionsofcustomaryinternationallaw,andbothPartiestothiscaseagree .15Themerefactthattheyha�eobtainednearlyuni�ersalacceptancesupportsthisconclu-sion .16Therearealsosimilarauthorities for thepropositionthatrules thatcommendthemsel�estotheinternationalcommunityingeneral,suchasrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,canmorequicklybecomepartofcustom-aryinternationallawthanothertypesofrulesfoundintreaties .17TheCom-missionagrees .

41 . Consequently, the Commission holds that the law applicable tothisClaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw,asexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon-�entionsof1949 .Thefrequentin�ocationofpro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIIIbybothPartiesinsupportoftheirclaimsanddefensesisfullyconsistentwiththisholding .Whene�ereitherPartyassertsthataparticularrele�antpro�isionofthoseCon�entionsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwilldecidethatques-tion,andtheburdenofproofwillbeontheassertingParty .

42 . ContrarytotheargumentofEthiopia,theCommissiondoesnotunderstandthereferencetotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949inArticle5,para-graph1,oftheAgreementasachoiceoflawpro�isionmeaningthattheCon-�entionsinalltheirdetailsbecamebindingastreatylawretroacti�elyuponEritreaonceitaccededtothem .ThatreferencetotheCon�entionswasappro-priatesimplybecause,priortotheconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000,bothnationshadbecomePartiestotheCon�entions .

b. evidentiary issues1. Quantum of Proof Required

43 . The Commission’s brief Rules of Procedure regarding e�idencereflectcommoninternationalpractice .Articles14 .1and14 .2state:

14 .1 Eachpartyshallha�etheburdenofpro�ingthefactsitreliesontosupportitsclaimordefense .14 .2 TheCommissionshalldeterminetheadmissibility,rele�ance,mate-rialityandweightofthee�idenceoffered .

15 See,e .g .,Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,1996I .C .J .p .226para .79(July8);ReportoftheSecretary-GeneralPursuanttoParagraph2ofSecurityCouncilResolution808(May3,1993),U .N .Doc .S/25704,para .35;The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictsp .24(DieterFlecked .,OxfordUni�ersityPress,1995);andTheo-dorMeron,Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Lawp .45(ClarendonPress,1989) .

16 See,e.g.,JonathanI .Charney,International Agreements and the Development of Customary International Law,61Wash .L .Re� .p .971(1986) .

17 See, e.g.,Meron,supranote15atpp .56–58 .


44 . Alsoreflectingcommoninternationalpractice, theRulesdonotarticulatethequantumordegreeofproofthatapartymustpresenttomeetthisburdenofproof .

45 . At thehearing, counsel forbothParties carefullyaddressed thequantumorle�elofprooftoberequired,describingtheappropriatequan-tumin�erysimilarterms .CounselforEthiopiaindicatedthatinassessingitsrequestsforfindingsofsystematicandwidespread�iolationsofinterna-tionallawbyEritrea,“thebarshouldbeset�eryhigh,”particularlygi�entheseriousnessofthe�iolationsalleged .EthiopiaaccordinglyproposedthattheCommissionshouldrequiree�idencethatis“�erycompelling,�erycredible,�erycon�incing .”18CounselforEritrealargelyagreed,alsonotingthegra�ityofthe�iolationsallegedandurgingtheCommissiontorequire“clearandcon-�incing”e�idence .19Intheirwrittenororalpleadings,bothsidescitedjuris-prudenceoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeindicatingtheneedforahighdegreeofcertaintyinmattersin�ol�inggra�echargesagainstastate .20

46 . TheCommissionagreeswiththeessenceofthepositionad�ocat-edbybothParties .Particularlyinlightofthegra�ityofsomeoftheclaimsad�anced,theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon�incinge�idenceinsup-portofitsfindings .

47 . TheCommissiondoesnotacceptanysuggestionthat,becausesomeclaimsmay in�ol�eallegationsofpotentiallycriminal indi�idualconduct,it shouldapplyane�enhigherstandardofproofcorresponding to that inindi�idualcriminalproceedings .TheCommissionisnotacriminaltribunalassessingindi�idualcriminalresponsibility .Itmustinsteaddecidewhetherthereha�ebeenbreachesofinternationallawbasedonnormalprinciplesofstateresponsibility .Thepossibilitythatparticularfindingsmayin�ol�e�eryseriousmattersdoesnotchangetheinternationallawrulestobeappliedorfundamentallytransformthequantumofe�idencerequired .

2. Proof of Facts48 . Eritreapresentedsixty-se�ensigneddeclarationswithitsMemorial

andtenwithitsCounter-Memorial .OfthedeclarantswhosedeclarationsweresubmittedwiththeMemorial,forty-eightwereformerPOWsandtenwereformerci�ilianinternees .MostofthesedeclarantswereamongthesickorwoundedreleasedaftercessationofhostilitiesinDecember2000orinJanuaryorMarch2001 .Eritreaalsosubmittedcopiesofnewspaperarticlesandpublicstatements,�oluminousmedicalandhospitalrecords,receiptsforexpendi-turesrelatedtoPOWs,andotherdocuments .Atthehearing,Eritreapresentedasafactwitnessoneformerci�ilianinternee,whohadbeeninternedatFiche,BilateandDedessa;asafactandexpertwitness,Dr .HaileMehtsum,Health

18 ProfessorMurphy,Transcriptp .185 .19 ProfessorCrawford,Transcriptpp .333–334 .20 See, e.g.,ET04MEMp .47;Transcriptpp .333–334 .

42 eritrea/ethiopia

Officer for theMinistryofDefense,SurgeonGeneralandformerMinisterofHealthofEritrea;andasa factwitness,Dr .FetsumberhanGebrenegus,apsychiatristandthemedicaldirectorofSt .Mary’sPsychiatricHospitalinAsmara .Indefense,EthiopiapresentedasafactwitnessMajorTadegeYohala,deputycommanderofFeresMaiandMaiChewandcommanderofDedessa;andasanexpertwitness,Dr .MichaelGoodman,amedicaldoctorwithapub-lichealthdegree .

49 . In e�aluating the probati�e strength of a declaration to portraya�iolation(orse�eral�iolations)ofinternationallaw,theCommissionhasconsideredtheclarityanddetailoftherele�anttestimony,andwhetherthise�idenceiscorroboratedbytestimonyinotherdeclarationsorbyothera�ail-ablee�idence .Theconsistentandcumulati�echaracterofmuchoftheParties’e�idencewasofsignificant�aluetotheCommissioninmaking its factualjudgements .21Whenthetotalityofthee�idenceofferedbytheClaimantpro-�idedclearandcon�incinge�idenceofa�iolation—i.e.,aprima faciecase—theCommissioncarefullyexaminedthee�idenceofferedbytheRespondent(usuallyintheformofadeclarationorcamprecords)todeterminewhetheriteffecti�elyrebuttedtheClaimant’sproof .

3. Evidence under the Control of the ICRC

50 . Throughouttheconflict,representati�esoftheICRC�isitedEthi-opia’scamps .BeginninglateinAugust2000,theICRCalsobegan�isitingEritrea’sNakfacamp .BothPartiesindicatedthattheypossessICRCreportsregardingthesecamp�isits,aswellasotherrele�antICRCcommunications .

51 . TheCommissionhopedtobenefitfromtheICRC’sexperiencedandobjecti�eassessmentofconditionsinbothParties’camps .ItaskedthePartiestoincludetheICRCreportsoncamp�isitsintheirwrittensubmissionsortoexplaintheirinabilitytodoso .BothrespondedthattheywishedtodosobutthattheICRCopposedallowingtheCommissionaccesstothesematerials .TheICRCmaintainedthattheycouldnotbepro�idedwithoutICRCconsent,whichwouldnotbegi�en .

52 . WiththeendorsementoftheParties,theCommission’sPresidentmetwithseniorICRCofficialsinGene�ainAugust2002tore�iewthesitua-tionandtoseekICRCconsenttoCommissionaccess,onarestrictedorcon-fidentialbasisifrequired .

53 . TheICRCmadea�ailabletotheCommissionandthePartiescop-iesofallrele�antpublicdocuments,butitconcludedthatitcouldnotpermitaccesstootherinformation .ThatdecisionreflectedtheICRC’sdeeplyheldbeliefthatitsabilitytoperformitsmissionrequiresstrongassurancesofcon-

21 Inthatconnection,seeSyl�ainVité,Les procédures internationales d’établissement des faits dans la mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitairepp .345–346(Editionsdel’Uni�ersitédeBruxelles,1999) .


fidentiality .22TheCommissionhasgreatrespectfortheICRCandunderstandstheconcernsunderlyingitsgeneralpoliciesofconfidentialityandnon-disclo-sure .Ne�ertheless,theCommissionbelie�esthat,intheuniquesituationhere,wherebothpartiestothearmedconflictagreedthatthesedocumentsshouldbepro�idedtotheCommission,theICRCshouldnotha�eforbiddenthemfromdoingso .BoththeCommissionandtheICRCshareaninterestintheproperandinformedapplicationofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Accord-ingly,theCommissionmustrecorditsdisappointmentthattheICRCwasnotpreparedtoallowitaccesstothesematerials .

C. Violations of the law

1. Organizational Comment

54 . Ascommentatorsfrequentlyha�eobser�ed,Gene�aCon�entionIII,withits143Articlesandfi�eAnnexes,isanextremelydetailedandcompre-hensi�ecodeforthetreatmentofPOWs .23Gi�enitslengthandcomplexity,theCon�entionmixestogether,sometimesinasingleparagraph,obligationsof�erydifferentcharacterandimportance .Someobligations,suchasArticle13’srequirementofhumanetreatment,areabsolutelyfundamentaltotheprotec-tionofPOWs’lifeandhealth .Otherpro�isionsaddressmattersofprocedureordetailthatmayhelpeasetheirburdens,butarenotnecessarytoensuretheirlifeandhealth .

55 . Undercustomaryinternationallaw,asreflectedinGene�aCon�en-tionIII,therequirementoftreatmentofPOWsashumanbeingsisthebedrockuponwhichallotherobligationsoftheDetainingPowerrest .AtthecoreoftheCon�entionregimearethelegalobligationstokeepPOWsali�eandingoodheath .24Theholdingsmadeinthissectionareorganizedtoemphasizethesecoreobligations .

56 . ItshouldalsobestatedattheoutsetthattheCommissiondoesnotseeitstasktobethedeterminationofliabilityofaPartyforeachindi�idualincidentofillegalitysuggestedbythee�idence .Rather,itistodetermineliabil-ityforserious�iolationsofthelawbytheParties,whichareusuallyillegalactsoromissionsthatwerefrequentorper�asi�eandconsequentlyaffectedsignificantnumbersof�ictims .TheseparametersaredictatedbythelimitofwhatisfeasibleforthetwoPartiestobriefandargueandfortheCommissiontodetermineinlightofthetimeandresourcesmadea�ailablebytheParties .

22 SeeGaborRona,“TheICRCpri�ilegenottotestify:Confidentialityinaction”,84Int’l Rev. Red Crossp .207(2002) .

23 See, e.g.,GeoffreyBest,War and Law since 1945p .135(ClarendonPress,1994) .24 See YoramDinstein,Prisoners of War,inEncyclopediaofPublicInternational

Law,Volume4,pp .146,148(RudolfBernhardted .,North-HollandPublishingCompany,1982) .

44 eritrea/ethiopia

2. Mistreatment of POWs at Capture and its Immediate Aftermath

57 . Oftheforty-eightEritreanPOWdeclarants,thirty-onewerealreadywoundedatcaptureandnearlyalltestifiedtotreatmentofthesickorwoundedbyEthiopianforcesuponcaptureatthefrontandduringe�acuation .Conse-quently,inadditiontothecustomaryinternationallawstandardsreflectedinGene�aCon�entionIII,theCommissionalsoappliesthestandardsreflectedintheGene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickinArmedForcesintheFieldonAugust12,1949(“Gene�aCon�en-tionI”) .25ForawoundedorsickPOW,thepro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIapplyalongwithGene�aCon�entionIII .Amongotherpro�isions,Article12ofGene�aCon�entionIdemandsrespectandprotectionofwoundedorsickmembersofthearmedforcesin“allcircumstances .”

58 . AState’sobligationtoensurehumanetreatmentofenemysoldierscanbese�erelytestedintheheatedandconfusedmomentsimmediatelyfol-lowingcaptureorsurrenderandduringe�acuationfromthebattlefronttothe rear .Ne�ertheless, customary international lawas reflected inGene�aCon�entionsIandIIIabsolutelyprohibitsthekillingofPOWs,requiresthewoundedandsicktobecollectedandcaredfor,anddemandspromptandhumanee�acuation .26

a. Abusive Treatment59 . Theforty-eightEritreanPOWdeclarationsrecountafewdisquieting

instancesofEthiopiansoldiersdeliberatelykillingPOWsfollowingcapture .Threedeclarantsga�eeyewitnessaccountsallegingthatwoundedcomradeswereshotandabandonedtospeedupe�acuation .

60 . TheCommissionrecei�ednoe�idencethatEthiopianauthoritiesconductedinquiriesintoanysuchbattlefielde�entsorpursueddisciplineasrequiredunderArticle121ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Howe�er,se�eralEri-treanPOWdeclarantsdescribedoccasionswhenEthiopiansoldiersthreatenedtokillEritreanPOWsatthefrontorduringe�acuation,buteitherrestrainedthemsel�esorwerestoppedbytheircomrades .Ethiopiapresentedsubstantiale�idenceregardingtheinternationalhumanitarianlawtraininggi�entoitstroops .TheaccountsofcaptureanditsimmediateaftermathpresentedtotheCommissioninthisClaimsuggestthatthistraininggenerallywaseffecti�einpre�entingunlawfulkilling,e�en“intheheatofthemoment”aftercaptureandsurrender .

25 75U .N .T .S .p .31;6U .S .T .p .3114 .26 SeeCommonArticle3(1)(a),(2);Gene�aCon�entionI,Articles12,15;Gene�a

Con�entionIII,Articles13,20,130 .


61 . Onbalance,andwithoutinanywaycondoningisolatedincidentsofunlawfulkillingbyEthiopiansoldiers,theCommissionfindsthatthereisnotsufficientcorroboratede�idencetofindEthiopialiableforfrequentorrecur-ringkillingofEritreanPOWsatcaptureoritsaftermath .

62 . Incontrast,Eritreadidpresentclearandcon�incinge�idence,intheformofcumulati�eandreinforcingaccountsintheEritreanPOWdeclara-tions,offrequentphysicalabuseofEritreanPOWsbytheircaptorsbothatthefrontandduringe�acuation .Asignificantnumberofthedeclarantsreport-edthatEthiopiantroopsthreatenedandbeatEritreanprisoners,sometimesbrutallyandsometimesinflictingblowsdirectlytowounds .Insomecases,EthiopiansoldiersdeliberatelysubjectedEritreanPOWsto�erbalandphysi-calabuse,includingbeatingandstoningfromci�iliancrowdsinthecourseoftransit .

63 . This e�idence of frequent beatings and other unlawful physicalabuseofEritreanPOWsatcaptureorshortlyaftercaptureisclear,con�incingandessentiallyunrebutted .AlthoughtheCommissionhasnoe�idencethatEthiopiaencourageditssoldierstoabusePOWsatcapture,theconclusionisuna�oidablethat,ataminimum,Ethiopiafailedtotakeeffecti�emeasures,asrequiredbyinternationallaw,topre�entsuchabuse .Consequently,Ethiopiaisliableforthatfailure .

b. Medical Care Immediately After Capture

64 . TheCommissionturnsnexttoEritrea’sallegationsthatEthiopiafailedtopro�idenecessarymedicalattentiontoEritreanPOWsaftercaptureand during e�acuation, as required under customary international law asreflectedinGene�aCon�entionsI(Article12)andIII(Articles20and15) .SomefourteenoftheEritreandeclarantstestifiedthattheirwoundsortheircomrades’woundswerenotbandagedatthefrontorcleanedinthefirstdaysandweeksaftercapture,inatleastonecaseapparentlyleadingtodeathafteratransitjourney .Inrebuttal,Ethiopiaofferede�idencethatitssoldierscarriedbandagesandhadbeentrainedtowrapwoundstostopbleeding,butnottowashwoundsimmediatelyatthefrontbecauseofthescarcityofbothwaterandtime .

65 . TheCommissionbelie�esthattherequirementtopro�idePOWswithmedicalcareduringtheinitialperiodaftercapturemustbeassessedinlightoftheharshconditionsonthebattlefieldandthelimitedextentofmedi-caltrainingandequipmenta�ailabletofrontlinetroops .Onbalance,andrec-ognizingthelogisticalandresourcelimitationsonthemedicalcareEthiopiacouldpro�ideatthefront,thee�idenceindicatesthat,onthewhole,Ethiopianforcesga�ewoundedEritreansoldiersbasicfirstaidtreatmentuponcapture .Hence,Ethiopiaisnotliableforthisalleged�iolation .

46 eritrea/ethiopia

c. Evacuation Conditions

66 . Eritreaalsoallegesthat,inadditiontopoormedicalcare,Ethio-piafailedtoensurehumanee�acuationconditions .AsreflectedinArticles19and20ofGene�aCon�entionIII,theDetainingPowerisobligedtoe�acuateprisonershumanely,safelyandassoonaspossiblefromcombatzones;onlyifthereisagreaterriskine�acuationmaythewoundedorsickbetemporar-ilykeptinthecombatzone,andtheymustnotbeunnecessarilyexposedtodanger .Themeasureofahumanee�acuationisthat,assetoutinArticle20,POWsshouldbee�acuated“inconditionssimilartothosefortheforcesoftheDetainingPower .”

67 . TheEritreandeclarantsdescribedextremelydifficult e�acuationconditions .ThePOWswereforcedtowalkfromthefrontforhoursordayso�er rough terrain, often in pain from their own wounds, often carryingwoundedcomrades,ofteninharshweather,andoftenwithlittleornofoodandwater .Ethiopiaofferedrebuttale�idencethatitssoldiersfacednearlythesameuna�oidablydifficultconditions,thatsoldiersatthefrontcouldnotbeexpectedtocarryextrafoodforprisoners,andthatrationswerepro�idedattransitcamps .27

68 . Onbalance,andwithoneexception, theCommissionfindsthatEthiopian troopssatisfied the legal requirements fore�acuations fromthebattlefieldundertheharshgeographic,militaryandlogisticalcircumstances .Theexceptionisthefrequent,butnotin�ariable,Ethiopianpracticeofseizingfootwear,testifiedtobyse�eraldeclarants .Althoughtheharshnessoftheter-rainandweatheronthemarchestothecampsmayha�ebeenoutofEthiopia’scontrol,toforcethePOWstowalkbarefootinsuchconditionsunnecessar-ilycompoundedtheirmisery .AlthoughEthiopiasuggested,inthecontextoftransitcamps,thatitispermissibletorestrictshoestopre�entescape,28theICRCCommentaryistothecontrary,29andEthiopiahasclaimedagainstEri-treaforthesameoffense .TheCommissionfindsEthiopialiableforinhumanetreatmentduringe�acuationsfromthebattlefieldasaresultofitsforcingEri-treanPOWstogowithoutfootwearduringe�acuationmarches .

69 . Turningtothetimingofe�acuation,someoftheEritreandeclar-antsdescribedwhattheyconsideredtobedelayede�acuations .Onerecount-edbeingbeatenand lefton thebattlefield for threedays .Howe�er,othersdescribedrapid,ifoftenuncomfortableorfrightening,mo�ementsfromthebattlefield .Ethiopiadefendedbyarguingthatthecircumstancesofthecon-flictoftenpre�entedimmediatee�acuation,particularlyofthewounded .30The

27 SeeEthiopia’sClaim4,PrisonersofWar,Counter-MemorialtoET04MEM,filedbyEritreaonNo�ember1,2002,pp .196,198[hereinafterET04CM] .

28 See id.atp .213 .29 JeandePreuxet al.,Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,

VolumeIII,atp .166note4(JeanS .Pictet,ed .,ICRC,Gene�a1960) .30 See, e.g.,ET04CMp .56 .


CommissionneednotaddressEthiopia’scontentionthatEritreamustpro�ethate�acuationdelaysafterspecificbattleswerea�oidable,31becauseitfindsthatEritreadidnotsubmitclearandcon�incinge�idenceofsystematicdelayorunsafeconditionsine�acuations .

d. Coercive Interrogation

70 . EritreaallegesfrequentabuseinEthiopia’sinterrogationofPOWs,commencingatcaptureande�acuation .InternationallawdoesnotprohibittheinterrogationofPOWs,butitdoesrestricttheinformationtheyareobligedtore�ealandprohibitstortureorothermeasuresofcoercion,includingthreatsand“unpleasantordisad�antageoustreatmentofanykind .”32

71 . Howe�er,onlya�erysmallnumberofEritreandeclarantstestifiedthattheywerebeatenorseriouslythreatenedduringinterrogation .Withoutcondoninganyisolatedincidentsofabuse,theCommissionfindsthatthee�i-dencewasinsufficienttoshowapatternofcoerci�einterrogationofPOWsatcaptureorthereafter .

3. Taking of the Personal Property of POWs

72 . Eritrea alleges widespread confiscation by Ethiopian soldiers ofPOWs’moneyandother�aluables,andofphotographsandidentitycards,eitheratthetimeofcaptureorthereafter .EritreaaccordinglyaskedtheCom-missionto“orderthereturnofallirreplaceablepersonalpropertytoEritreanPOWsthatwasconfiscatedbyEthiopia . . .,andinparticularthatEthiopiareturnidentitydocumentsandpersonalphotographsdisplayedontheInter-net .”33

73 . Article18ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequiresthatPOWsbeallowedtoretaintheirpersonalproperty .Cashand�aluablesmaybeimpoundedbyorderofanofficer,subjecttodetailedregistrationandothersafeguards .Ifpris-oners’propertyistaken,itmustbereceiptedandsafelyheldforlaterreturn .UnderArticle17,identitydocumentscanbeconsultedbytheDetainingPow-er,butmustbereturnedtotheprisoner .TheCommissionbelie�esthattheseobligationsreflectcustomaryinternationallaw .

74 . AsignificantproportionofEritrea’switnessdeclarationsrecountthetakingofcash,watchesandringsorother�aluables,sometimesinclud-ingidentitycards,byEthiopianmilitarypersonnel,allwithouttheapplicableproceduralsafeguards .Thesedeclarationsassertthatpropertywassometimestakenby front line troopsatcapture,but italsohappenedregularlywhile

31 See, e.g., id.atpp .195,197 .32 Gene�aCon�entionIII,Article17 .33 ER17MEMp .138 .

48 eritrea/ethiopia

prisonerswereintransittotherear,oraftertheyarri�edatestablishedPOWcamps .

75 . EthiopiaarguesinitsCounter-MemorialthatEritrea’srequesttoorderthereturnofpropertyisoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .ItthenparsesEritrea’se�idencerelatingtoeachcamp,allegingthatitisinsufficient .34For example, the Counter-Memorial identifies twenty witness statementsallegingtakingsofmoneyor�aluablesfromPOWsat,orduringcaptureande�acuationto,MaiKenetal .35TheCounter-Memorialconstruestheseassug-gestingtheexistenceofproceduresforreceiptingandreturnofproperty,36ordismissesthemasuncorroboratedorasinsufficienttoshowwidespreadandsystematic�iolationsofinternationallaw .37EthiopiaalsosubmittedwitnessdeclarationscontendingthatEthiopiansoldierswereforbiddentoconfiscatePOWs’personalproperty;thatPOWsweregenerallypermittedtokeepsuchproperty; thatall itemsEthiopia tookforsafekeepingwereregistered; thatPOWsheldatDedessahadmuchoftheirpropertyreturnedtothemthere;and,thatallpropertywasreturnedtoPOWsupontheirrepatriation .

76 . Weighingtheconflictinge�idence, theCommissionfindsthat itshowsthatpersonalpropertyfrequentlywastakenfromEritreanprisonersbyEthiopianmilitarypersonnel,withoutreceiptsoranyhopeofreturn,allcon-trarytoArticles17and18ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Sometimesthisoccurredatthefrontsoonaftercapture,wheresuchtheftsha�ebeenalltoocommonduringwarastheindependentactionsofrapaciousindi�iduals .Howe�er,theCommissionistroubledbye�idenceoftakingofpersonalpropertyattransitfacilitiesandafterarri�alatpermanentcampsandbye�idencethatpropertyforwhichreceiptsweregi�enwasnotreturnedorwaspartlyorfully“lost .”Theconflictinge�idenceob�iouslycannotbefullyreconciled .

77 . TheCommissionconcludesthatEthiopiamadeeffortstoprotecttherightsofPOWstotheirpersonalproperty,butthattheseeffortsfellshortinpracticeofwhatwasnecessarytoensurecompliancewiththerele�antrequire-mentsofGene�aCon�entionIII .Consequently,EthiopiaisliabletoEritreafortheresultinglossessufferedbyEritreanPOWs .

78 . TheCommissioncannotgrantEritrea’srequestforanorderrequir-ingthereturnofpropertyunlawfullyseizedandheld .CommissionDecisionNo .3, issuedonJuly24,2001,establishedthat theappropriateremedyforclaimsbeforetheCommissionwasinprinciplemonetarycompensation .Deci-sionNo .3“didnotforeclose”thepossibilityofothertypesofremedies,butonly“iftheparticularremedycanbeshowntobeinaccordancewithinterna-tionalpractice,andiftheTribunaldeterminesthataparticularremedywouldbereasonableandappropriateinthecircumstances .”Therewasnoattemptto

34 See, e.g.,ET04CMpp .64–65,99 .35 Id.atp .219 .36 Id.atp .220 .37 Id.atp .221 .


showthattherequestedorderwasinaccordancewithinternationalpractice,norwouldsuchanorder,atthisstage,appeartotheCommissiontobeappro-priateorlikelytobeeffecti�e .

79 . Takingofprisoners’�aluablesandotherpropertyisaregrettablebutrecurringfeatureoftheir�ulnerablestate .Thelossofphotographsandothersimilarpersonalitemsisanindignitythatweighsonprisoners’morale,butthelossofpropertyotherwiseseemstoha�erarelyaffectedthebasicrequirementsforprisoners’sur�i�alandwell-being .Accordingly,whiletheCommissiondoesnotwishtominimizetheimportanceofthese�iolations,theyloomlesslargethanothermattersconsideredelsewhereinthisAward .

4. Physical and Mental Abuse of POWs in Camps

80 . BothPartiesha�esubmittedsubstantialamountsofe�idenceonthesubjectofphysicalandmentalabuseofPOWsinthecamps,includingtesti-monyatthehearingandsigneddeclarations .Ne�ertheless,theCommission’staskremainsdifficult,becausethee�idencesubmittedbytheClaimantisoftencontradictedbythee�idencesubmittedbytheRespondent .

81 . E�enifoneweretogi�efullcredibilitytothee�idencesubmittedbyEritrea,thee�idenceasawholeindicatesthattheEthiopianPOWcampswerenotcharacterizedbyahighle�elofphysicalabusebytheguards .Thee�idencedoessuggestthatthereweresomeincidentsofbeatingandthatdisciplinarypunishmentsweresometimesimposedcontrarytoArticle96ofGene�aCon-�entionIIIinthattheyweredecidedbyEthiopianguards,ratherthanbycampcommandersorofficerstowhomappropriateauthorityhadbeendelegatedorthattheaccusedhadbeendeniedthebenefitoftherightsgrantedbythatArti-cle .Thedisciplinarypunishmentsthemsel�esappeartoha�ebeenamixtureofclearlylegitimatepunishments,suchassolitaryconfinementoflessthanonemonthandfatigueduties,suchasdigging,unloadingcargoatthecamporcar-ryingwatertothecamp,alongwithpunishmentsofquestionablelegality,suchasrunning,crawlingandrollingontheground .Moreo�er,thereareallega-tionsthatsomepenalties,suchasrunning,crawlingorrollingonthegroundinthehotsun,e�eniftheycouldproperlybeconsideredfatigueduties,whichseemdoubtful,werepainfulandexceededthelimitspermittedbyArticle89ofGene�aCon�entionIII .ThatArticlepermitsfatiguedutiesnotexceedingtwohoursdailyasdisciplinarypunishmentsofPOWsotherthanofficers,butfatigueduties,aswellastheotherauthorizedpunishments,becomeunlawfuliftheyare“inhuman,brutalordangeroustothehealth”ofthePOWs .TheCommissionlackssufficiente�idencetodeterminewhetherthepunishmentsactuallyimposeduponEritreanPOWs�iolatedthatstandard .

82 . WhilethereareallegationsthatguardsoccasionallybeatPOWs,�eryfewofthedeclarationsbyformerEritreanPOWsallegethattheformerPOWwashimselforherselfthe�ictimofabeatingorthatheorshesawthebeatingofanotherPOW .Moreo�er,Ethiopiapro�ideddeclarationsfroma

50 eritrea/ethiopia

numberofcampcommanders,legalexpertsandadministrati�eofficialswhoassertedthatguardsatEthiopianPOWcampswerestrictlyforbiddentobeatPOWs .OnecampcommanderstatedthathedisciplinedoneguardforhittingaPOWonthefoot .AformercampcommanderatDedessaalsotestifiedthatalldisciplinarypunishmentwasimposedbydecisionofadisciplinarycommitteecomposedofallcampadministrators,andheassertedthat:“PunishmentsatDedessaconsistedofcleaningquarters,militaryexercise,orcloseconfine-ment,allofwhicharepunishmentsnormallyimposedonEthiopiansoldiersfortheirinfractions .”Healsoacknowledgedthat,whilemilitaryexercisesusu-allyconsistedofsit-upsorrunning,formoreseriousoffenses,theyincludedrollingorcrawlingontheground .38Consideringallrele�ante�idence, theCommissionholdsthattheClaimanthasfailedtopro�ebyclearandcon�inc-inge�idencethatEthiopia’sPOWcamps,despitethelikelyinconsistencies,notedabo�e,withtherequirementsofArticles89and96oftheCon�ention,wereadministeredinsuchawayastogi�erisetoliabilityforfrequentorper-�asi�ephysicalabuseofPOWs .

83 . Thereise�idencethattwoPOWswereconfinedformuchlongerthan the thirty days permitted by the Con�ention . Ethiopia explained itsactionwithrespecttothesetwoPOWsbyassertingthattheyhadengagedpersistentlyinsuchdisrupti�eanddangerousacti�ities(includingattemptstodamagesomeelectricalsystemsandsetafire)thatsecurityconsiderationsjustifiedtheirsegregationfromotherPOWs .TheParties’e�idenceandargu-mentsregardingthefewinstancesofprotracteddetentionconflictedsharply .Whate�erthetruthmayha�ebeen,thee�idencedoesnotestablishthatpro-tracteddetentionwasafrequentorwidespreadoccurrencesufficienttosustainafindingofliabilityinthispartoftheclaim .

84 . Regrettably,theCommission’sfindingregardingphysicalabusedoesnotapplyaswelltomentalabuse .Ethiopiaadmitsthatitscampswereorgan-izedinamannerthatresultedinthesegregationof�ariousgroupsofPOWsfromeachother .ItisacknowledgedthatPOWswhohadbeeninthearmedforcesduringthemuchearlierfightingagainsttheDergwerekeptisolatedfromPOWswhobegantheirmilitaryser�icelater,andthereissomee�idencethatothergroupswerealsosegregateddependingupontheyearsinwhichthePOWsbegantheirmilitaryser�ice .SuchsegregationiscontrarytoArticle22ofGene�aCon�entionIII,whichstatesthat“prisonersshallnotbeseparatedfromprisonersofwarbelongingtothearmedforceswithwhichtheywereser�ingatthetimeoftheircapture,exceptwiththeirconsent .”Ethiopiaarguesthatthissegregationwasdonetoreducehostilitybetweenthegroups,buttheCommissionfindsthatargumentunpersuasi�e .ItseemsfarmorelikelythattheseactionsweretakentopromotedefectionsofPOWsandtobreakdownanysenseofinternaldisciplineandcohesionamongthePOWs .

38 ET04CMTab17 .


85 . Inthatconnection,theCommissionnotesthatEthiopiaconductedextensi�eindoctrinationprogramsforthe�ariousgroupsofPOWsinBilate,MaiChew,MaiKenetalandDedessaandencouragedthediscussionamonggroupsofPOWsofquestionsraisedintheseprograms,includingtherespon-sibilityforstartingthewarandthenatureoftheEritreanGo�ernment .WhileEthiopiaassertsthatattendanceattheseindoctrinationanddiscussionses-sionswasnotcompulsory,thereisconsiderablee�idencethat,exceptforsickorwoundedPOWs,attendancewaseffecti�elymadecompulsorybyEthiopia,contrarytoArticle38ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Moreo�er,thereissubstan-tiale�idencethatPOWsweresometimesputunderconsiderablepressuretoengageinself-criticismduringthediscussionsessions .WhiletherearesomeallegationsthatthosePOWswhomadestatementsthatappealedtotheEthio-pianauthoritiesweresubsequentlyaccordedmorefa�orabletreatmentthanthosewhorefusedtomakesuchstatements,theCommissiondoesnotfindsufficiente�idencetopro�esucha�iolationofthefundamentalrequirementofArticle16ofGene�aCon�entionIIIthatallPOWsmustbetreatedalike,“withoutanyad�ersedistinctionbasedonrace,nationality,religiousbelieforpoliticalopinions,oranyotherdistinctionfoundedonsimilarcriteria .”Ne�ertheless,theCommissionnoteswithconcernthee�idenceofmentalandemotionaldistressfeltbymanyEritreanPOWsandconcludesthatsuchdis-tresswascausedinsubstantialpartbytheseactionsbyEthiopiain�iolationofArticles22and38oftheCon�ention .

86 .Consequently,EthiopiaisliableforthementalandemotionaldistresscausedtoEritreanPOWswhoweresubjectedtoprogramsofenforcedindoc-trinationfromthedateofthefirstindoctrinationsessionsattheBilatecampinJuly1998untilthereleaseandrepatriationofthelastPOWsinNo�em-ber2002 .Thee�idenceindicatesthatthisgroupincludesessentiallyallofthePOWsheldbyEthiopiaatthefournamedcamps,exceptforthoseunabletoattendtheindoctrinationsessionsduetotheirmedicalconditions .

5. Unhealthy Conditions in Camps

a. The Issue

87 . AfundamentalprincipleofGene�aCon�entionIIIisthatdetentionofPOWsmustnotseriouslyendangerthehealthofthosePOWs .39Thisprin-ciple,whichisalsoaprincipleofcustomaryinternationallaw,isimplementedbyrulesthatmandatecamplocationswheretheclimateisnotinjurious;shel-ter that isadequate,withconditionsas fa�orableas those for the forcesoftheDetainingPowerwhoarebilletedinthearea,includingprotectionfromdampnessandadequateheatandlight,beddingandblankets;andsanitaryfacilitieswhicharehygienicandareproperlymaintained .Foodmustbepro-�idedinaquantityandqualityadequatetokeepPOWsingoodhealth,and

39 SeeArticles13,21–29 .

52 eritrea/ethiopia

safedrinkingwatermustbeadequate .SoapandwatermustalsobesufficientforthepersonaltoiletandlaundryofthePOWs .

88 . Gene�aCon�entionIIIdeclarestheprinciplethatany“unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power . . . seriously endangering the health of a prisoner . . . will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.”40TheCommissionbelie�esthisprincipleshouldguideitsdeterminationoftheliabilityofthePartiesforalleged�iolationsofanyoftheobligationsnotedabo�e .Ratherthansimplydecidingwhethertherewere�iolations,howe�erminorortransitory,theCommission’staskintheproceedingsforthisclaimistodeterminewhethertherewere�iolationswhichwarranttheimpositionofdamagesbecausetheyclearlyendangeredtheli�esorhealthofPOWsincontra�entionofthebasicpolicyoftheCon�entionandcustomaryinterna-tionallaw .

89 . Indeed,theclaimsofbothPartiesareimplicitly,ifnotexplicitly,castintermsofserious�iolationsofthestandardssetoutabo�e .NeitherPartyhassoughttoa�oidliabilitybyarguingthatitslimitedresourcesandthedif-ficulten�ironmentalandlogisticalconditionsconfrontingthosechargedwithestablishingandadministeringPOWcampscouldjustifyanyconditionwith-inthemthatdidinfactendangerthehealthofprisoners .Rather,indefenseagainstclaimsofserious�iolations,eachPartyhasreliedprimarilyonthedeclarationsofofficerschargedwiththeadministrationofeachofitscamps .Alloftheseofficersha�eindicatedtheirfullawarenessofthebasicstandardsofGene�aCon�entionIIIforcampconditions,ha�edescribedthestepstakentomeetthem,andha�edeniedthatanyconditionsexistedthatseriouslyendan-geredthehealthofthePOWs .

90 . Facedwiththisconflictinge�idence,theCommissionhasexaminedalloftheclaimsofeachPartyrelatingtoeachcampthatappeartoallegeaserious�iolation(asdefinedabo�e)ofeachofthestandardssetoutabo�eateachcamp .Ithassoughttodeterminewhetherthereexistsintherecordclearandcon�incinge�idencetosupportthoseclaims .Tosustainthisburdeninthecontextofcampconditions,theCommissionbelie�esthattheClaimantmustproducecrediblee�idencethat:

(a) portraysaserious�iolation;

(b) iscumulati�eandisreinforcedbythesimilarityofthecriticalallegations;

(c) isdetailedenoughtoportraythespecificnatureofthe�iolation;and

(d) shows that the �iolation existed o�er a period of time longenough to justify the conclusion that it seriously endangered thehealthofatleastsomeofthePOWsinthecamp .

40 Article13(emphasisadded) .


b. Eritrea’s Claims

91 . InitsStatementofClaimandMemorial,Eritreaassertedingen-eraltermsthatEthiopiahad�iolatedthebasichealthstandardsprescribedbyGene�aCon�entionIII .Howe�er,initsPrayerforRelief(submittedduringoralargument),EritreaaskedtheCommissiontofindthateachofEthiopia’sinternmentcampswasin�iolationofrequisitestandards .Ethiopia’sdefensetotheseclaimsisalsoorganizedonacamp-by-campbasis .TheCommissionagreesthatacamp-by-campanalysisoftherele�ante�idenceisappropriateinordertodeterminewhich,ifany,ofEritrea’sclaimsmeetthestandardofendangermentofhealth .Accordingly,theCommissionhasexaminedeachofthedeclarationsofformerPOWssubmittedbyEritreatofindoutwhateachhadtosayabouthealthconditionsineachofthecampsinwhichheorshewasinternedduringhisorhercapti�ityinordertodeterminewhetherthee�idencewarrantsafindingthattheconditionsatanyparticularcampconsti-tutedaserious�iolationoftheprescribedstandards .Howe�er,asecondtaskistoexaminewhattheCommissionunderstandstobeageneralclaimbyEritreathatthefoodconditionsatallofEthiopia’sinternmentcampscombinedo�eraperiodoftimetoproduceseriousmalnutritionamonganumberofPOWs,whichinturnresultedinscur�yamongsomeandrenderedothersmoresus-ceptibletodiseasessuchastuberculosisandmalaria .

c. Analysis of Health-Related Conditions at Each of Ethiopia’s POW Camps

92 . WhilethereiscertainlysomedisturbingtestimonytosupportErit-rea’sclaimthatEthiopia’snorthern,shorttermPOWcampsatFeresMaiandMaiChewwereinserious�iolationofoneormorebasichealthstandards,theCommissionfindsthee�idencerelatingtothesecampsinsufficienttojustifyafindingthatconditionsthereseriouslyendangeredthehealthofPOWs .

93 . MaiKenetalpresentsadifferentpicture .ItscommandertestifiedinwritingthatthesiteforthecampwasselectedbecauseitwasclosetoanarterialroadlinkingthecamptoMekeleandAddisAbabatothesouth,andbecausethelocationincludedanumberofadministrati�ebuildingswhichhadbeen�acatedbytheMaiKenetalweredago�ernment .Despitethesead�an-tages,twocircumstancescombinedtoimposegreatdifficultiesonthecamp’sadministrators:first,MaiKenetalwasputintooperationattheonsetofthewinterseasoninNorthernEthiopia—athree-monthperiodcharacterized,attimes,bytorrentialrains,highwindsandcoldtemperatures;second,inMay2000,Ethiopialaunchedamajoroffensi�ewhichproduced,quiterapidly,anunanticipatedcamppopulationofaround2,000POWs—ade�elopmentwhichstrainedtheresourcesofthecampduringdifficultclimaticconditions .

94 . Therecordcontainsthedeclarationsofthirty-eightprisonerswhowereinternedatMaiKenetalforperiodsrangingfromsixweekstoaboutthree

54 eritrea/ethiopia

months .Theydepictacombinationofsub-standardconditionsthatseriouslyaffectedthehealthofsomePOWsandendangeredthatofothers .

95 . NearlyallPOWswhowerenotwoundedwerehousedintents,of�arying size, made up of plastic sheeting propped up by wooden poles . Itisundisputedthat therewasnoflooring; thatprisonerssleptonthedampground;thatprisonerswerepro�idedwithonlyoneortwoblankets;thattheplastictentswereinadequatetokeepouttherain;thatsometentsblewdowninthehighwinds;thatduringmuchofthetimethesequarterswerequitecoldanddampande�enmuddy;and,thattheywereseriouslyo�ercrowded .

96 . Theshoesofsomeprisonershadbeentakenfromthemuponcap-ture,andatleastfourteenassertedthat,despitetherainsandmud,theywerene�erissuedanyfootwearduringtheirentireinternmentatMaiKenetalor,inafewcases,thatshoeswereonlypro�idedneartheendoftheirstay .Similarly,nineprisonersdeclaredthat,foratleasttwomonths,noclothingofanykindwasissued .Manytestifiedthattheirquartersorclothingbecameseriouslyinfestedwithlice .Nearlyallofthethirty-eightMaiKenetaldeclarantsassertthat,foratleastmostoftheirinternmentthere,thedrinkingwaterwasbothdisgustingandunsafe,asitssourcewasanearbymuddyri�erand,becausethecampwasdownstreamfromthenearby�illageofMaiKenetal,theri�erwassometimespollutedwithhumansewage .

97 . AtleasttwentyPOWstestifiedregardingunsanitarytoiletcondi-tions .These facilitiesconsistedofholesdug in thegroundandco�eredbysheetsofwoodwithholescutintothem,andshelteredfromtherainsbyplastictenting .Theholesregularlybecamefilledwithrainwaterandmud,andthereisalsocumulati�etestimonythatthegroundundermanyofthetoilettentsbecamemuddyandcontaminatedandthattheseconditionsexacerbatedthehardshipssufferedbythosePOWswholackedshoes .AtleasttenPOWstesti-fiedthatfloodedtoiletsaffectedtheirconditionsofshelter .

98 . ManyPOWstestifiedthattheyhadtousetheri�erforbathingandlaunderingaswellasdrinking,thatonlyonebarofsoappermonthwasissuedtoeachPOWforthesepurposes,andthattheyfounditdifficultorimpossibletostayclean .

99 . ThereislittledisputeaboutthecontentofthedietofferedatMaiKenetal .Itconsistedofbreadandteainthemorningandbreadandlentilsforlunchanddinner .O�erwhelmingly,thethirty-eightPOWswhotestifiedaboutconditionsatMaiKenetalcomplainedabouttheinadequacyofthisdiet .Manysaytheywereinastateofconstanthunger .Manyassertthisdietpro-ducedseriousmalnutrition,which,combinedwithotherconditions,facili-tatedcontagiousdiseases,notablytuberculosis .Nearlyallofthethirty-eightPOWsalsoclaimthatthemedicalfacilitiespro�idedwereinadequateintermsofqualifiedpersonnel,medicalsuppliesandotherresourcesnecessarytotreatthemanysickorwoundedPOWsatMaiKenetal .Whilecomplaintsregardingfoodandmedicalcarewereregularlyle�eledattheadministrationofallcampsbyPOWsfrombothsides,itdoesappearfromconsiderablecumulati�etesti-


monythattherewasserioushungerandsicknessatMaiKenetal .Forexample,atleasttwentyPOWsclaimedthattheysufferedfromdiarrhea .ManyotherscomplainedthattuberculosisbecamewidespreadandthatPOWssufferingfromthisdiseasewerehousedintheo�ercrowdedtentsratherthanisolatedinfacilitiessetupformedicalcareofthatdisease .

100 . Ethiopiamadeextensi�eefforts todiscreditandrebut thise�i-dence,relyinghea�ilyonthedeclarationsofthecommanderofMaiKenetalandhistwoimmediatesubordinates .Theseofficersassertthattheyandthecampguardsandstaffli�edinessentiallythesameconditionsasthePOWs .Theyacknowledgethatthetentsconsistedofplasticsheetsandwerehastilyconstructedasthecamp’spopulationrapidlyexpanded,buttheyassertthattheshelterpro�idedwasadequate,thatonlyafewtentsweredamagedbyhea�ywinds,andthatthesewereimmediatelyreconstructed .Theyfurthertestifiedthatasthetoiletpitsbegantofillwithwater,newonesweredug—alongwithsurroundingdrainageditches .Theytestifiedthatclothingintheformofco�-eralls,aswellasshoesandamatandtwoblankets,wereissuedtoeachPOW .TheyassertthatdrinkingwaterwasatfirstpipedfromthewellsatMaiKenetal�illageintothecamp,butthennewwellsweredugatthecamp,andthatthewaterfromthesewells—despitesomecomplaintsbyPOWs—waschlorinated,potableandplentiful .Theyalsoassertthatshowerswerea�ailableforbath-ing .EachoftheseofficersfurtherstatedthatICRCteamsregularly�isitedthecampsandmadenoseriouscomplaintsaboutitsconditions .TheCommissionnotesthatthisisaspecificinstancewhereaccesstotherele�antICRCreportswouldha�ebeen�eryhelpful .

101 . It isclear that theseofficerswereawareof theirduties,andtheCommissionmayassumetheydidtheirbesttomaintainthehealthofthePOWsunderdifficultcircumstances .Muchoftheirtestimonycanbecreditedifoneassumes,asthee�idencejustifies,thatthestepstakentoimpro�etheconditionsofthePOWscametowardstheendoftherelati�elybriefperiodinwhichthecampwasinoperation .Butthecumulati�e,reinforcing,detailedtestimony of so many POWs persuades the Commission that, despite theeffortsofthecamp’sstaff,acombinationofserious,sub-standardhealthcon-ditionsdidexistatMaiKenetalforsometime,thattheseconditionsseriouslyandad�erselyaffectedthehealthofsomePOWsthereandendangeredthehealthofothers,andthatthissituationconstituteda�iolationofcustomaryinternationallaw .

102 . Three of the camps in central and southern Ethiopia—Fiche,ShogolleandBilate—wereusedasfacilitiesofinternmentofmanyEritreanci�ilians(notablystudents),aswellasPOWs .Indeed,mostofthetestimo-nymarshaledbyEritreatoportrayhealth-relatedconditionsatthesecampscomesfrominternedEritreanstudentswhohadbeenattendingAddisAbabaUni�ersity .Asnotedearlier,theirclaimsarenotnowbeforetheCommission .Thus,theirtestimonyisonlyrele�anttotheextentthatitclearlydescribes,firsthand,thehealth-relatedconditionsexperiencedbyPOWs .

56 eritrea/ethiopia

103 . OnlyonePOWdeclaranttestifiedregardingShogolle,andhistes-timonyfailedtoestablishanybasisforaclaim .ThreePOWdeclarantstesti-fiedaboutconditionsatFiche,butallwereinternedatthatcampforonlyonemonthorless .Incommonwithstudents,theycomplainedthattheylackedshoesduringthisperiod,thattheyoftenwalkedthroughmudtothetoilets(holesinthegroundco�eredbywoodenplanks),thatthefoodpro�idedcon-sistedsolelyofbreadandlentils,andthattheirquarterswereo�ercrowded .Howe�er,thesefewPOWdeclarationsareinsufficientindetailtoestablishclearandcon�incinge�idencethat,duringtheirrathershortperiodofcon-finementatFiche,conditionsatthecampconstitutedaseriousthreattotheirhealth .

104 . Similarly, there isonly the testimonyof threePOWdeclarantsregardingconditionsatBilate .Twowereinternedatthiscampforaperiodofeightmonthsandoneyear .Theirmostseriousallegationsrelatetonutrition .Theyassertthatthefoodpro�idedwas,again,onlybreadandlentils,andtwoPOWsclaimthatthisdietwasinadequateinbothnutritionalandquantitati�eterms .Whilethistestimonyisdisputedbythecampcommanderandcook,andwouldbeinsufficientwithoutmoresupporttowarrantafindingthatthefoodconditionsatBilateconstitutedaserious�iolation,theCommissionfindsitrele�anttoEritrea’sgeneralclaimregardingmalnutrition,whichisdiscussedbelow .

105 . Nearlyallof theEritreanprisonerswereultimately internedatDedessa .ThiscamphadoriginallybeenconstructedduringtheDergeraasamilitarytrainingbase .ItwasputintooperationasaPOWcampinJune1999andremainedsountilallprisonerswerefinallyrepatriatedinNo�ember2002 .Therearethirty-eightdeclarationsdescribinghealth-relatedconditionsatthiscamp .Whilesomeallegeseriousdeficienciesregardingsanitation,shelterandlackofshoes,thesecomplaintsarecontradictedormitigatedbythetestimonyofothers .Weighingthee�idence,theCommissionfindsinsufficiente�idencetosupportafindingthatthecampwasinserious�iolationofhealth-relatedstandards .E�idenceregardingthefoodpro�idedatDedessaisdiscussedinthecontextofEritrea’sgeneralclaimregardingtheinsufficiencyofthedietpro�idedtoprisonersduringtheirentirecapti�ity .

d. Eritrea’s General Claim Regarding the Insufficiency of the Food Provided to Eritrean POWs During the

Entire Period of their Captivity

106 . InitsStatementofClaimandMemorial,Eritreaappearstoclaimthat, throughouttheircapti�ity,EritreanPOWswerepro�idedfoodwhichwasinsufficientin“quantity,quality,and�arietytokeepthemingoodhealthandpre�entlossofweight .”41Thisclaimdoesnotrequireafindingthatthe

41 Gene�aCon�entionIII,Article26 .


foodpro�idedbye�eryinternmentcampwassoinadequateinquantityorqualityand�arietythatthehealthofPOWsineachcampwasendangered .Rather,thetaskoftheCommissionistodeterminewhetherthereisclearandcon�incinge�idencethatthefoodpro�idedatallcampswassuchthat,o�ertime,thehealthofsomePOWscametobeseriouslyendangeredbecauseofaninsufficiencyoffoodinquantity,qualityor�ariety .

107 . Thee�idenceisclearandcon�incingthatthedailydietpro�idedatallcampswasbreadandlentils .TheCommissionhasfoundthatatMaiKenetal—withitslargePOWpopulationofnearly2,000—therewashungerandsickness .Thereissimilare�idence,althoughlesspersuasi�ebecauseitislesscumulati�e,thatthefoodpro�idedatsomeothercampswasinadequatetokeepPOWsingoodhealth .Howe�er,sincenearlyallPOWswere,soonerorlater,transferredtoDedessaandsincemostofthemspentmostoftheircapti�itythere,allofthedeclarationswhichdescribefood-relatedconditionsatthatcamparerele�ant .

108 . ThedeclarationsofnearlyallPOWsatDedessacomplainedofthesamenessofthedietpro�ided .Atthiscamp,POWswerefurnishedwithflourandlentils(andspices)topreparetheirfood .Manycomplainedtheflourwas“dirty”andthebreadinedible .Otherscomplainedthattheabsenceofother�egetablesandfruit—specificallythelackofasufficientamountofVitaminsAandC—producedmalnutrition .Se�eralcomplainedofscur�yorsymptomsofillhealtharisingfromadietlackingin�arietyandessential�itamins .

109 . Whileitistrue,asEthiopiaemphasizes,thatbreadandlentilsarearegularpartofthenormaldietofmostEritreans,thesestaplesoftheci�iliandietaresupplementedbymeat,fruitand�egetables .MostsignificanttotheCommission,therewase�idencefromthreeEritreandoctorsthatmostoftheseriouslysickorwoundedPOWswhowerereleasedfromDedessainDecem-ber2000weremalnourished .Thesedoctorswereontheteamthatexaminedthe359POWswhowerereleasedatthattime .Eachdoctortestifiedthatmostofthemwereseriouslymalnourished .Oneofthedoctors,Dr .HaileMehtsun,appearedasawitnessinthehearingsandtestifiedthat“115outofthe354[sic]hadmanifestationsofscur�y .”Dr .BerhaneKahsaiBerhanu,bydeclaration,testified(withoutpro�idingnumbers)thatpatientsheexaminedsufferedfromscur�y .Dr .YosiefFissehayeSeyoum,bydeclaration,testifiedthat�irtuallyalloftherepatriatedPOWswerese�erelymalnourished .

110 . Most of the POWs examined by these doctors had first beeninternedatMaiKenetal,andallweresickorsufferingfromwounds(whichiswhytheywerechosenforearlyrepatriation) .Howe�er,onquestioning,Dr .Haileassertedthat“diseasebyitself—cannotcreatemalnutrition .”HeascribedthemalnourishedconditionofthePOWstotheirdietwhileincapti�ity .

111 . Ethiopia’srebuttalrelieshea�ilyonthetestimonyofthecamp’scommander,hisdeputy,oneotherofficerandthecamp’schiefcook .Theytes-tifiedthatthedailybreadandlentilsdietwassupplementedatleastonceaweekwithmeatandtwiceaweekwith�egetables .ADedessacampcommand-

58 eritrea/ethiopia

erpro�idedawrittenrationlistconsistentwiththattestimony,althoughtheamountsofmeatand�egetableswerenotindicatedonthatlist .Theyalsotesti-fiedthat,ineachdormitory,thePOWspreparedtheirownmeals,fromfoodpro�idedtothem,thatrepresentati�esofeachgroupofPOWswereregularlyallowedto�isitthemarketatNekemte(alargetown)topurchasesupplementa-ryfoodstuffsattheirownexpense,andthattherewerenocomplaintsfromthePOWsregardingfood .TheofficersalsotestifiedthattheICRC�isitedthecampregularlyandhadunrestrictedaccesstoallPOWs,andthatgroupsofPOWswerefreetocreategardenstogrow�egetables(someofwhichwereshowninphotographicexhibits) .Itisunclearfromthistestimonywhetherthesecondi-tionswereinexistencepriortoDecember2000,oronlyaftertheconclusionofthePeaceAgreementinDecember2000 .TheCommissiondoubtstheirfullapplicabilitybeforeDecember2000 .Recordsregardingfoodpurchasesbythecampha�ealsobeenpro�idedandthismassi�edocumentarymaterialreflectssignificantperiodicpurchasesofanimalsformeat,lessfrequentlypurchasesofsome�egetables(notablycabbageandpotatoes),andstilllessfrequentlythepurchasesoflimes .

112 . Onbalance,theCommissionconcludesthatthegreatestweightshouldbegi�entothedeclarationsofthemanyPOWscomplainingaboutalackof�arietyoftheirdietand,mostimportantly,thee�idenceofscur�yanddiet-relateddisorders,aspresentedintheuncontro�ertedtestimonyoftheEritreandoctors .Thate�idenceshowsthatthefoodpro�idedtomanyPOWs,atleastfrom1998through2000,wasqualitati�elyinsufficientbecauseitwaslackinginessential�itamins .WhilethedailydietatDedessapriortothenmayha�eoccasionallyincluded�egetables,meatore�enfruit,thesesupplementswereinsufficienttoprotectthehealthofasignificantnumberofPOWsdur-ingtheircapti�ity,asshownbythefactthatmanyofthePOWsrepatriatedinDecember2000e�idencedmalnutrition,whichendangeredtheirhealth .

113 . TheCommissionlackscomparablyclearandcon�incinge�idenceofaseriouslyinadequatedietatDedessaafterDecember2000untilthefinalPOWreleaseinNo�ember2002 .

114 . Inconclusion,theCommissionholds,first,thatthehealthstand-ardsatthePOWcampatMaiKenetalseriouslyandad�erselyaffectedthehealthofanumberofthePOWsthereandendangeredthehealthofothersin�iolationofapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw;and,second,thatthefoodpro�idedbyEthiopiatoPOWsatallcampspriortoDecember2000wassufficientlydeficientinneedednutrition,o�ertime,astoendangerseriouslythehealthofEritreanPOWsin�iolationofapplicableinternationalhumani-tarianlaw .Consequently,EthiopiaisliablefortheunlawfulhealthstandardsatMaiKenetaland,priortoDecember2000,forpro�idingfoodsoinadequateinnutritionthat,o�ertime,itseriouslyendangeredthehealthofallEritreanPOWs .


6. Inadequate Medical Care in Camps

115 . ADetainingPowerhastheobligationtopro�ideinitsPOWcampsthemedicalassistanceonwhichthePOWsdependtohealtheirbattlewoundsandtopre�entfurtherdamagetotheirhealth .Thisdutyisparticularlycrucialincampswithalargepopulationandagreaterriskoftransmissionofconta-giousdiseases .

116 . Theprotectionspro�idedbyArticles15,20,29,30,31,109and110ofGene�aCon�entionIIIareunconditional .Theserules,whicharebasedonsimilarrulesinArticles4,13,14,15and68oftheGene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWarofJuly27,1929,42arepartofcustomaryinternationallaw .

117 . ManyoftheserulesarebroadlyphrasedanddonotcharacterizepreciselythequalityorextentofmedicalcarenecessaryforPOWs .Article15speaksofthe“medicalattentionrequiredbytheirstateofhealth;”Article30requiresinfirmariestopro�ideprisoners“theattentiontheyrequire”(emphasisadded) .Thelackofdefinitionregardingthequalityorextentofcare“required”ledtodifficultiesinassessingthisclaim .Indeed,standardsofmedicalpractice�aryaroundtheworld,andtheremayberoomfor�aryingassessmentsofwhatisrequiredinaspecificsituation .Moreo�er,theCommissionismindfulthatitisdealingherewithtwocountrieswith�erylimitedresources .

118 . Ne�ertheless,theCommissionbelie�escertainprinciplescanbeappliedinassessingthemedicalcarepro�idedtoPOWs .TheCommissionbeganbyconsideringArticle15’sconceptofthemaintenanceofPOWs,whichitunderstandstomeanthataDetainingPowermustdothosethingsrequiredtopre�entsignificantdeteriorationofaprisoner’shealth .Next,theCommis-sionpaidparticularattentiontomeasuresthatarespecificallyrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIIIsuchastherequirementsforsegregationofprisonerswithinfectiousdiseasesandforregularphysicalexaminations .

a. Eritrea’s Claims and Evidence

119 . EritreaclaimedthatEthiopiadidnotpro�idetheEritreanPOWsthemedicalcarerequiredunderinternationalhumanitarianlaw,basingitsclaimsonfifty-eightdeclarationsofdetaineesrepatriatedsoonafterhostilitiesendedinDecember2000,mostbecausetheyneededmedicalcare .Forty-eightofthesecamefromPOWsandtenfromci�ilianinterneeswholargelysharedthesametreatmentinthecamps .Eritreaalsosubmittedthedeclarationsofthreemedicaldoctorswhoexaminedthefirstgroupsofrepatriatedprisoners,andthatofamilitaryintelligenceofficerwhodebriefedthem .

120 . Thesedeclarationsarelargelyconsistent,buttheypro�ideonlyapartial�iew .Theforty-eightPOWsareasmallfractionoftheapproximately

42 118L .N .T .S .pp .343–411 .

60 eritrea/ethiopia

2,600EritreanPOWsheldinEthiopia,ore�enofthe359woundedandsickPOWsrepatriatedsoonafterhostilitiesended .Theirdeclarationsdescribethemedicalcaregi�entodetaineesclearlyrequiringsignificantmedicalattention,butitisdifficulttogeneralizefromthemregardingthecaregi�enthegeneralpopulationofPOWs .

121 . WhilesomedeclarantsindicatethatPOWsrecei�edadequatemed-icaltreatment,manycriticizethequalityofcare .Thereareallegationsthatwoundswerenottreatedatallinagi�encamp;thatwoundswerecleanedandbandagedbutnotfurthertreated;thattherewasnocarewhatsoe�erinsomecamps;orthatcarewasa�ailablebutinadequate .Therewaswrittentestimonythatinsomecampsnomedicinesweredistributed,forinstancetotreatfre-quentmaladiessuchasdiarrheaandmalaria,andthatshellfragmentswerenotremo�edfromwounds .NearlyalldeclarantswhoweretherecomplainedaboutinsufficientmedicalcareatMaiKenetalanditstransitcamp,Biyara .ManylikewisecomplainedaboutthemedicalcareatDedessa .

122 . TheEritreandoctorswhoexaminedthefirst359sickandwoundedrepatriatedPOWsreferredtoafewcasesofallegedlyinadequatetreatmentresultingin�ascularinjuries,collapsedlungsandsympatheticophthalmia .Thedoctorstestifiedthatremo�alofshellfragmentsafterrepatriationcouldbemoredifficultthanpromptremo�al .ThedoctorsandthepsychiatristwhotestifiedatthehearingalsostatedthatmanyPOWsrequiredseriouspsycho-logical/psychiatriccarewhenrepatriated .

123 . Manydeclarantsalsocomplainedaboutdelaysinmedicaltreat-ment,saidfrequentlytoimpairreco�eryfromwoundsorillnesses .OneformerPOWallegedthathehadtowaiteightmonthsbeforehiswoundedkneewasoperatedupon;otherscomplainedofmanyweeks’delaybeforerecei�ingthor-oughmedicalattention,andthatuntreatedfractureswerenotproperlycaredfor .TheEritreandoctors indicated thatmanyPOWswillha�epermanentabnormalitiesthatcouldha�ebeena�oidedwithtimelycare .

124 . EritreaalsoclaimedthatEthiopiadidnotpro�ideadequateinfir-maries,clinicsandhospitalsasrequiredunderArticle30ofGene�aCon-�entionIII .AtMaiKenetal(asdiscussedabo�e),thesickandwoundeddidnote�enha�eproperquarters,andhadtoseekco�erinleakytentsofplasticsheets .

125 . Eritreaalsoraisedquestionsrelatingtoaccesstothemedicalfacil-itiesthatexisted .Underinternationalhumanitarianlaw,anyPOWhastherighttoseekmedicalexaminationonthePOW’sowninitiati�e,andtoobtainmedicalattentionfromqualifiedmedicalpersonnelsoastoassesstheexist-enceofanailment,itsidentityandtherequiredtreatment .Ifneededmedicalcarecannotbegi�enatthecampclinic,aPOWmustbetreatedatamorespecializedhospital .OnePOWcomplainedthathewasnotsoreferredandanotherconsideredthehospital’scareinadequate .


126 . Eritreaalsocomplainedaboutthelackofpre�enti�ecareintheEthiopiancamps .UnderArticle31ofGene�aCon�entionIII,POWsmustbemedicallyexaminedatleastonceamonth,forexample,tocheckandrecordtheirweightanddiagnosiscontagiousdiseases .Numerousstatementssubmit-tedbyEritreanPOWsindicatethatnosuchregularinspectionstookplaceatanyofthecamps,andthatPOWswithcontagiousdiseaseswerenotisolated .

b. Ethiopia’s Defense

127 . InresponsetoEritrea’sclaims,Ethiopiasubmittedextensi�ee�i-dence, includingdeclarations frommilitaryofficers inchargeofprisonersandfromcampadministratorsanddoctors .Ethiopiapresentedacampcom-manderasawitnessatthehearing,aswellasmedicalrecordsfromthe�ariouscamps .Thesedeclarations,writtendocumentsandwitnesstestimonydepictafarmorefa�orable�iewofthemedicalcarepro�idedthandotheEritreanPOWdeclarants .Tociteafewexamples,Ethiopiasubmittede�idencethatEritreanPOWswereindeedreferredtospecializedhospitalsfortreatment;Ethiopia’smedicalexpert,Dr .Goodman,testifiedthatremo�ingshellfrag-mentsfromwoundscouldbemedicallyrisky .

c. The Commission’s Conclusions

128 . Despite the substantial amount of e�idence and hearing timede�otedtomedicalcareinEritrea’sclaim,theCommissionhaddifficultyindeterminingthea�ailabilityandqualityofmedicalcareintheEthiopianPOWcamps .Focusingonspecificsdidnotpro�enecessarilyhelpful .Forexample,thee�idenceofpsychological/psychiatricproblemsdoesnotpro�ethatEthio-piafailedtopro�ideappropriatecare; lengthycapti�itycanbepsychologi-cally�erydisturbing,andpsychologicalcareafterrepatriationisfrequentlyindicated .Thediscussionofsympatheticophthalmiawasclearly�erynarrow .ThehospitalrecordssubmittedbyEthiopiadonotestablishthatallPOWsinneedofspecializedtreatmentwere,infact,referredtohospitals,butonlythatsomewere .AlthoughafewEritreandeclarantscomplainedaboutinsufficientmedicalstaffing,othere�idenceshowedthatcampinfirmarieswerestaffedbyoneormoremedicaldoctorsandparamedics;adetainedEritreandoctorwasin�ol�edincaringfortheEritreanPOWs .

129 . FacedwiththeParties’oftensharplyconflictingportrayalsofthea�ailabilityandqualityofmedicalcare,theCommissionsoughtsomebroad-erperspecti�estoassessthecarepro�ided .TheCommissionfocusedonthedeathrateinthecampsasapossibleindicatorofthemedicalcarepro�ided,onthedetailedtestimonyoftheEritreandoctorswhoexaminedthefirstPOWsrepatriated,andone�idenceofpre�entati�ecare .

130 . First,inresponsetoquestioning,Ethiopiaindicatedthat,tothebestofitsknowledge,twentyEritreanPOWsdiedwhileincapti�ityinEthio-

62 eritrea/ethiopia

pia .TheEritreanPOWdeclarants frequentlyallege,especiallywithregardtoMaiKenetal(theseriouslyinadequateconditionsofwhichtheCommis-siondiscussesabo�e),thatdeathsresultedfromlackofmedicalattention .Asregrettableaseachande�erydeathis,theCommissionfindsthatadeathratiooflessthanonepercent—inatotalpopulationofsome2,600POWs,manyseriouslywounded—doesnotinitselfindicatesubstandardmedicalcare .

131 . Second,theCommissionwasstruckbythedetailedtestimonyoftheEritreandoctorswhoexaminedtheEritreanPOWsrepatriatedafterhos-tilitiesended inDecember2000 .Theywereof thefirmopinion that thesewoundedandsickPOWscouldnotha�erecei�edrequiredmedicalcare .Theytestifiedthat,ofthe359POWstheyexamined,twenty-twohadtuberculosis—a�eryhighratio .TheyalsotestifiedthatthePOWsshowedsignsofmalnutri-tion,whichhadad�erselyaffectedtheirhealth,contributedtothede�elopmentoftuberculosisandscur�y,andleftmanyunreadyfornecessarysurgeryuntiltheycouldputonweight .Thedoctorsalsofoundthatnearlyone-halfofthePOWstheyexaminedhadfracturesthathadnotbeenproperlytreated,e�i-dencedbynon-unionormal-unionofthebones .AlthoughEthiopiarespondedthatfracturessometimescouldnothealproperlyforreasonsbeyonditscontrol,forexample,becauseofuna�oidabledelaysine�acuation,theEritreandoctorscounteredthatmanyofthepost-repatriationorthopedicoperationsha�ebeensuccessful;ifthoseoperationshadbeendoneearlier,whilethepatientswereinEthiopia’scustody,theycouldha�ebeene�enmoresuccessful .

132 . Finally,pre�enti�ecare isamatterofparticularconcerntotheCommission .Ase�idencedbytheirprominenceinGene�aCon�entionIII,regular medical examinations of all POWs are �ital to maintaining goodhealthinacloseden�ironmentwherediseasesareeasilyspread .TheCom-mission considers monthly examinations of the camp population to be apre�enti�emeasureformingpartoftheDetainingPower’sobligationsunderinternationalcustomarylaw .

133 . TheCommissionmustconcludethatEthiopiafailedtotakese�eralimportantpre�entati�ecaremeasuresspecificallymandatedbyinternationallaw .Inassessingthisissue,theCommissionlookednotjusttoEritreabutalsotoEthiopia,whichadministeredthecampsandhadthebestknowledgeofitsownpractices .

134 . Ethiopia neither contended that it conducted regular medicalexaminations nor attempted to justify the lack of such examinations . TherecordisunclearastowhatextentEthiopianofficialsmaintainedpersonalPOWmedicaldata .Ethiopiaacknowledgedthattherewerenomonthlyexam-inationsatFiche(whichoperatedforlessthantwomonths)oratFeresMai(whichwasopenforsomefi�emonths) .Thee�idenceindicatesthat,attheDedessaclinic,medicalpersonnelcarriedout170to400testspermonth,butob�iouslydoesnotpro�ethatallPOWswerecheckedmonthly .

135 . Nor does the e�idence show that Ethiopia segregated certaininfectedprisoners,atleastearlyinthewar .POWsareparticularlysusceptible


tocontagiousdiseasessuchastuberculosis,andcustomaryinternationallaw(reflectingproperbasichealthcare)requiresthatinfectedPOWsbeisolatedfromthegeneralPOWpopulation .Se�eralEritreanPOWdeclarantsrecountthat,atleastpriortoDecember2000,tuberculosispatientswerelodgedwiththeotherPOWs .Ethiopia’se�idence indicates that isolationofcontagiousPOWsbeganonlyatMaiKenetal .

136 . In conclusion, on the basis of clear and con�incing e�idence,includingtheessentiallyunrebuttede�idenceofthepre�alenceofmalnutri-tion,tuberculosisandimproperlytreatedfracturesandtheabsenceofrequiredpre�enti�ecare,theCommissionfindsthatEthiopiafailedtopro�ideEritreanPOWswiththerequiredminimumstandardofmedicalcarepriortoDecem-ber2000 .Consequently,Ethiopiaisliableforthis�iolationofcustomaryinter-nationallaw .

137 . Incomparison,Eritreahasfailedtopro�ethatthemedicalcarepro-�idedtoEritreanPOWsafterDecember2000waslessthanrequiredbyappli-cablelaw .InresponsetoEritrea’sallegations,Ethiopiasubmittedconsiderablerebuttale�idenceoftheincreasedmedicalcareitpro�idedatMaiKenetalandDedessafromDecember2000throughrepatriationoftheremainingPOWsinNo�ember2002 .Thee�idenceindicatedthatapproximatelyfortymedicalpersonnelstaffedtheMaiKenetalclinicandthatsomePOWpatientsweretakentoalocalhospital .Thee�idencealsoindicatedthatPOWswithtuber-culosisorothercontagiousdiseaseswereisolatedatMaiKenetalandDedessaandthat,contrarytoEritrea’sallegation,medicalequipmentwassterilizedbeforeeachuse .43WithrespecttomedicalcareatDedessa,EthiopiapresentedmedicalrecordsrebuttingthespecificcomplaintsmadeinanumberoftheEritreandeclarations .44

138 . Inclosing,theCommissionnotesitsrecognitionthatEritreaandEthiopiacannot,atleastatpresent,berequiredtoha�ethesamestandardsformedicaltreatmentasde�elopedcountries .Howe�er,scarcityoffinancesandinfrastructurecannotexcuseafailuretogranttheminimumstandardofmedicalcarerequiredbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thecostofsuchcareisnot,inanye�ent,substantialincomparisonwiththeothercostsimposedbythearmedconflict .

7. Unlawful Assault on Female POWs

139 . EritreabringsadiscreteclaimfortheallegedunlawfulassaultoffemalePOWs,alleginginitsStatementofClaimthatEthiopiansoldiersrapedfemalePOWsand,inonecase,rapedandkilledafemaleprisoneratSheshebitontheWesternFront .ThePartiesagreethatArticle14ofGene�aCon�entionIII,whichpro�idesthatPOWsare“entitledinallcircumstancestorespectfor

43 SeeET04CMpp .259–261 .44 Id.atpp .331–338 .

64 eritrea/ethiopia

theirpersonandtheirhonor”andthatwomen“shallbetreatedwithalltheregardduetotheirsex,”prohibitssexualassaultoffemalePOWs .

140 . TheCommissiontakesthisclaim,likeallclaimsofgrie�ousphysicalabuse,extremelyseriously .TheCommissionhascarefullyre�iewedthethreedeclarationsoffemaleEritreanPOWs;thedeclarationsofmalePOWsaddress-ingtreatmentofthewomen;thedeclarationofanEritreancolonelwhodebriefedreturningEritreanPOWs;andthedocumentarymedicale�idence .AlthoughtheCommissionissensiti�etoEritrea’srepresentationthat“[t]hefemaleformerPOWsdeclinedtodiscussthistopicandadecisionwasmadetorespecttheirwishes,”45theburdenofproofcannotfairlybeloweredforthisclaim .

141 . TheCommissionfinds thatEritreahasnotpresentedclearandcon�incinge�idenceofrape,killingorotherassaultaimedatfemalePOWs .Gi�enthesmallnumberoffemaleEritreanPOWs,theCommissionhasnotlookedforsystematicorwidespreadabuseofwomen .Thefactremains,how-e�er,thatnotoneofthefemaleEritreandeclarantsstatedexplicitlyor—moreimportantly, gi�en the sensiti�ities—e�en implicitly that she was sexuallyassaulted,orthatanyotherfemaleprisonersheknewwasassaulted .SomemaleEritreandeclarantsdescribedoccasionalor frequentscreamingfromthewomen’squarters,butdidnot(andperhapscouldnot)obser�eEthiopianguardsenteringorlea�ing .Se�eraldeclarantsdescribedabuseofwomenthat,althoughseriousinitsownright,wasunrelatedtotheirgender .Eritreafailedtosubmite�idencedocumentingtheonerapeandmurderallegedintheState-mentofClaim .Ethiopiadefendedtheseclaims,inlargepart,bypresentingdetailede�idencethattherewereseparatequartersforwomeninthecamps,whichwereinspectedonlybyseniorcampofficialsinpairs .

142 . Accordingly,andwithoutinanywayunderminingitsrecognitionoftheparticular�ulnerabilityoffemalePOWs,theCommissiondoesnotfindEthiopialiableforbreachingcustomaryinternationallawobligationstopro-tectthepersonandhonoroffemaleEritreanPOWs .

8. Delayed Repatriation of POWs

143 . The Commission has determined in this Award that Eritrea’sclaimsregardingthetimelyreleaseandrepatriationofPOWsarewithinitsjurisdictionundertheAgreementandCommissionDecisionNo .1 .46

144 . InitsStatementofClaim,EritreaallegedthatEthiopiafailedtoreleaseandrepatriatePOWswithoutdelayafterDecember12,2000 .In itsMemorial, Eritrea asked the Commission to “order Ethiopia to cooperatewiththeInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCrossineffectinganimmediatereleaseandrepatriationofallPOWs . . . .”47Howe�er,onNo�ember29,2002,

45 ER17MEMp .65note235 .46 SeeSectionIIIAsupra.47 ER17MEMp .138 .


shortlybeforethehearinginthisclaim,EthiopiareleasedallPOWsregisteredbytheICRCremaininginitscustody .WhilesomechosetoremaininEthio-piaforfamilyorotherreasons,1,287returnedtoEritrea .Duringthehearing,counselforEritreaexpressedEritrea’sgreatpleasureatthisaction .48TheCom-missiontoowelcomesthisimportantandpositi�estepbyEthiopia,whichren-deredmootEritrea’srequestforanorderregardingrepatriation .Ne�ertheless,Eritrea’sclaimthatEthiopiafailedtorepatriatethePOWsitheldaspromptlyasrequiredbylawremains .

145 . Asnotedabo�e,EritreaaccededtothefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949effecti�eAugust14,2000,sotheywereinforcebetweenthePartiesafterthatdate .Article118ofGene�aCon�entionIIIstatesthat“[p]risonersofwarshallbereleasedandrepatriatedwithoutdelayafterthecessationofacti�ehos-tilities .”ThePartiesconcludedanAgreementontheCessationofHostilitiesonJune18,2000 .Howe�er,theCommissionrecei�ednoe�idenceregardingimplementationofthatagreementandcouldnotassesswhetheritmarkedanendtoacti�ehostilitiessufficientlydefiniti�eforpurposesofArticle118 .49

146 . Bycontrast,Article1oftheDecember12,2000,Agreementstatesthat“[t]hepartiesshallpermanentlyterminatemilitaryhostilitiesbetweenthemsel�es .”Gi�enthetermsofthisAgreementandtheensuinge�olutionoftheParties’relationship,includingtheestablishmentandworkofthisCom-mission,theCommissionconcludesthatasofDecember12,2000,hostilitiesceasedandtheArticle118obligationtorepatriate“withoutdelay”cameintooperation .

147 . Applying this obligation raises some issues that were not thor-oughlyaddressedduringtheproceedings,inpartbecauseEritreafocusedonthereturnofPOWsstilldetained,whichwasmootedonthee�eofthehear-ing,whileEthiopiaconsistentlyreliedontheargumentthattheseclaimswereoutside theCommission’s jurisdiction,adefense that theCommissionhasnowrejected .Ne�ertheless,gi�entheire�erydaymeaningandthehumani-tarianobjectandpurposeofGene�aCon�entionIII, thesewords indicatethatrepatriationshouldoccuratanearlytimeandwithoutunreasonableorunjustifiablerestrictionsordelays .Atthesametime,repatriationcannotbeinstantaneous .Preparingandcoordinatingadequatearrangementsforsafeandorderlymo�ementandreception,especiallyofsickorwoundedprison-ers,maybetime-consuming .Further,theremustbeadequateprocedurestoensurethatindi�idualsarenotrepatriatedagainsttheirwill .50

48 Transcriptp .4 .49 SeeYoramDinstein,“TheReleaseofPrisonersofWar”,inStudies and Essays on

International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honor of Jean Pictetp .44(C .Swinarskied .,MartinusNijhoffPublishers1984) .

50 SeeHowardS .Le�ie, Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict,inInterna-tional Law Studies,Volume59,pp .421–429(U .S .Na�alWarCollegePress1977) .

66 eritrea/ethiopia

148 . ThereisalsoafundamentalquestionwhetherandtowhatextenteachParty’sobligationtorepatriatedependsupontheother’scompliancewithitsrepatriationobligations .ThelanguageofArticle118isabsolute .Ne�erthe-less,asapracticalmatter,andasindicatedbystatepractice,51anystatethathasnotbeentotallydefeatedisunlikelytoreleaseallthePOWsitholdswithoutassurancethatitsownpersonnelheldbyitsenemywillalsobereleased,anditisunreasonabletoexpectotherwise .Atthehearing,distinguishedcounselforEritreasuggestedthattheobligationtorepatriateshouldbeseenasuncondi-tionalbutacknowledgedthedifficultyofthequestionandthecontraryargu-mentsundergenerallaw .52

149 . TheCommissionfindsthat,gi�enthecharacteroftherepatriationobligationandstatepractice,itisappropriatetoconsiderthebeha�iorofbothPartiesinassessingwhetherorwhenEthiopiafailedtomeetitsobligationsunderArticle118 .IntheCommission’s�iew,Article118doesnotrequirepre-ciselyequi�alentbeha�iorbyeachParty .Howe�er,itispropertoexpectthateachParty’sconductwithrespecttotherepatriationofPOWswillbereason-ableandbroadlycommensuratewiththeconductoftheother .Moreo�er,bothPartiesmustcontinuetostri�etoensurecompliancewiththebasicobjecti�eofArticle118—thereleaseandrepatriationofPOWsaspromptlyaspossiblefollowingthecessationofacti�ehostilities .NeitherPartymayunilaterallyabandonthereleaseandrepatriationprocessorrefusetoworkingoodfaithwiththeICRCtoresol�eanyimpediments .

150 . ThePartiessubmittedlimitede�idenceregardingthisclaim,afactthatcomplicatessomekeyjudgementsbytheCommission .Asnoted,untilthee�eofthehearing,Eritrea’semphasiswasonthereleaseofPOWsstillbeingheld,whileEthiopiaarguedthatthewholematterwasoutsidethejurisdictionoftheCommission .AchartsubmittedbyEritreabutapparentlyreflectingbothParties’understandingofthesequenceofrepatriationsisreproducedbelow .ItshowsthattheParties,actingwiththeassistanceoftheICRC,beganasubstantialprocessofrepatriationinbothdirectionspromptlyafterDecem-ber12,2000 .BetweenDecember2000andMarch2001,Ethiopiarepatriated855EritreanPOWs,38percentofthetotalnumberite�entuallyrepatriated .EritrearepatriatedasmallernumberofEthiopianPOWs(628),buttheycon-stituted65percentofthetotale�entuallyrepatriatedbyEritrea .

151 . AfterMarch2001,theprocesshaltedforasubstantialperiod .ItthenresumedinOctober2001withtwosmallrepatriationsbyeachParty .EritrearepatriatedallremainingEthiopianPOWsinAugust2002 .ThiswasfollowedbytheNo�ember2002Ethiopianrepatriationnotedabo�e .(TheonlyrepatriationofPOWspriortoDecember2000wasinAugust1998whenErit-rearepatriatedse�entysickorwoundedPOWstoEthiopia .)

51 Id.atpp .417–418 .52 ProfessorCrawford,Transcriptpp .472–475 .


152 . ThechartbelowshowsallrepatriationssubsequenttotheAgree-mentofDecember12,2000 .

DatePOWsRepatriated

byEthiopiaPOWsRepatriated

byEritreaDecember2000 359 360January2001 254 50February2001 218March2001 242October2001 24No�ember2001 23February2002 58 25August2002 294No�ember2002 1,287

153 . Therecordisunclearregardingthecircumstancesoftheinterrup-tionande�entualresumptionofrepatriations .TherecordincludesanAugust3,2001,pressreportthattheEthiopianMinistryofForeignAffairshadstatedthatEthiopiawassuspendingtheexchangeofPOWswithEritreauntilEri-treaclarified thesituationofanEthiopianpilotand thirty-sixmilitiaandpoliceofficerswhoitunderstoodhadbeencapturedbyEritreain1998,butwhosenameswerenotincludedinthelistsofPOWsheldbyEritreathatithadrecei�edfromtheICRC .53EritrearespondedthatitwouldalsohaltfurtherrepatriationofEthiopianPOWsbutthatitwaswillingtoresumerepatriationswhenEthiopiadidso .54Astheabo�echartindicates,therewerese�eralsmallrepatriationsofPOWsinOctoberandNo�ember2001andinFebruary2002,butitseemsclearthattherepatriationofthebulkoftheremainingPOWswasheldupfortwel�emonthsormorebyadisputeo�ertheaccountingforthesemissingpersonsorothermattersnotintherecordbeforethisCommission .

154 . Therewasconflictinge�idenceregardingthedetailsofthepilot’scapture,butitwascommongroundthathehadbeencapturedandmadeaPOW .TheCommissionrecei�ednodirecte�idenceconcerninghisfate .Erit-rea’sMemorialstatesthat“Ethiopiawasrepeatedlyinformedaboutthedeathoftheindi�idualinquestionbythefacilitatorsinthepeaceprocess .”55TheMemorialdoesnotindicatewhenEritreabelie�esthatmayha�eoccurred,nordoes itpro�idee�idencethat it, infact,didoccur .Ethiopia’sCounter-Memorialdoesnotrespondtothatstatementordirectlyaddressthefateofthe

53 “EthiopiaConditionallyHaltsPOWsExchangewithEritrea”,EthiopianNewsAgency(ENA),August3,2001,inER17MEM,DocumentaryAnnexp .32 .

54 “AsmaraAccusesEthiopiaofViolatingCeasefireDealo�erPOWs”,AgenceFrancePresse,August3,2001,inER17MEM,DocumentaryAnnexp .34 .

55 ER17MEMp .41 .

68 eritrea/ethiopia

pilotandotherpersonnel .NeitherPartyoffereddocumentaryortestimoniale�idenceonthispoint .

155 . Communications between the Parties concerning the delay inrepatriationswerepresumablytransmittedthroughtheICRCbut,unfortu-nately,theyha�enotbeenmadea�ailabletotheCommission .Howe�er,pressreportsintherecordsuggestthat,atsomepoint,thedisputemayha�ebeennarrowedtothemissingpilot .Inparticular,documentsintroducedbyEritreaindicatethat,onMay8,2002,ProfessorJacquesForster,VicePresidentoftheICRC,statedatapressconferenceattheendofa�isitinEthiopiathattheICRCwasconcernedbya“slowdownonthepartofbothcountries”intherepatria-tionofPOWs .Howe�er,asofthattime,intheICRC’s�iew,“Ethiopiawasnotin�iolationofthefourGene�aCon�entionsbyfailingtorepatriatePOWs .”56

156 . OnJuly16,2002,thePrimeMinisterofEthiopiaconfirmedinapressconferencethatthe“stumblingblock”tothecompletionoftheexchangeofPOWswasthelackofresponsebyEritreatowhathappenedtothepilot .57Thenextmonth,thedisputewase�identlyresol�ed .AnICRCpressrelease,datedAugust23,2002,statesthefollowing:

Gene�a(ICRC)—ThePresidentoftheInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross(ICRC),MrJakobKellenberger,hastodaycompletedhisfirst�isittotheregionsincetheendoftheinternationalarmedconflictbetweenthetwocountriesin2000 .Duringhisofficial�isitstoEritreaandEthiopia,MrKellenbergermetEri-treanPresidentIsaiasAfewerki inAsmaraon20August,andEthiopianPresidentGirmaWoldeGeorgisandPrimeMinisterMelesZenawiinAddisAbabaon22August .The ICRC President’s main objecti�e in both capitals was to ensure thereleaseandrepatriationofallremainingPrisonersofWar(POWs)inaccord-ancewiththeThirdGene�aCon�entionandthepeaceagreementsignedinAlgierson12December2000 .DuringhismeetingwithEritreanPresident IsaiasAfewerki,MrKellen-bergertooknoteofMrAfewerki’scommitmenttoreleaseandrepatriatetheEthiopianPOWsheldinEritrea .ThereleaseandrepatriationofthePOWs,registeredand�isitedbytheICRC,willtakeplacenextweek .DuringhismeetingwithMrKellenberger,EthiopianPrimeMinisterMelesZenawiexpressedhisgo�ernment’scommitmenttoreleaseandrepatriatetheEritreanPOWsheldinEthiopiaandotherpersonsinternedasaresultoftheconflict .ReleaseandrepatriationwilltakeplaceuponcompletionofinternalprocedurestobeworkedoutwiththeICRC .

56 “ICRCExpressesConcerno�erDelayofPOWsRepatriationinEthiopia,Eritrea”,BBCWorldwideMonitoring,May9,2002,inER17CM,DocumentaryAnnex,Annex2,No .4 .

57 “Ethiopia: Inter�iew with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi”, UnitedNationsIntegratedRegionalInformationNetwork,July17,2002,inER17MEM,Docu-mentaryAnnexp .46 .


Inbothcapitals,MrKellenbergerreiteratedtheICRC’sstrongcommitmenttohelpingresol�eallremainingissuesrelatedtopersonscapturedoralleg-edlycapturedduringtheconflict .

TheICRCwelcomesthedecisi�estepstakentowardsthepromptreturnofthePOWstotheirhomecountryandtotheirfamilies,andlooksforwardtofacilitatingthereleaseandrepatriationtheyha�ebeensoanxiouslyawaitingforclosetoeighteenmonths .58

157 . While Eritrea promptly released and repatriated its remainingPOWsinlateAugust2002,Ethiopiawaitedthreemonths,untilNo�ember29,2002,toreleasetheremainderofitsPOWsandtorepatriatethosedesiringrepatriation .Thisthree-monthdelaywasnotexplained .

158 . Inthesecircumstances,theCommissionconcludesthatEthiopiadidnotmeetitsobligationpromptlytorepatriatethePOWsitheld,asrequiredbylaw .Howe�er,theproblemremainstodeterminethedateonwhichthisfailureofcompliancebegan,anissueonwhichEritreahastheburdenofproof .EritreadidnotclearlyexplainthespecificpointatwhichitregardedEthiopiaasha�ingfirst�iolateditsrepatriationobligation,andEthiopiadidnotjointheissue,inbothcasesforreasonspre�iouslyexplained .ThelackofdiscussionbythePartieshascomplicatedtheCommission’spresenttask .

159 . Eritrea apparently dates the breach from Ethiopia’s decision inAugust2001tosuspendfurtherrepatriationofPOWsuntilEritreaclarifiedthefateofafewpersonswhoEthiopiabelie�edtoha�ebeencapturedbyEritreain1998butwhowerenotlistedamongPOWsheldbyEritrea .Eritreaarguesthatconcernsaboutthefateofarelati�elyfewmissingpersonscannotjustifydelay-ingforayearormorethereleaseandrepatriationofnearly1,300POWs .ItalsoassertsthatEthiopia’ssuspensionofPOWexchangescannotbejustifiedasanon-forciblecounter-measureunderthelawofstateresponsibilitybecause,asArticle50oftheInternationalLawCommission’sArticlesonResponsi-bilityofStatesforInternationallyWrongfulActsemphasizes,suchmeasuresmaynotaffect“obligationsfortheprotectionoffundamentalhumanrights,”or“obligationsofahumanitariancharacterprohibitingreprisals .”Likewise,Eritreapointsoutthatthisconductcannotbeapermittedreprisalunderthelawofarmedconflict;Article13ofGene�aCon�entionIIIemphasizesthat“measuresofreprisalagainstprisonersofwarareprohibited .”Asnoted,Ethio-piadefendedthisclaimonjurisdictionalgroundsandconsequentlyhasnotrespondedtotheselegalarguments .

160 . Eritrea’sargumentsarewellfoundedinlaw .Ne�ertheless,theyarenotsufficienttoestablishthatEthiopia�iolateditsrepatriationobligationasofAugust2001 .Inparticular,theCommissionisnotpreparedtoconcludethatEthiopia�iolateditsobligationunderArticle118ofGene�aCon�ention

58 ICRC,ICRC President Visits Eritrea and Ethiopia: decisive progress in the release and repatriation of POWs,PressRelease02/48(August23,2002),available at<http://www .icrc .org/web/Eng/siteengo .nsf/iwpList279/> .

70 eritrea/ethiopia

IIIbysuspendingtemporarilyfurtherrepatriationspendingaresponsetoaseeminglyreasonablerequestforclarificationofthefateofanumberofmiss-ingcombatantsitbelie�edcapturedbyEritreawhowerenotlistedasPOWs .Eritreapresentednoe�idenceindicatingthatitsoughttorespondtotheserequests,ortoestablishthattheywereunreasonableorinappropriate .

161 . Inthisconnection,theCommissionmustgi�ecarefulattentionandappropriateweighttothepositionoftheICRC .Asnotedabo�e,ICRCVice-PresidentForsterstatedinMay2002that,asofthattime,theICRCdidnotregardEthiopiaasbeinginbreachofitsrepatriationobligation .59Eritreadidnotaddressthatstatement .TheICRC’sconclusionisparticularlyworthyofrespectbecausetheICRCwas incommunicationwithbothPartiesandapparentlyhadbeenthechannelforcommunicationsbetweenthemonPOWmatters .Consequently,theICRCpresumablyhadamuchfullerappreciationofthereasonsforthedelayinrepatriationsthanispro�idedbythelimitedrecordbeforetheCommission .

162 . Whilethelengthoftimeapparentlyrequiredtoresol�ethismat-teriscertainlytroubling,ontherecordbeforeittheCommissionisnotinapositiontodisagreewiththeconclusionoftheICRCortoconcludethatEthio-piaalonewasresponsibleforthelongdelayintherepatriationsthatendedwhenEritrearepatriateditsremainingEthiopianPOWsinAugust2002 .Con-sequently,theclaimthatEthiopia�iolateditsrepatriationobligationunderArticle118ofGene�aCon�entionIIIbysuspendingrepatriationofPOWsinAugust2001mustbedismissedforfailureofproof .

163 . Howe�er,in�iewoftheICRCpressreleaseofAugust23,2002,andtherepatriationofallremainingEthiopianPOWsinthatsamemonth,theCommissionseesnolegaljustificationforthecontinuedprolongeddetentionbyEthiopiaoftheremainingEritreanPOWs .EthiopiawaiteduntilNo�ember29,2002,toreleaseandrepatriatetheremainingEritreanPOWs .Ethiopiahasnotexplainedthisfurtherdelay,andtheCommissionseesnojustificationforits length .Whilese�eralweeksmightunderstandablyha�ebeenneededtomakethenecessaryarrangementswiththeICRCand,inparticular,to�erifythatthosewhorefusedtoberepatriatedmadetheirdecisionfreely,theCom-missionestimatesthatthisprocessshouldnotha�erequiredmorethanthreeweeksatthemost .Consequently,theCommissionholdsthatEthiopia�iolateditsobligationsunderArticle118ofGene�aCon�entionIIIbyfailingtorepatri-ate1,287POWsbySeptember13,2002,andthatitisresponsibletoEritreafortheresultingdelayofse�enty-se�endays .

V. aWard

In�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

59 “ICRCExpressesConcern”,supranote56 .


a. Jurisdiction1 . TheCommissionhasjurisdictiono�ertheClaimant’sclaimsconcern-

ingthetreatmentofitsPOWsbytheRespondentduringtheperiodDecember12,2000,untiltheirfinalreleaseorrepatriation,includingaclaimforunjusti-fieddelayinthereleaseandrepatriationofsomeofthosePOWs .

2 . TheCommissionlacksjurisdictiono�erclaimsthatwerenotfiledbyDecember12,2001 .Consequently,theclaimthatPOWsweresubjectedtoinsultsandpubliccuriosity,contrarytoArticle13ofGene�aCon�entionIII,includingtherelatedrequestforanorder;theclaimthatfemalePOWswereaccordedinappropriatehousingandsanitaryconditions,contrarytoArticle25ofthatCon�ention;andtheclaimthatPOWsweremistreatedduringtrans-fersbetweencamps,contrarytoArticle46ofthatCon�ention,areherebydis-missedforlackofjurisdiction .

3 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .

b. applicable law1 . WithrespecttomatterspriortoEritrea’saccessiontotheGene�a

Con�entionsof1949onAugust14,2000,theinternationallawapplicabletothisclaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbyrele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�en-tionsof1949 .

2 . Whene�ereitherPartyassertsthataparticularrele�antpro�isionofthoseCon�entionswasnotpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwillbeontheassertingParty .

3 . WithrespecttomatterssubsequenttoAugust14,2000,theinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawapplicabletothisclaimisrele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,aswellascustomaryinternationallaw .

C. evidentiary issuesTheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishthe

liabilityofaPartyfora�iolationofapplicableinternationallaw .

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

internationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelandbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEthiopia:

1 . Forfailingtotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�entincidentsofbeatingorotherunlawfulabuseofEritreanPOWsatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;

72 eritrea/ethiopia

2 . For frequentlydepri�ingEritreanPOWsof footwearduring longwalksfromtheplaceofcapturetothefirstplaceofdetention;

3 . ForfailingtoprotectthepersonalpropertyofEritreanPOWs;

4 . ForsubjectingEritreanPOWstoenforcedindoctrinationfromJuly1998toNo�ember2002inthecampsatBilate,MaiChew,MaiKenetalandDedessa;

5 . ForpermittinghealthconditionsatMaiKenetaltobesuchasseri-ouslyandad�erselytoaffectorendangerthehealthoftheEritreanPOWsconfinedthere;

6 . Forpro�idingallEritreanPOWspriortoDecember2000adietthatwasseriouslydeficientinnutrition;

7 . For failing to pro�ide the standard of medical care required forEritreanPOWs,particularlyatMaiKenetal,andforfailingtopro�iderequiredpre�enti�ecarebysegregatingfromtheoutsetprisonerswithinfectiousdiseasesandbyconductingregularphysical examinations,fromMay1998untilDecember2000;and

8 . Fordelayingtherepatriationof1,287EritreanPOWsin2002forse�-entyse�endayslongerthanwasreasonablyrequired .

e. other findings1 . The Claimant’s request that the Commission order the return of

personalpropertyofEritreanPOWsthatwastakenbytheRespondentoritspersonnelisdenied .

2 . Allotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .

DoneatTheHague,this1stdayofJuly2003,

[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...