REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES...

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims - Eritrea's Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 14, 21, 25 & 26

19 December 2005

XXVI pp. 291-349VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT Viii

Partial Award Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related

Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 14, 21, 25 & 26

Decision of 19 December 2005

Sentence partielle Front occidental, bombardements aériens et demandes assimilées—Réclamations de l’Érythrée Nos 1, 3, 5, 9-13,

14, 21, 25 & 26

Décision du 19 décembre 2005

Partialaward,WesternFront,aerialbombardmentandrelatedclaims—Eritrea’sclaims1,3,5,9–13,14,21,25&26

Decisionof19December2005

Sentencepartielle,Frontoccidental,bombardementsaériensetdemandesassimilées—Réclamationsde

l’ÉrythréeNos1,3,5,9-13,14,21,25&26Décisiondu19décembre2005

JurisdictionoftheCommission—liabilityofStatesforfrequentorper�asi�e�io-lationsofinternationallaw—takingintoaccountonlyunusuallyseriousindi�idualincidents—apportionmentoflegalliabilitybetweenthePartiesfortheloss,damageorinjuryoccurred .

Applicable law—ProtocolI to theGene�aCon�entions�iewedbythePartiesasreflectingbindingcustomaryrulesdespitethedoubtfulstatusofsomeofitspor-tions—ProtocolIItotheGene�aCon�entions�iewedbytheCommissionasexpress-ingcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawregardingrecordingofminefieldsandprohibitionofindiscriminateuse .

Protectionofci�ilians—obligationtotakeappropriatemeasurestoprotectene-myci�iliansandci�ilianpropertywithinareasunderthecontrolofarmedforces,e�enoutsideoftheoccupationregime—presumptioninfa�ouroftheliabilityoftheStateincontrolfordamagesoccurred—fi�eincidentsofbeatinginonetownsufficienttosuggestapatternofabuse—obligationtotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�entrapeofci�iliansbytroops .

Militaryobjecti�es—noliabilityarisingfromdamagesresultingfrommilitaryoperations—unlawfultobombwaterreser�oirusedmainlybyci�ilians—electricpow-erstationusuallyqualifyasmilitaryobjecti�es—lawfultobombmilitaryobjecti�esinordertoinflicteconomiclosstotheenemy .

Displacedci�ilians—noanalogybetweenrepatriationofprisonersofwarafterthewarandreturnofdisplacedci�ilians—absenceofjurisdictionoftheCommissiono�erthereturnofdisplacedci�ilians—noliabilityarisingfromtheflightofci�iliansfearingcombats—liabilityarisingfromdisplacementofci�iliansresultingfromordersandforcefulactionsofarmedforces .

Questionofe�idence—creditaccordedtocumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonies—failureofproofwhendissentingtestimonies—norelianceonwrittenstatementsofindirectwitnesses—strengtheningofwitnesstestimoniesconfirmedbyinternationalorganisationsandpressreports—standardofe�idenceloweredregard-ingrapesbecauseofthetypicallysecreti�eandunwitnessednatureofsuchact .

Compétence de la Commission—responsabilité des Etats pour �iolationsfréquentesetgénéraliséesdudroitinternational—priseencompted’incidentsisolésparticulièrementsérieuxetinhabituelsuniquement—répartitiondelaresponsabilitéjuridiqueentrelesPartiespourlespertes,dommagesoudégâtssur�enus .

294 Eritrea/Ethiopia

Droitapplicable—ProtocoleIauxCon�entionsdeGenè�econsidéréparlesPar-tiescommereflétantlesrèglescoutumièrescontraignantesmalgrélestatutincertaindecertainesdispositionsdecelui-ci—ProtocoleIIauxCon�entionsdeGenè�econsidéréparlaCommissioncommeexprimantledroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumierenmatièred’enregistrementdeschampsdeminesetd’interdictiondeleurutilisationdemanièreindiscriminée .

Protectiondesci�ils—obligationdeprendredesmesuresdeprotectionadéquatesafindeprotégerlesci�ilsennemisetleursbiensdansleszonescontrôléesparl’armée,mêmeendehorsdurégimed’occupation—présomptiondelaresponsabilitédel’Étatayantlecontrôledelazonepourlesdommagessur�enus—cinqincidentsde�iolencedansunemême�illesuffisentpoursuggérerunepratiquedemau�aistraitements—obligationdeprendredesmesureseffecti�esdepré�entiondes�iolsdeci�ilsparlestroupes .

Objectifsmilitaires—responsabiliténonengagéepourlesdestructionsrésultantdesopérationsmilitaires—illégaldebombarderunréser�oird’eauutiliséprincipale-mentparlapopulationci�ile—centralesélectriquesgénéralementqualifiéesd’objectifsmilitaires—légaldebombarderdesobjectifsmilitairesdanslebutd’infligerdesdom-mageséconomiquesàl’ennemi .

Déplacement de ci�ils—pas d’analogie entre le rapatriement des prisonniersdeguerreaprèslaguerreetleretourdesci�ilsdéplacés—absencedecompétencedelaCommissionencequiconcerneleretourdesci�ilsdéplacés—responsabiliténonengagéeparlafuitedeci�ilsredoutantlescombats—responsabilitéengagéepourledéplacementdesci�ilsrésultantd’ordresetd’actionscoerciti�esdesforcesarmées .

Question des preu�es—crédit accordé aux témoignages cumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—défautdepreu�eencasdetémoignagescontradictoires—pas de crédit accordé aux déclarations de témoins indirects—crédit renforcé destémoignagesconfirmésparlesrapportsd’organisationsinternationalesetd’organesdepresse—rabaissementdescritèresd’établissementdespreu�esdanslesaffairesde�iol,dufaitquecetyped’acteestgénéralementperpetréentoutediscrétionetsanstémoin .

PartVIII—WesternFront,AerialBombardmentandRelatedClaims eritrea’sclaims1,3,5,9–13,14,21,25&26 295

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims

Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–13, 14, 21, 25 & 26

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

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

TheHague,December19,2005

PARTIAL AWARD—Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9–13, 14, 21, 25 & 26

between the Claimant, The State of Eritrea, represented by:

Government of Eritrea

HisExcellency,MohammedSuleimanAhmed,AmbassadoroftheStateofEritreatoTheNetherlands

ProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-AgentfortheGo�ernmentofEritrea,LegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresidentofEritrea;HowardM .HoltzmannPro-fessorofInternationalLaw,YaleLawSchool

Ms .LorraineCharlton,DeputyLegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresi-dentofEritrea


Counsel and AdvocatesProfessorJamesR .Crawford,SC,FBA,WhewellProfessorofInterna-

tionalLaw,Uni�ersityofCambridge;MemberoftheAustralianandEnglishBars;MemberoftheInstituteofInternationalLaw

Mr .PayamAkha�an

Counsel and ConsultantsMs .MeganChaney,Esq .Ms .MichelleCostaMs .AnneEastmanMs .JulieFreyMs .DianeHaar,Esq .Ms .AmandaCostikyanJonesMr .Ke�inT .ReedMr .AbrhamTesfayHaile,Esq .Ms .LoriDanielleTully,Esq .Ms .CristinaVillarinoVilla,Esq .

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

Government of EthiopiaAmbassador Fisseha Yimer, Permanent Representati�e of the Federal

DemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,Gene�a,Co-AgentMr .HabtomAbraha,ConsulGeneral,EthiopianMissioninTheNeth-

erlandsMr .IbrahimIdris,Director,LegalAffairsGeneralDirectorate,Minis-

tryofForeignAffairsoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbaba

Mr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,Coordinator,ClaimsTeam,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbaba

Mr .YaredGetachew,Esq .,LegalAd�isor;Memberof theStateBarofNewJersey

Counsel and ConsultantsMr .B .Dono�anPicard,Hunton&WilliamsLLP,Washington,D .C .;Mem-

beroftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

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


ProfessorDa�idD .Caron,BoaltHallSchoolofLaw,Uni�ersityofCali-forniaatBerkeley;MemberoftheStateBarofCalifornia

Mr .JohnBriscoe,BriscoeI�ester&BazelLLP;MemberoftheStateBarofCalifornia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

Mr .EdwardB .Rowe,Hunton&WilliamsLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofColorado

Ms . Virginia C . Dailey, Hunton & Williams LLP, Washington, D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofFlorida

Mr .ThomasR .Snider,Hunton&WilliamsLLP,Washington,D .C .;Mem-beroftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofMas-sachusetts

Ms .AnastasiaTelesetsky,Consultant,BriscoeI�ester&BazelLLP(atpresent);MemberoftheStateBarofCalifornia;MemberoftheStateBarofWashington

Mr .AmirShafaie,Consultant

Table of ConTenTs

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

B . BackgroundandTerritorialScopeoftheClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

C . GeneralComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300

D . AwardSections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

II . PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

III . APPLICABLELAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

IV . THEWESTERNFRONT(ERITREA’SCLAIMS1,3,5and9–13) 305

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

1 . QuestionofProofRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3052 . E�idencePresented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3053 . EstimationofLiability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

C . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

D . Claim3—TeseneySub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

E . Claim13—GulujSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309


F . Claim9—BarentuSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312G . Claim12—ShambukoSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314H . Claim5—LalaigashSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315I . Claim10—HaykotaSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317J . Claim1—MolkiSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318K . Claim11—GogneSub-Zoba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319L . AllegationsofRape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320M .Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

V . UNLAWFULAERIALBOMBARDMENT(ERITREA’SCLAIM26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325C . TheMerits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325D . Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

VI . AERIAL BOMBARDMENT OF HIRGIGO POWER STATION(ERITREA’SCLAIM25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331C . TheMerits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332D . Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

VII . PREVENTINGDISPLACEDPERSONSFROMRETURNING(ERITREA’SCLAIM14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

A . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336C . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337D . TheMerits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338E . Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

VIII . DISPLACEMENTOFCIVILIANS(ERITREA’SCLAIM21) 339

A . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339C . IndirectDisplacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339D . DirectDisplacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341


i. inTroduCTion

a. summary of the Positions of the Parties1 . TheClaimsdecidedinthisPartialAwardfallintothreecategories:

claimsrelatingtotheWesternFront(Eritrea’sClaims1,3,5and9–13),claimsrelatingtoaerialbombardmentat�ariousplacesinEritrea(Claims25and26),andclaimsrelatingtothedisplacementofEritreanci�ilians,includinginareastowhichEthiopianarmedforceswithdrewfollowingtheendofthewar(Claims14and21) .AlloftheseClaimsha�ebeenbroughttotheCom-missionby the Claimant, the State of Eritrea (“Eritrea”), against theRespondent,theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .EritreaaskstheCom-missiontofindEthiopialiableforloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimant,includingloss,damageandinjurysufferedbyEritreannationalsandpersonsofEritreannationaloriginandagents,asaresultofallegedinfractionsofinternationallawoccurringduringthe1998–2000interna-tionalarmedconf lictbetweentheParties .TheClaimantrequestsmon-etarycompensation .TheseClaimsdonotincludeanyclaimssetforthinseparatecasesbytheClaimant,suchasthoseformistreatmentofprisonersofwar(“POWs”)(Eritrea’sClaim17),thoseclaimsrelatingtotheCentralFront(Eritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8and22)orformistreatmentofotherEritreannationals inareasofEthiopianotdirectlyaffectedbythearmedconflict(Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23and27–32) .

2 . TheRespondentassertsthatitfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitsconductofmilitaryoperations .

E . Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342

IX . COMBINEDAWARDSECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

A . AwardinEritrea’sClaims1,3,5and9–13:WesternFront . . . . 343B . AwardinEritrea’sClaim26:UnlawfulAerialBombardment . . . . 344C . Award inEritrea’sClaim25:AerialBombardmentofHirgigo

PowerStation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345D . AwardinEritrea’sClaim14:Pre�entingDisplacedPersonsfrom

Returning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345E . AwardinEritrea’sClaim21:DisplacementofCi�ilians . . . . . . . 345Aerial Bombardment of Hirgigo Power Station (Eritrea’s

Claim25)—SeparateOpinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346


b. background and Territorial scope of the Claims

3 . Between1998and2000,thePartieswagedacostly,large-scaleinter-nationalarmedconflictalongse�eralareasoftheircommonfrontier .ThisPartialAward,likethecorrespondingPartialAwardissuedtodayinEthi-opia’sClaim1fortheWesternFront(“Ethiopia’sWesternFrontClaims”),addressesallegationsofillegalconductrelatedtomilitaryoperationsontheWesternFrontofthatconf lict,aswellasallegationsofillegalconductinthecourseofEthiopia’saerialbombardmentat�ariousplacesinEritrea,includingbutnot limited to theWesternFront,andallegationsof illegaldisplacementsofEritreans,includingbutnotlimitedtotheWesternFront .

4 . For purposes of these Claims, the Western Front encompassedtheareaofeight sub-zobas in southernEritrea:Teseney,Guluj,Barentu,Lalaigash,Shambuko,Molki,HaykotaandGogneSub-Zobas .Eritrea’swest-ernzonecontainsmuchofitsagriculturalterritoryandcommercialcent-ersforcross-bordertradewithEthiopiaandSudan .ThemajortownsofBarentu,TeseneyandOmhajerarelocatedthere,asarethesixsmallertownsofTokombia,Shambuko,Guluj,Gogne,HaykotaandMolki .AccordingtoEritrea,thethreelargesteconomicinfrastructureprojectsintheregionweretheAlighidircotton-processingplantinTeseneySub-Zoba,theRoth-mantobacco-processingplantinTokombiatown,andtheGash-SetitHotelandConferenceCenterinBarentutown .

C. General Comment

5 . As thefindings in thisPartialAwardand in therelatedPartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim1describe, theallegationsand thesupport-ing e�idence presented by the Parties frequently indicatediametricallyopposedaccountsof thesamee�ents .Suchclashing�iewsof therele�antfactsmaynotbesurprisinginlightofthefogofwaraccompanyingmilitaryoperations,intensifiedbythepolarizingeffectsofwarfare .AstheCommis-sionhasnotedinitsearlierPartialAwards,theseeffectsha�elongbeenseeninwarfareandtheycreateob�iousdifficultiesfortheCommission,whichisconfrontedwithlargenumbersofsworndeclarationsbywitnessesoneachsideassertingfactsthataremutuallycontradictory .

6 . Intheseunhappycircumstances,inseekingtodeterminethetruth,theCommissionhasdoneitsbesttoassessthecredibilityofmuchconflict-inge�idence .Considerationsoftimeandexpenseha�epre�entedthePartiesfrombringingmorethanafewwitnessestoTheHaguetotestifybeforetheCommission .TheCommissionthushashadtojudgethecredibilityofpar-ticulardeclarations,notbyobser�ingandquestioningthedeclarants,butratheronthebasisofalltherele�ante�idencebeforeit,whichmayormaynot includee�idencefrompersonsorpartiesnotdirectly in�ol�edintheconflict .Inthatconnection,theCommissionrecallsitsholdinginitsearlier


PartialAwardsontherequiredstandardofproof:“Particularlyinlightofthegra�ityofsomeoftheclaimsad�anced,theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .”1TheCommissionappliesthesamestandardintheClaimsaddressedinthisPartialAward .

7 . AsinitsearlierPartialAwards,theCommissionrecognizesthatthestandardofproofitmustapplytothe�olumeofsharplyconflictinge�idencelikelyresultsinfewerfindingsofliabilitythaneitherPartyanticipated .ThePar-tialAwardsintheseClaimsmustbeunderstoodinthatuna�oidablecontext .

d. award sections

8 . Asse�eralofEritrea’sClaimsaredecidedinthisPartialAward,theCommissionhasincludedanAwardsectionattheendofeachClaim(withalloftheWesternFrontClaimshandledtogetherinSectionIV)andrepeatedthosesectionsattheendofthePartialAward .

ii. ProCeedinGs

9 . TheCommission informedthePartiesonAugust29,2001that itintendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerningliability,andsecond,ifliabilityisfound,concern-ingdamages .EritreafiledtheseClaimsonDecember12,2001;EthiopiafileditsStatementsofDefensetoClaims1,3,5and9–13onJune17,2002,andtoClaims14,21,25and26onAugust15,2002;EritreafileditsMemorialonNo�ember1,2004;andEthiopiaitsCounter-MemorialonJanuary17,2005 .BothPartiesfiledRepliesonMarch10,2005 .AhearingonliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceduringtheweekofApril4–8,2005,inconjunctionwithahearingonse�eralotherclaimsbybothParties,includingEthiopia’srelatedClaim1,whichwasheardduringtheweekofApril11-15,2005 .

iii. aPPliCable laW

10 . UnderArticle5,paragraph1,oftheAgreement,“inconsideringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Arti-cle19oftheCommission’sRulesofProceduredefinestherele�antrulesin the familiar languageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheInternationalCourtofJustice’sStatute .ItdirectstheCommissiontolookto:

1 PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Eritrea’sClaim17BetweentheStateofEritreaandTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(July1,2003),para .46[hereinafterPar-tialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim];PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Ethiopia’sClaim4BetweenTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(July1,2003),para .37[hereinafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaim] .


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

2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;

3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations; 4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemosthighly

qualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .

11 . BothParties’discussionsoftheapplicablelawreflectthepremise,whichtheCommissionshares,thatthe1998–2000conflictbetweenthemwasaninternationalarmedconflictsubjecttotheinternationallawofarmedconflict .Howe�er,thePartiesdisagreeastowhethercertainrulesapplybyoperationofcon�entionsorundercustomarylaw .

12 . In its Partial Awards in the Parties’ Prisoners of War, CentralFrontandCi�iliansClaims,theCommissionheldthatthe lawapplicabletothoseclaimspriortoAugust14,2000,whenEritreaaccededtothefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,2wascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .3 InthosesamePartialAwards, theCommissionalsoheldthat thoseCon�entionsha�e largelybecomeexpressionsofcustomary internationalhumanitarianlawand,consequently,thatthelawapplicabletothoseClaimswascustomary internationalhumanitarian lawasexemplifiedbytherel-

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

3 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atpara .38;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atpara .29;PartialAward,CentralFront,Eritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8&22BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticGo�ern-mentofEthiopia(April28,2004),para .21[hereinafterPartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims];PartialAward,CentralFront,Ethiopia’sClaim2BetweentheFederalDem-ocraticGo�ernmentofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(April28,2004),para .15[herein-afterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims];PartialAwardinEritrea’sClaims15,16,23&27–32BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,para .28(December17,2004)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEritrea’sCi�iliansClaims];PartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim5BetweentheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea,para .24(December17,2004)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sCi�iliansClaims] .


e�antpartsofthoseCon�entions .4ThoseholdingsapplyaswelltoalltheClaimsaddressedinthisPartialAwardand,indeed,toalltheclaimssubmit-tedtotheCommission .

13 . ThePartiesha�eidentifiednootherpotentiallyrele�anttreatiestowhichbothEritreaandEthiopiawerepartiesduringthearmedconflict .AstheclaimspresentedfordecisioninthepresentPartialAwardarisefrommilitarycombatandfrombelligerentoccupationofterritory,theCommis-sionmakesthesameholdingswithrespecttothecustomarystatusoftheHagueCon�ention(IV)RespectingtheLawsandCustomsofWaronLandof1907anditsannexedRegulations(“HagueRegulations”)5asthoseithasmadewithrespecttotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .6ThecustomarylawstatusoftheHagueRegulationshasbeenrecognizedformorethan50years .7HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�isionofthoseCon�entionsandRegulationsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomary internationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwouldha�edecidedthatquestion,withtheburdenofproofontheassertingParty .Inthee�ent,howe�er,neitherPartycontestedtheirstatusasaccuratereflectionsofcustom-arylaw .

14 . BothPartiesalsoreliedextensi�elyintheirwrittenandoralplead-ingsonpro�isionscontainedinAdditionalProtocolIof1977totheGene�aCon�entions(“Gene�aProtocolI”) .8AlthoughportionsofGene�aProtocolIin�ol�eelementsofprogressi�ede�elopmentofthelaw,bothParties,withoneexception,treatedkeypro�isionsgo�erningtheconductofattacksandotherrele�antmattersintheclaimsdecidedbythisPartialAwardasreflect-ingcustomaryrulesbindingbetweenthem .TheCommissionagreesandfur-

4 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atparas .40–41;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atparas .31–32;PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .21;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .15;PartialAwardinEritrea’sCi�iliansClaims,supra note3,atpara .28;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCi�iliansClaims,supra note3,atpara .24 .

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

6 See PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .22;Par-tialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .16 .

7 InternationalMilitaryTribunal,Trial of the Major War Criminals by the Interna-tional Military Tribunalpp .253–254(1947);United States v. Von Leeb[HighCommandCase],11Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunal Under Control Council Law No. 10p .462(1950);ReportoftheSecretary-GeneralPursuanttoParagraph2oftheSecurityCouncilResolution808,Annex,atp .9,U .N .Doc .S/25704(1993);see also Vol .II,Oppenheim’s International Lawpp .234–236(HerschLauterpachted .,Longmans,7thed .1952);JonathanI .Charney,International Agreements and the Development of Cus-tomary International Law, 61Wash .L .Re� .p .971(1986) .

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


therholdsthat,duringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,mostofthepro�isionsofGene�aProtocolIwereexpressionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Assetoutbelow,wheninEritrea’sClaim26onePartysuggeststhataparticularpro�isionofthatProtocolshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theCommissiondecidesthatquestionasamatteroflaw .

15 . BothPartiespresentednumerousclaimsallegingimproperuseofanti-personnellandminesandboobytraps,buttherewaslimiteddiscussionofthelawrele�anttotheuseofthoseweaponsininternationalarmedconflict .TheCommissionnotesthattheeffortstode�eloplawdealingspecificallywithsuchweaponshasresultedinthefollowingtreaties:theCon�entiononPro-hibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�entionalWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscriminateEffects,9theProtocolonProhibitionsorRestrictionsontheUseofMines,Booby-TrapsandOtherDe�ices(“ProtocolIIof1980”),10thatProtocolasamendedonMay3,1996,11andtheCon�entionontheProhibitionoftheUse,StockpilingPro-ductionandTransferofAnti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruction .12NoneoftheseinstrumentswasinforcebetweenthePartiesduringthecon-flict .TheCommissionholdsthatcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawis the lawapplicable to these claims . In that connection, theCommissionconsidersthatthetreatiesjustlistedha�ebeenconcludedsorecentlyandthepracticeofStateshasbeenso�ariedandepisodicthatitisimpossibletoholdthatanyoftheresultingtreatiesinandofitselfconstitutedanexpressionofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawapplicableduringthearmedcon-flictbetweentheParties .Ne�ertheless,thereareelementsinProtocolIIof1980,suchasthoseconcerningrecordingofminefieldsandprohibitionofindiscriminateuse,thatexpresscustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thoserulesreflectfundamentalhumanitarianlawobligationsofdiscrimina-tionandprotectionofci�ilians .

9 U .N .Con�entiononProhibitionorRestrictionsontheUseofCertainCon�ention-alWeaponsWhichMaybeDeemedtobeExcessi�elyInjuriousortoHa�eIndiscriminateEffects,Oct .10,1980,1342U .N .T .S .p .137,reprinted in 19I .L .M .p .1523(1980) .

10 ProtocolonProhibitionsorRestrictionsontheUseofMines,Booby-TrapsandOtherDe�ices,Oct .10,1980,1342U .N .T .S .168,reprinted in 19I .L .M .p .1529(1980) .

11 Id., asamendedatGene�a,May3,1996,reprinted in 35I .L .M .p .1209(1996) .12 Con�entionontheProhibitionoftheUse,Stockpiling,ProductionandTransferof

Anti-PersonnelMinesandonTheirDestruction,Sept .18,1997,36I .L .M .p .1507(1997) .


iV. THe WesTern fronT (eriTrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9–13)

a. Jurisdiction16 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementestablishestheCommission’s

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

17 . IntheseClaims,asinEthiopia’sClaim1,theClaimantallegesthattheRespondent’sconductrelatedtomilitaryoperationsontheWesternFront�iolatednumerousrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .EthiopiahasnotcontestedtheCommission’sjurisdictiono�ertheclaimsassertedbyEritreaand theCommission isawareofno jurisdictional impediments .Thus, theclaimsfalldirectlywithinthescopeoftheCommission’sjurisdiction .

b. evidentiary issues

1. Question of Proof Required

18 . Asdiscussedabo�e, theCommissionrequiresclearandcon-�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .

2. Evidence Presented

19 . InsupportofitsWesternFrontClaims,Eritreapresentedmorethan250swornwitnessdeclarationsandreportsfromfi�eexperts .Eritreaalsosub-mittedphotographsandsatelliteimagesinhardcopyandelectronicformat,�ideofootage,pressreports,includingfromjournalistsembeddedwithEthio-pianaswellasEritreantroops,andreportsbyinternationalorganizations,UnitedNationsagencies,third-Statego�ernmentagenciesandnon-go�ern-mentalorganizations(“NGOs”) .Initsdefense,Ethiopiasubmitted19witnessdeclarations,mostfrommilitaryofficersandotherpersonnel,aswellasmaps,photographsandsatelliteimages .

20 . Atthehearing,thefollowingwitnesseswerepresented:ByEritrea:

Major(Ret .)JakeBell—ExpertandFactWitnessCaptain(Ret .)MarleneUnrau—ExpertandFactWitnessMajor(Ret .)PaulNoack—ExpertWitness


ByEthiopia:AsayasDagnew—FactandExpertWitnessBrigadierGeneralAdemMohammed—FactWitness

3. Estimation of Liability

21 . AswasthecaseintheParties’CentralFrontClaims,13theWest-ernFrontClaimsin�ol�ecomplexe�entsunfoldingo�ertime .Incertainsituations,theCommissionhasconcludedthatdamageinparticularloca-tionsresultedfrommultiplecausesoperatingatdifferenttimes,includingcauses forwhichtherewasStateresponsibilityandothercauses forwhichtherewasnot .Inthesesituations,thee�idencedoesnotpermitexactappor-tionmentofdamage to thedifferentcauses .Accordingly, theCommissionhasindicatedthepercentageoftheloss,damageorinjuryconcernedforwhichitbelie�estheRespondentislegallyresponsible,baseduponitsbestassessmentofthee�idencepresentedbybothParties .

C. introduction22 . InMayandJuneof2000,Ethiopialaunchedamajoroffensi�eon

theWesternFront .ItbeganonMay12withattacksincludingagainsttheEri-treantrenchlinesbeforeShambukoandShelalointhecenteroftheWesternFrontwiththeobjecti�eofbreakingthroughthoselinesandmo�ingontoTokombiaandultimatelyBarentu .Ethiopiaassertedthatitsstrategicobjec-ti�einlaunchingitsoffensi�eontheWesternFrontwastoinduceEritreatomo�esubstantialEritreanforceswestfromtheCentralFrontinordertofacilitatesubsequentEthiopianattacksaroundZalembessaandelsewhereontheCentralFront .EthiopiacontendedthatsuccessontheCentralFrontwasnecessarytodri�etheremainingEritreanforcesoutofEthiopianterri-toryandtocompelEritreatoagreetoacessationofhostilities .TheEthiopianoffensi�eon theWesternFrontwas successful inbreaking through thedefensi�elinesofEritreaandreachingTokombiabyMay15aswellasBishu-ka,MailemandMolki .Fightingwase�identlyintensenearShambukoandBimbina,butEthiopianforcessucceededinenteringBarentuonMay18afterhea�yfighting .

23 . AfterthecaptureofBarentu,Ethiopiabegantoredeployse�eralofthedi�isionsusedintheseattacks,someofthemeastwardtowardMaiDimaandMendeferaandothersbacktoEthiopia .Also,onMay24,Ethiopiasentthe15thDi�isionwest fromBarentutowardTeseneyalongtheeast-westroadcorridorconnectingthosetwotowns .Thatdi�isionengagedincombatonrouteatGogneonMay26andatHaykotaonMay27before reaching

13 PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .29;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .23 .


Teseneyandtheneighboring�illageofAlighidironMay28 .FreshEritreanforcesarri�ingfromthenorthengagedthe15thDi�isionincombatoutsideofTeseneyonJune4,followingwhichthe15thDi�isionwithdrewtothesouthtowardthebordertownofOmhajerandtheSetitRi�er .

24 . Intheprocessofthatwithdrawal,onJune5,Ethiopiancom-mandersreportedasignificantbattlewithEritreanforcesnearthetownofGuluj .AftertheEthiopianforceswereaugmentedbythreeotherdi�isions,theymo�edbacknorthonMay12,recapturingGulujonJune12andTeseneyandAlighidironJune14 .OnJune18,EritreaandEthiopiasignedacease-fire agreement . The following day, the Ethiopian forces left Teseney andAlighidirandwithdrewtoEthiopia .OtherEthiopianforcesremainednorthofOmhajerbeforewithdrawingtoEthiopiaonJune28,andoneEthiopiandi�isionremainedinEritreaatOmhajeruntilitreturnedtoEthiopiainSep-tember2000 .

25 . Asaresultof thesee�ents,EritreahassubmittedeightseparateClaims,oneforeachoftheaffectedsub-zobasontheWesternFrontinEritrea .AlloftheseClaimsallegeabuseofci�ilians,lootingandlossofproperty .TheCommissionaddresseseachof theseClaims, in thegeographicalorder—startingthefarthestwest—usedbyEritrea .

d. Claim 3—Teseney sub-Zoba26 . Teseney isa frontier townwitha reportedpopulationofabout

30,000locatedintheextremewesternpartofEthiopianeartheborderwithSudan .Eritreaclaimsthat,duringthetwobriefEthiopianoccupationsofthesub-zobainlateMayandJune2000,Ethiopianarmedforcesabusedci�il-ians, lootedanddestroyedproperty, includingwatersupplysystems,andlaidlandminesincentralareasofTeseneytown,thusendangeringci�ilians .Attheoutset,theCommissiontakesnoteofclearandcon�incinge�idencethatmostoftheresidentsofboththetownofTeseneyandthenearby�illageofAlighidirfledontheapproachoftheEthiopiantroops .Consequently,thosetownscontainedonlyafewinhabitantsduringthetwoperiodsofEthiopiancontrol .Ethiopiaarguedthatitdidnot“occupy”thissub-zoba(orothers)inMayandJune2000,asitsforceswerefightingandmo�ingtooquicklytomakeEthiopiaan“occupyingpower”asthattermisusedinGene�aCon�en-tionIV .

27 . TheCommissionagreesthattheEthiopianmilitarypresencewasmoretransitoryinmosttownsand�illagesontheWesternFrontthanitwasontheCentralFront,wheretheCommissionfoundEthiopiatobeanoccupy-ingpower .TheCommissionalsorecognizesthatnotalloftheobligationsofSectionIIIofPartIIIofGene�aCon�entionIV(thesectionthatdealswithoccupiedterritories)canreasonablybeappliedtoanarmedforceanticipat-ingcombatandpresentinanareaforonlyafewdays .Ne�ertheless,aStateisobligatedbytheremainderofthatCon�entionandbycustomaryinter-


nationalhumanitarianlawtotakeappropriatemeasurestoprotectenemyci�iliansandci�ilianpropertypresentwithinareasunderthecontrolofitsarmedforces .E�eninareaswherecombatisoccurring,ci�iliansandci�ilianobjectscannotlawfullybemadeobjectsofattack .

28 . AbuseofCi�ilians:Eritrea’sclaimconcerningtheabuseofci�il-iansinTeseneySub-Zobaisnotsupportedbymuche�idence .Therearese�er-alwitnessdeclarationsreferringtobeatingsofci�ilians,butthosedeclarantsdidnotpurporttoha�ebeeneyewitnessestothebeatings .Howe�er,therearetwostatementsbypersonswhotestifytoha�ingseentheshootingofsomeci�ilians,notinthetowns,butinthefields .Allofthoseshotallegedlywereyoung,andsomeweresaidtoha�ebeentryingtoprotecttheiranimalsfrombeingkilledbyEthiopiansoldiers .Onedeclarantwhorecountedseeingtheshootingdeathsofsixpeopleonthee�eningofMay29alsoassertedthattheEthiopianforcesleftTeseneythatsamee�ening;thisclearlywasnotcor-rect,andthewitnessmustbeconfusedaboutthedates .Theotherwitnessdidnotgi�eadatebutindicatedthattwoyoungmenwereshot,oneofwhomdied,whentheEthiopiansarri�edatTeseneythesecondtimeonJune14 .Whilethesetwodeclarationsaredeeplytroubling,theydonotestablishapatternoffrequentorper�asi�eshootingofci�ilians .Theclaimofabuseofci�iliansfailsforlackofproof .

29 . PropertyLoss:Withrespecttoclaimsofpropertyloss,thereisanabundanceofclearandcon�incinge�idenceof�iolations .First,withrespecttoTeseney,thise�idenceindicatesthat,duringthefirstoccupation,thetowndidnotsuffermuchdamage,althoughEthiopiantroopslootedlargestocksofsugarthathadbeenstoredthereandstoleflourfromatleastonebakery .Incomparison,duringthesecondoccupation,lootingandburningofhomesandshopswerewidespread,andacommercialbank,hospitalandtwograinwarehouseswerealsolootedandburned .Thise�idencealsoindicatesthatbothEthiopiansoldiersandci�ilianswerein�ol�edinthelootingandthatmuchofthelootedpropertywastakentoEthiopiabytruck .Therewasalsoclearandcon�incinge�idence,not just in the formofwitnessdecla-rationsbutalsoininternationalorganizationandpressreports,ofwhole-saletheftanddestructionofdomesticanimalsbyEthiopiantroopsastheywithdrew fromTeseneyandother locations .TheCommissionwasstruckbytheextensi�ee�idenceofthisgratuitous,andpatentlyunlawful,slaughterandburningofthegoats,sheep,donkeysandcattlesocriticaltothesur�i�alofruralci�ilians .

30 . Initsdefense,EthiopiaallegedthateitherEritreastrippedTeseneyanddetonatedandburnedse�eralbuildingsinthecourseofdenialoperationsorthetownwashea�ilydamagedbyartilleryfireduringcombat,butnei-therdefensewaspro�ed .Similarly,Ethiopiaalsoallegedthatithadtakenmeasurestopre�entEthiopianci�iliansfromenteringEritrea,butthee�idenceindicatesthatthosemeasureswerenotalwayssufficient .Therefore,theCom-missionfindsthatEthiopia,in�iolationofitsobligationsunderapplicable


internationalhumanitarianlaw,permittedwidespreadandse�erelootingandburningofTeseneybyitssoldiersandci�iliansandconsequentlyisliabletocompensateEritreaforthedamagecausedbythoseacts .

31 . Second,withrespecttoAlighidir,thereisalsoclearandcon�inc-inge�idenceoftheunlawfuldestructionofpropertyduringthetimeswhenEthiopianarmedforceswerepresent .Declarantsconsistentlyattestedtosee-ingEthiopiansoldierslootingandburninghousesandanimalsinthe�illageduringthesecondoccupation .Se�eralofthesedeclarantsattestedtoseeing,atadistance,Ethiopiansoldiersatthelargenewcotton-processingplantwhen theplantand itsstoresofcottonweredetonatedandburned .In itsdefense,EthiopiaallegedthatEritreahadstoredweaponsintheplantanddestroyeditinadenialoperation,butthatallegationwascontradictedinse�eralwitnessstatementsbypersonswhoworkedattheplantandisinconsist-entwitheyewitnesse�idence .Therefore,theCommissionfindsthatEthiopia,in�iolationofitsobligationsunderapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw,permittedthewidespreadandse�ere lootingandburninginthe�illageofAlighidirandtheburninganddetonatingofthenearbycottonfactoryanditsstoredcotton .Consequently,EthiopiaisliabletocompensateEritreaforthedamagecausedbythoseacts .

32 . AllotherclaimsconcerningTeseneySub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

e. Claim 13—Guluj sub-Zoba

33 . Guluj Sub-Zoba comprises the southwestern area of EritreabetweenTeseneySub-ZobaandtheborderwithEthiopiaattheSetitRi�er .Therearetwotownsandtwo�illageswithinthesub-zobaforwhichEritreaclaimsdamages:thetownsofGulujinthenorthandOmhajerinthesouthandthe�illagesofTabaldiaandGergef,bothofwhichliebetweenthosetowns .AsnotedinthesummarycommentsontheWesternFrontClaims,abo�e,thecorridorbetweenTeseneyandthehighgroundnorthofOmhajerwasawarzoneinlateMayandearlyJune2000 .CombatoccurrednearGulujonJune5asEritreanarmedforceswerepursuingtheEthiopianforcessouthfromTeseney,althoughthePartiesdisagreedregardingitsextent .Afterhea�yfightingatMealuba,southofGuluj,thestrengthenedEthiopianforcesmo�ednorth,butcombatwiththeretreatingEritreanforcese�identlycontinuedat�ariousplaces .Oneplacewasthe�illageofTabaldia .Ethiopiasubmittedwitnessdeclarationsfromse�eralofitsmilitaryofficersassertingthatfightingtookplaceallthewayfromMealubatoGuluj .BothofEritrea’stwowitnessdeclarationsrelatingtoTabaldiaacknowledgedthatEritreanarmedforceswereinTabaldiawhentheEthiopiansarri�edandthatatwo-hourbattleoccurredinandaroundthe�illage .Whileneitherofthosewitnessesreferredtobattledamageinthe�illage,theCommissionmustassumethattherewassuchdamage .


34 . ItisalsoclearthattherehadbeenfightinginandaroundOmhajerinmid-May .TwoofEritrea’sdeclarantsaffirmedthathea�yfighting tookplacethere,onesaidonMay20andtheothersaidfromMay17to21 .Withrespect to Guluj, there is a conflict of e�idence . The Ethiopiandeclarantsassertedthat,priortotherecaptureofGulujbyEthiopianforcesinmid-June,fightingoccurredinandaroundGuluj,wheretheEritreanshadacommandpostandse�eraldi�isions .Onlyoneof themanyEritreanwitnessdec-larationsrelatedtoGulujreferredtoanycombat(asidefromoneaerialbombing)occurringinthetown,andthatreferencewaslimitedtotwoincidentsofshelling .TheCommissionconcludesthatthefightinginmid-Junemustha�ebeenlargelyaroundGuluj,ratherthaninit .

35 . AbuseofCi�ilians: Thereisrelati�ely littlee�idenceofabuseofci�iliansinthissub-zoba .OnewitnessdeclarationreferredtoaSudanesemanwhowasshotfromadistancewhilewalkingalongastreetinGuluj,butthedeclarationdoesnotindicatewhoshothimorwhenthis incidentoccurred . More troubling is another declaration asserting that, in themountains northeast of Guluj, some Ethiopian soldiers fired “indiscrimi-nately”andwoundedsixci�ilians,threeofwhomdied .Therearetwowitnessdeclarationsbyci�ilianswhoallegedbeingbeatenwhentheytriedtopre�entthelootingoftheirpropertyandonewitnessdeclarationthatdescribedsee-ingtwopersonsbeingbeatenwhilebeingquestioned .Therearealsose�eraldeclarantswhoreferredtofindingburnedcorpses inburnedbuildings inGuluj,butthereisnoe�idenceastowhenorhowdeathoccurred .Asthesefortunatelyappeartobeisolatedincidents,theclaimofabuseofci�iliansfailsforlackofproof .

36 . PropertyLoss:ThemanywitnessdeclarationssubmittedbyEritreasetoutaconsistentandcon�incingcasethatEthiopianmilitaryandci�ilianpersonnellootedtheshopsandhousesofGuluj,andmilitaryperson-nelthendestroyeddomesticanimalsandburnedthestructuresuntiltherewaslittleleftinthetown .OneestimatebyanEritreandeclarantwasthateightypercentofthebuildingsinGulujweredestroyed .ThatEthiopiadidnotpre�entEthiopianci�iliansfromenteringEritreafromHumera(theEthiopiantowndirectlyacrosstheri�erfromOmhajer)wasassertedbymanydeclar-ants, including two who identified the leader of the ci�ilian looters bynameandga�ehisofficialpositionasanadministratorinHumera .Inlightofthate�idence,theassertionsbyse�eralEthiopianofficersthatEritreansoldierslootedthetownandthenburneditaspartofadenialoperationarenotpersuasi�e .Consequently,theCommissionfindsthatEthiopiaunlaw-fullypermittedthelootingandburningofstructuresanddestructionofli�estockinGuluj .Ne�ertheless,gi�entheconclusionoftheCommissionthattherewassomecollateraldamageinGulujfromcombataction,forwhichthereisnoliability,theCommissionmustapportionEthiopia’sliabilityforthelossofanddamagetopropertyinGulujduringMayandJune2000 .Con-


sideringallthee�idence,theCommissionfindsEthiopialiabletoEritreaforninetypercentofthatlossanddamage .

37 . Withrespecttothe�illageofTabaldia,Eritreasubmittedonlytwowitnessdeclarations .Thatisnotsurprising,asmostofthepopulatione�identlyf ledbeforetheEthiopianforcesarri�ed .Bothofthesedeclar-ants stated thatEritrean forceswere in the�illagewhentheEthiopiansarri�edfromthesouthandthatatwo-hourbattleensuedinthe�illage .Oneofthemreportedthat“aroundthirty-threehousesweredestroyedinthebat-tle .”FollowingthebattleandthedepartureoftheEritreanforcesandmostoftheEthiopianforces,thatdeclarantrecountedseeingtheremainingEthiopi-ansoldierslootinggoodsfromshops;appliances,bedsandmedicinesfromthemedicalclinic;anddesksandchairsfromtheelementaryschool .Theotherdeclarantwasaneyewitnesstosuche�entsandalsoadded,althoughapparentlynotfrompersonalobser�ation,thattheEthiopiansoldiersalsotookonewaterpumpanddestroyedanother .Thereisnoe�idenceofburn-ingorotherdeliberatedestructionofproperty .Inlightofthise�idence,theCommissionfindsEthiopialiableforunlawfullypermittinglootingbyEthiopiansoldiers inTabaldiainJune2000 .Allotherclaims,includingclaimsfordamageordestructionofproperty,failforlackofproof .Thereis,ofcourse,noliabilityfordamageanddestructioncausedbycombat .

38 . Withrespecttothe�illageofGergef,Eritreasubmittedonlythreewitnessdeclarationsbut,again,thatisnotsurprisingasmostofthe�illagee�identlyfledbeforetheEthiopianforcesarri�ed .Thosethreedeclarations,howe�er,whichwereby�illagerswhoremainedinthe�illageduringatleastpartof the time thatEthiopian troopswerepresent,contained consistentdescriptionsofEthiopiansoldierslootinggo�ernmentbuildings,includingthemedicalclinic,shopsandsomehouses .Therewasnoe�idenceofburningorotherdestructionofproperty,exceptforanon-eyewitnessaccountofthedestructionofonewaterpump .Consequently,theCommissionfindsEthiopialiableforpermittinglootinginthe�illageofGergefinJune2000andfindsthattheclaimforthedestructionofpropertyfailsforlackofproof .

39 . WithrespecttothebordertownofOmhajer,thetownadmin-istratorsubmittedawitnessdeclarationinwhichhestatedthatthee�acu-ation of ci�ilians from the town was ordered on May 16 and that bat-tlesoccurredtherefromMay17to21 .Thefactofhea�yfightinginandaroundOmhajerwas�erifiedbyasecondEritreanwitnessdeclaration .Curiously, Eritrea also submitted an inconsistent—and, the Commissionfinds,notcredible-declarationbyatownsecurityofficerwhosaidthatthee�acuationwasorderedonMay21andthat,atthattime,thetownwasintact .Heassertedthat,whilefi�eshellshadhit,therewasnodamageandthetownwastakenbyEthiopianforceswithoutanyfighting .Theonlyothere�idencerele�anttoOmhajerisofthenatureandextentofdamagefoundafterEthiopianforcesleftthetowninSeptember2000 .Thate�idencesuggeststhat�irtuallyallbuildings had lost their roofs and windows and were


largelyemptyofcontents .OneofEritrea’smilitaryexpertstestifiedatthehearingthattherewassubstantiallootedbuildingmaterialforsaleacrosstheri�erinHumera .Ineffect, itappearsthatthetownhadbeenlootedandstrippedofanythingof�alue,anddomesticanimalsdestroyed .Con-sequently,Ethiopia,astheoccupyingpower,isliableforunlawfullyper-mittingsuchpropertydestruction .Ase�idenceislackingastotheextentofdamagethatresultedfromthebattletherefromMay17–21,theCom-missionmustmakea judgmentconcerning theproperapportionmentofliability .Consideringtheapparentnatureofmuchofthedamage,whichsuggestsstripping,theCommissionfindsEthiopialiabletoEritreaforse�enty-fi�epercentofthedamagesufferedbyOmhajerfromMay16,2000,untilEthiopianarmedforcesleftinSeptember2000 .

40 . AllotherclaimsconcerningGulujSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

f. Claim 9—barentu sub-Zoba41 . BarentuisthecapitalofGash-BarkaZobaofsouthwesternEri-

trea .BarentuwasasignificantmilitarybaseforEritrea,althoughitappearsthatmostofthemilitarywarehouses,garages,barracksandrelatedstorageandtrainingareaswerelocatedoutsidethetownitself .Inthetown,thereweremilitaryofficesatthehilltopcalled“Forto .”Afterthreedaysofhea�yfighting,theEthiopianforcescomingfromShambukoandTokombiareachedBaren-tuonMay18,2000 .Thereise�idencethat,duringthosethreedays,Ethio-pianaircraftbombedBarentu,hittingtheAsmaraHotel,andthatartilleryshellingalsohitthetown .Ne�ertheless,itseemsthatmostcombatdamageoccurredoutsideoftownwheremostofthemilitaryobjecti�esweretobefound .MostoftheresidentsofBarentuf ledtothenorthbeforethearri�aloftheEthiopianforcesandtheirwitnessdeclarations,aswellasthosebyEri-treansoldierswholeftBarentubyMay17,wereconsistentthat,exceptforthatlimitedartilleryandbombdamage,thetownwasintactatthattime .

42 . Se�eralEthiopianofficersassertedthatthesituationwasquitedifferent .TheirdeclarationsrecitedthatEritreanforceshaddestroyedbuild-ingsinthetowninthecourseofdenialoperationsandthatitwasEritreansoldierswholootedshopsandhousesontheirwaythroughthetown .ManyEritreandeclarantsdeniedthoseassertions .

43 . TheCommissionhascarefullyexaminedthisconflictinge�idenceandconcludesthat,whilesomelootinganddenialoperationsbyEritreanforc-esprobablyoccurred,theweightofcrediblee�idenceplacestherealityclosertothecircumstancesdescribedbytheEritreandeclarants .

44 . ForeightdaysfromMay18untilMay26,2000,EthiopianarmedforceswereinuncontestedcontrolofthetownofBarentu,whichwaslargely,althoughnotentirely,desertedbyitsinhabitants .Inthatsense,thesituationinBarentuwasmoreanalogoustothatinthetownsintheCentralFrontthanmostothertownsintheWesternFront .


45 . AbuseofCi�ilians:Asidefromallegationsofrape,whichtheCom-missiondealswithseparatelybelow,therewasrelati�elylittlee�idenceofabuseinBarentuSub-Zoba .E�enacceptingthatthefewtroublingallega-tionsofbeatingareaccurate,theyareinsufficienttosupportafindingofapatternoffrequentorper�asi�eabuse .Consequently,theclaimofabusefailsforlackofproof .

46 . PropertyLoss:Asnoted,therewasa�erysubstantialbodyofe�i-dencethatindicatesthatBarentuwasalmostdesertedwhenitwasenteredbyEthiopiantroopsandthatmostresidences,shopsandgo�ernmentbuild-ingswereclosedandlocked,oftenwithchains .SomeEthiopianmilitaryoffic-erstestifiedintheirdeclarationsthattheywarnedtheirsoldierstostayawayfromlockedbuildingsbecauseoftheriskthattheyhadbeenboobytrapped,butthereisnoe�idencethatanyonewaskilledorinjuredbyboobytraps .ThewitnessdeclarationsbythoseresidentswhoremainedduringtheEthio-pianoccupationweredetailedandconsistent,howe�er,instatingthatmanylockedbuildingswereforcedopenbyEthiopiansoldiers,andthatthosesol-diers,aidedbyEthiopianci�ilians,lootedthosebuildings .ThoseresidentsassertedthatthoseEthiopianci�ilians,someofwhomwererecognizedaspeoplewhohadonceworkedinBarentu,arri�edinbusesandwereaccompa-niedbytrucks,whichwereusedtocarryawaytheloot .Thoseresidentsalsoconsistently affirmed that shops and houses where residents remainedwerenotsubjecttobeingforcedopenorlooted .Thereisalsocrediblee�i-dencethatthelocalhospital,whichhadbeene�acuated,waslootedandpartofitdamagedbyfireandthattwowarehousesbelongingtotheMinistryofAgriculturewerelootedandoneofthemburned .TheCommissioncon-cludesthattherewaswidespreadbreaking,enteringandlootingofhouses,businessestablishments,andgo�ernmentbuildingsinBarentuduringtheEthiopianoccupationandthatEthiopia,astheoccupyingpower,isliableforunlawfullypermittingthoseacts .

47 . Withrespecttopropertydestruction,Barentuseemstoha�ebeensparedthestrippingofroofs,doorsandwindowsofthekindseeninothertownsclosertotheborder,suchasTseronaandOmhajer .EritreaclaimedthatEthiopianforcesdestroyedbydetonationanumberofbuildingsinBarentu .Ethiopiadeniedanydestructionandallegedthat thesebuild-ingsweredestroyedeitherbyEritreaindenialoperationsorthroughcombataction,butitdidnotpro�ethatallegation .Thee�idenceisinadequatefortheCommissiontodetermineliabilityforcertainbuildings,butthereisclearandcon�incinge�idencethatatleastfoursignificantbuildingsinBarentuweredestroyedduringtheoccupationbydetonation,theuseoftracked�ehi-cles,oracombinationthereof .Thesebuildingsarethepolicestation,thecourthouse,theGash-SetitHotelandConferenceCenter,andabakery .Thee�idenceasawholecon�incestheCommissionthatthosefoursignificantstructureswereintactwhentheoccupationbeganandhadbeendestroyedbyexplosi�esandother forcefuldestructi�emeasures,similartothose


usedontheCentralFront,14bythetimetheoccupationended .Accordingly,aswasthecasewithcertainstructuresinSenafetownintheCentralFront,inthesecircumstancestheburdenisonEthiopiatopro�ethatthedamagewascausedbyothersorisotherwisenotattributabletoEthiopia .AsEthiopiahasnotpro�edhowthedestructionwascaused,theCommissionholdsEthiopia,astheoccupyingpower,liableforthedamagetothesebuildings .

48 . AllotherclaimsconcerningBarentuSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

G. Claim 12—shambuko sub-Zoba

49 . InClaim12,EritreaassertsthatEritreansoldiersabusedci�il-iansandlootedanddestroyedbuildingsinShambukoSub-ZobaduringEthiopia’soffensi�e inMay2000 .Eritrea’se�idencerelatedtoonetown,Shambuko,andtwo�illages,BishukaandBimbina .That e�idence madeclearthattheci�ilianpopulationwasalmostentirelye�acuatedinFebru-ary1999asaresultofEthiopia’sOperationSunsetanddidnotreturnuntilafter thecloseofhostilities in2000 .Somewitnessdeclarationswere frompersonswhodidnotreturntothesub-zobauntilJuneorJuly2001 .Se�eralEritreandeclarantsaffirmedthatShambukoandBishukaweredamagedin fighting inFebruary1999andthatmanyhousesweredestroyedatthattime,andsomereferredtoshellingandbombinginMay2000;oth-ersasserted that therewasno f ighting in thoseplaces inMay2000 .Ethiopia’switnessdeclarationspaintedadifferentpicture,assertingthatthoseplacesfromwhichci�ilianshadbeene�acuatedin1999weresubse-quentlymilitarizedbyEritreanarmedforcesinMay2000andthatShambukoSub-Zobawasthesceneofintensebattles .Theyalsoallegedthat,whenthoseEritreanforcesretreatedfromShambuko,BushikaandBimbina,theyblewupbuildingsinwhichammunitionwasstored .

50 . Balancingthelimitedandconf lictinge�idence,theCommis-sionconcludesthatShambuko,BishukaandBimbinasufferedsignificantdamagefromcombatactionsin1999and2000 .Thee�idenceindicatedthat,following thatcombat, theEthiopian forcesmo�ed throughtheareaandtowardBarentu .Thea�ailablee�idencedidnotmakeclearwhetheranyEthio-piansoldiersremainedintheseplacesafterMay16,2000 .

51 . AbuseofCi�ilians: Inanareafromwhichci�ilianshadlargelybeene�acuated,itisperhapsnotsurprisingthatEritreapresentedlittlee�i-dence of ci�ilian abuse . In fact, only one of Eritrea’s witness declarationsreferredtosuchabuse,whichwouldbeseriousifconfirmed;itwasanon-eyewitnessreportthatonewomanwhohadremainedinBishukawasshotandkilledbyEthiopiansoldierswhensheprotestedthetheftofherproperty .

14 PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atparas .62,63,85,92and103 .


O�erall,theclaimthatEthiopiansoldiersabusedci�iliansinShambukoSub-Zobafailsforlackofproof .

52 . PropertyLoss: ThedeclarationssubmittedbyEritrea indi-cated that,when thewitnessesreturnedtoShambuko,BishukaandBim-bina,mostlyinthefirsthalfof2001,theyfoundextensi�elossofpropertyanddestructionofbuildings .Onewitness, for example, estimated thatapproximatelyse�enty-fi�epercentofthehousesinShambukohadbeense�erelydamaged,andweremissingdoors,windows,roofsandfurnishings .Otherwitnessessimplysaidthat�irtuallye�erythinghadbeenlootedanddestroyed .TheoneeyewitnessdeclarationcamefromamanwhoclaimedthatheleftBishukaonMay13,returnedonMay15,andleftagainthefollow-ingday;whilehewasthere,hesawEthiopiansoldierstakinggoodsfromhisshopandtheyrefusedhisrequesttostop .Healsostatedthatheobser�edsoldierslootingandburningtheschoolanddetonatingtheadministrationbuilding .

53 . TheCommissiontakesnoteofEritrea’switnessdeclarationsthatreferredtoreportsthewitnessesclaimedtoha�eheardfromshepherdsandelderlyresidentswhohadremainedatShambuko,BishukaandBimbinaandhadobser�edlootinganddestructionbyEthiopiansoldiers .TheCommis-sion notes, howe�er, that Eritrea’s e�idence included no witness dec-larationsbytheseshepherdsorelderlypeople themsel�es .Onbalance,although the e�idencemadeclear thatShambuko,BishukaandBimbinasufferedse�eredamagebetweenFebruary1999andtheendofthewarinDecember2000, thee�idencewas inadequate topro�ethatEthiopiawasliableforthatdamage .Therefore,thisclaimfailsforlackofproof .

54 . AllotherclaimsconcerningShambukoSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

H. Claim 5—lalaigash sub-Zoba55 . Lalaigash Sub-Zoba is adjacent to that part of Ethiopia that was

retakenbyEthiopiainFebruary1999inOperationSunset,andwasthesiteofthestrongEthiopianattacksonMay12,2000,againsttheEritreantrenchlines protecting the principal town in the sub-zoba, Tokombia .At leastfromMay12toMay15,2000,thisareawasawarzonewhereEthiopiacar-riedoutattacksagainsthea�ilydefendedEritreanpositions .Thee�idencesubmittedbyEritreainsupportofthisClaimincludedwitnessdeclara-tionsfromresidentsofmanydifferent�illagesinthesub-zoba,but,exceptfor the townofTokombia, theyare insufficient topermitfirmconclusionsabouttheallegedunlawfulactsaffectingindi�idual�illages .Withonlyoneortwoexceptions,thedeclarantshadfledtheir�illageswhenshellingbeganandbeforeEthiopianforcesarri�edandsotheypro�idede�idenceonlyofdamagefoundwhentheyreturnedratherthanaccountsofhowthatdamageoccurred .WithrespecttothetownofTokombia,howe�er,thee�idenceof


Ethiopianresponsibilityissubstantial,inpartbecauseEthiopiaoccupieditatleastuntilMay29 .

56 . AbuseofCi�ilians:Thee�idenceofabuseislimitedtofi�ewitnessdeclarations .Thefirstdeclarant,aresidentofthe�illageofAditsetser,saidthatheandoneofhissonsweresuspectedofbeingspiesandwerebeatentwice while jailed, along with 60 other people, before theywere sent toTokombiaandreleased .Thesecond,afarmeratTokombia,statedthathesawashepherdbeatenwhiletryingtopre�enthiscattlefrombeingsto-lenbyEthiopiansoldiers .Thethird,afarmerinthe�illageofMochiti,statedthathehelpedburythebodyofashepherdwhomhewastoldhadbeenshotandkilledbyEthiopiansoldiers .Thefourth,aTokombiaresident,statedthatheprotectedhisdaughterfrombeingabductedbyEthiopiansoldiersbytellingthem,falsely,thatshewasafflictedwithasexualdisease .Thefifth,anotherMochitiresident,saidthatwhenheandse�eralotherci�iliansweretrying to returntotheir�illageafterha�ingfledaweekearlier,Ethiopiansoldiersorderedthemnottoenterthe�illageandthatoneofhisgroupwasshotandkilledwhenhene�erthelesscontinuedtoward the�illage .Whileconcernedbythesereports,theCommissionconcludesthatthise�idenceismoreindicati�eofisolatedincidentsthanapatternoffrequentorper-�asi�eunlawfulabuseofci�iliansinthesub-zoba .Consequently,Eritrea’sclaimofunlawfulabuseofci�iliansfailsforlackofproof .

57 . PropertyLoss:WithrespecttothetownofTokombia,EritreaassertsthattherewasnofightingandEthiopiaassertsthattherewassomefighting .TheCommissionnotesthatinoneofthewitnessdeclarationssubmittedbyEritrea,thedeclarantdescribedfindingsixdeadEthiopiansoldiersinhishouse .Fromitsexaminationofalltherele�ante�idence,theCommis-sionfindsthattherewasfightinginthe�icinityandshellingdamageinthetownitself,sonotalldamagetothetowncanbeassumedtoha�eoccurredduringtheoccupation .Ne�ertheless,inadditiontocombatdamage,thereisconsiderablee�idenceoflootinganddestructionofsomebuildingsbyEthiopiansoldiers .Inparticular,thereisconsistenteyewitnesstestimonyinse�eralwitnessdeclarationsthatEthiopiansoldiersdeliberatelydetonat-edthelargeRothmantobaccoplantandwarehousesjustoutsideTokombiaandthepolicestationinTokombia .Whilese�eralEthiopianmilitaryofficerdeclarants alleged that the tobacco plant had been used by Eritrea formilitarypurposesandwasdetonatedbyEritreantroopsinadenialopera-tion,thate�idencewascounteredbycredibleandconsistentwitnessdeclara-tionsfrompersonswhoworkedinorneartheplantdenyingmilitaryuseandci�ilianswhoga�eeyewitnessdescriptionsofitsdetonationbyEthiopiansoldiers .Inanye�ent,theCommissionissatisfiedthatthereisclearandcon-�incinge�idencethatthetobaccoplantandthepolicestationwere intactwhenEthiopianforcesenteredTokombiaandthattheyweredestroyeddur-ingEthiopia’soccupation .Consequently,Ethiopia,astheoccupyingpower,isliableforunlawfullypermittingthedestructionofthetobaccoplantand


policestationandforunlawfullypermittingthelootingofotherbuildingsinTokombia .

58 . Withrespecttothe�illagesinLalaigashSub-Zoba,therearemanywitnessdeclarationsbyresidentswhoreturnedtotheir�illagesaftertheendofthewarstatingthattheyfoundtheirhomesdamagedordestroyedandallormostofthecontentsmissing .The�illagesforwhichwitnessstate-mentsweresubmittedincludeAdiMaalel,Aditsetser,Hadamu,Mochiti,Shelalo,Sheshebit,Tselale,TselimKalaiandTselimRusso .Inafewcases,declarantsstatedthattheirpropertyhadbeenstolenbyneighborswhohadnotfled,butgenerallytheyeitherstatedorassumedthatitwasEthiopiansoldiersandEthiopianci�ilians,whohadbeenbusedinforthepurpose,wholootedthemissingproperty .Gi�enthee�idencerelating toTokombiaandotherareas,thatisanunderstandableassumption,butitisnotabasisonwhichtheCommissioncanfindliability .TheCommissionnotesthattheentireareasawhea�ycombatandso,e�enifEthiopiaoccupiedallofLailagashSub-Zoba,itcouldnotbepositedthatEthiopiawasliableforalldamagethatoccurredin�illages .Ethiopiaalsoasserted that itsarmed forcesmo�edquicklythroughthisareaanddidnotsetupanoccupationregimeforthearea .Althoughthee�idenceindicatedthatEthiopiansoldiersremainedatleastforafewdaysinsomeofthose�illages,e�idenceislackingthatEthiopianforcesremainedanywhereinthesub-zoba,exceptinthetownofTokombia,longenoughfortheCommissiontoholdEthiopiaresponsibleasanoccupyingpowerforanypropertylossesthatoccurred .Moreo�er,directe�idenceoflootingorpropertydestructionbyEthiopiansoldiersoutsideofTokombiaisalmostentirely lacking .Consequently, theclaimsforpropertylossesinthose�illagesandallotherclaimsconcerningLalaigashSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

i. Claim 10—Haykota sub-Zoba

59 . Eritreaclaimedforallegedabuseofci�iliansandforlootingandproperty destruction by Ethiopian soldiers in Haykota Sub-Zoba . It isundisputedthattheEthiopianmilitarypresenceinthissub-zobawasbriefbutcontestedbyEritreanarmedforces .Ethiopianforcestra�ersedthissub-zobaontheirad�ancefromBarentutoTeseney,experiencingsomefight-ingwithEritreanforcesalongtheway .EthiopiancommanderdeclarantsreferredspecificallytoabattleafewkilometerseastofHaykotatownwithEritreanforcesthathadcomesouthfromAkordat .Thecommanderofthe15thDi�isionstatedthatwhenhisdi�isionpassedthroughHaykotatownonMay27,2000,considerabledamagehadbeendonetosomebuildingsinthetown,andheopinedthatthedepartingEritreansoldierswerecutofffromtheirlogisticbasesinBarentuandDasseandweredependentuponwhattheycouldobtaininthetownsand�illagesthroughwhichtheypassed .Inpar-ticular,heassertedthattheyhademptiedHaykotatownofmedicalsupplies .


AlthoughthoseEthiopiancommandersdidnotmentiontheneighboringtownofAlabo,apparentlytheEthiopianforcesalsopassedthroughitontheirroutewest .

60 . Eritreasubmittedeightwitnessdeclarationsrele�anttothissub-zoba .ThreeoftheseweremadebyresidentswhoreturnedtotheirtownsonlyaftertheEthiopianforceshadpassedthrough,andtwoothersweremadebyadministrati�eofficials,oneofthesub-zobaandoneofAlabotown .Thosestatementsarerele�antprimarilyfortheirdescriptionsofthedamagefounduponthedeclarants’returnandforthedatesofthepartialci�iliane�ac-uationsandEthiopianmilitarypresence .ThestatementsgenerallyconfirmtheEthiopiane�idencethatEthiopiansoldiersbeganarri�ingatHaykotatownonMay27andthatthelastofthemleftthenextmorning .TheyalsoconfirmthatEthiopiansoldiersbeganarri�ingatAlabotownlateonMay28andthelastofthemleftthefollowingafternoon .Theotherthreewitnessstatementsarebyresidentswhoclaimtoha�ebeeneyewitnessestoloot-ingbyEthiopiansoldiers .OnewasfromHaykota,wherehehadagrocery,andanotherwasfromAlabo .ThethirdstatedthathehadtakenrefugeonamountainabouttwokilometerssouthofHaykota,fromwhichpointhesawlootinginthetown .Asaresult,hesaidthathewenttothetownandcom-plainedaboutthelootingtoanEthiopianofficer,whoallegedlytoldhimtoconcentrateonguardinghisownproperty .Hesaidthathethenwenttohisbakeryshopandsucceededinprotectingit,butheassertedthathispaintplantinAlabowaslootedanddamaged .

61 . AbuseofCi�ilians:Theonlye�idenceofabuseisanallegationinonewitnessdeclarationthattenyoungshepherdswereabductedbyEthio-piansoldiersandthatonlyeightofthemreturned .Thise�idence,whichwasnotbasedonaneyewitnessaccountorcorroborated,isinsufficienttopro�eapatternoffrequentorper�asi�eabuseofci�ilians .Consequently,thisclaimfailsforlackofproof .

62 . Property Loss: Gi�en that Ethiopian soldiers passed quicklythroughthesub-zoba,foughtwithEritreansoldiersalsopassingthroughthesub-zobaduringthesametimeperiod,andthatonlythreewitnessstatementscontaine�idenceoflootingbyEthiopiasoldiers,theCommissionfindsthatEritreafailedtoestablishapatternofmisconductbyEthiopiansoldiers,andtheclaimmustberejectedforlackofproof .

63 . AllotherclaimsconcerningHaykotaSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

J. Claim 1—molki sub-Zoba64 . InClaim1,Eritreaclaimedforabuseofci�iliansandproperty

lossthroughlootinganddestructionbyEthiopianforcesinMolkiSub-Zoba .Thissub-zobawasthesceneofbitterfightingonMay14and15,2000,andtheEthiopiancommandersin�ol�edassertedthattherewasconsiderabledamagetothetownofMolkifromartilleryandfromgroundcombat .Oneasserted


thattheycapturedfi�eEritreantanksinthetown .Theyalsostatedthatthestreetswerelitteredwithbothmilitaryandci�ilianitems,suggestingthatEritreantroopshadbeenforagingthere .

65 . AbuseofCi�ilians:Therewereonlythreewitnessdeclarationssup-portingabuseofci�ilians .Onedeclarantasserted,withoutdetail,thatwhenshereturnedtoMolkitownforfoodsheobser�edfi�einstancesofEthiopiansoldiersbeatingpeoplewhowereobjectingtolooting .Anotherwitnessreport-edanattemptedrape .Thethirdreferencetoabusewasinthedeclarationbyapriestwhosaidthathehadheardofse�eralpeoplewhowereshotwhilerunningawayafterfailingtostopwhenorderedtodoso .Whilefi�eincidentsofbeatingsinonetownwouldsuggestapatternofabusejustifyingafindingofliability,thefactremainsthatnodetailsweregi�enbytheonewitnesswhoallegedlysawthem,andtherewasnocorroborationoftheincidents .Gi�enthelimitede�idence,theclaimofabuseofci�iliansfailsforlackofproof .

66 . PropertyLoss:Incomparison,Eritrea’se�idenceissubstantialwithrespecttoitsclaimoflootinginMolkiSub-Zoba,butnotwithrespecttoitsclaimofbuildingdestruction .Se�enofitsele�enwitnessdeclarationscontainedeyewitness accountsof lootingbyEthiopiansoldiersand,inse�eralofthem,byEthiopianci�iliansaswell .Thise�idence,asawhole,istoosubstantialtobeo�ercomebythetestimonyofEthiopianMajorGeneralYohannesGebremeskel,inhiswitnessdeclaration,thathewas“extremelysur-prised”bytheallegationthat[his]troopsengagedinlootingontheWesternFront .15Consequently,theCommissionfindsEthiopialiableforpermittingthelootingofbuildingsinMolkiSub-Zoba .Asfordestructionofbuildings,whilethereissomee�idencethatabuildingbelongingtotheMinistryofAgri-cultureburnedsoonafteritwaslootedbyEthiopiansoldiers,itisunclearwhatcausedthefire .Eritrea’sclaimfordeliberatedestructionofpropertyinatownalreadybadlydamagedbycombatfailsforlackofproof .

67 . AllotherclaimsconcerningMolkiSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

K. Claim 11—Gogne sub-Zoba68 . Thissub-zoba,whichislocatedbetweenBarentuandHaykota,was

tra�ersedbytheEthiopia15thDi�isionnearthebeginningofitsmarchtoTeseney .Eritreaclaimsthat,duringtheirtimeinthesub-zoba,Ethiopiansoldiersabusedci�ilians,lootedpublicandpri�atepropertyanddestroyedbothpublicandpri�atebuildings .Thee�idencefallswellshortofthatrequiredtopro�etheclaim .

69 . AbuseofCi�ilians: Thee�idenceofabuseofci�iliansconsistsessentiallyofonewitnessdeclarationassertingthatthewitnesshadheardofonerapeandtwokillings .Thisclaimfailsforlackofproof .

15 Ethiopia’sCounter-MemorialtoEritrea’sClaims1,3,5&9–13,filedbyEthiopiaonJanuary17,2005,DocumentaryAnnexes,Vol .II,atA-3 .


70 . PropertyLoss:Eritrea’se�idenceoflootingandpropertydestruc-tionbyEthiopiansoldiersconsistedofsixwitnessdeclarationsconcern-ing the town of Gogne and one concerning the�illageofFode .ThreedeclarantswerenotineithertownwhileEthiopiansoldierswereallegedlypresent .OnewasanEritreansoldierwhodidnotreturnuntilOctober2000 .ThesecondassertedthathewatchedFodefromamountainandsawbuildingsburningandgoodsbeingcarriedawayondonkeysandhorses .Thethird,whostatedthathewastheheadadministratorofthesub-zobaandreturnedtoGogneinearlyJune,saidthathestayedawayfromGogneandsent“childrenand�eryoldpeople”toGognetoseewhatwashappeningandreporttohim .Thosestatementsarenotofsignificante�identiary�alueforthisclaim .

71 . Oneoftheotherfourdeclarationswasbyapersonwhof ledtoamountainbut,heasserted,wentbacktoGognese�eral timesandtried,withlimitedsuccess,tosa�eitemsfromafriend’sshop .Anotherwasbyapharmacistwhoalso f led toamountainwhentheEthiopiansarri�edon May 19 but, he asserted, returned to Gogne to remonstrate againstEthiopiansoldiersbreakingindoorsandthenstayedinhishousetoprotecthisproperty .Healsoassertedthat,at8o’clockp .m .onthelaste�eningthattheEthiopianswerepresent,heheardanexplosion,sawtwosoldiersrushintoaneighboringhouse,andthenheardanotherexplosion .Hesaidthatthoseexplosionsdestroyedthenearbyadministrationbuilding .ThethirddeclarantsaidthathehadleftthetownonMay16andreturnedonMay19whenEthiopiansoldiersarri�edandstartedbreakingintohousesandlooting .HestatedthatthesoldiersstayedinGogneforfourdaysandthatheheardexplosionsat8o’clockp .m .onthelastdaythatdestroyedtheadmin-istrationbuilding .Thefourthdeclaration,byashopownerwhoremainedinGogne,statedthattheEthiopiansarri�edonMay26andstayedforeightdays .HeclaimedthathesawEthiopiansoldiersstealgoodsfromhisownshopandhouseandlootthemosque .Healsoassertedthatheheardtwoexplo-sionsat8o’clockp .m .onthee�eningbeforetheEthiopianslefttown,andsawthenextdaythattheadministrationbuildinghadbeendestroyed .

72 . Thesedeclarations,whiledetailed,wereinconsistentregardingdatesandthedurationofEthiopia’spresence .E�entakentogether,theCommissionfindsthedeclarationstoofrailabasisonwhichtofindclearandcon�incinge�idenceforthisclaim .Consequently,Eritrea’sclaimforlootingandpropertydestructioninGogneSub-Zobafailsforlackofproof .

73 . AllotherclaimsconcerningGogneSub-Zobafailforlackofproof .

l. allegations of rape74 . AsinthePartialAwardsintheParties’CentralFrontClaims,

theCommissionconsidersthatallegationsofrapedeser�eseparategen-eral comment . Despite the great suffering inf licteduponEritreanandEthiopianci�iliansalikeinthecourseofthisarmedconflict,theCommis-


sionisgratifiedthattherewasnosuggestion,muchlesse�idence,thateitherEthiopiaorEritreausedrape,forcedpregnancyorothersexual�iolenceasaninstrumentofwar .Neithersideallegedstrategicallysystematicsex-ual�iolenceagainstci�iliansinthecourseofthearmedconf lictintheWesternFrontareas .Eachsidedid,howe�er,allegesomedegreeofrapeofitswomenci�iliansbytheother’ssoldiers .

75 . ThePartiesagreethatrapeofci�iliansbyopposingoroccupy-ingforcesisa�iolationofcustomaryinternationallaw,asref lectedintheGene�aCon�entions .UnderCommonArticle3,paragraph1,Statesareobligedtoensurethatwomenci�iliansaregrantedfundamentalguar-antees, includingtheprohibitionagainst“�iolenceto lifeandperson, inparticularmurderofallkinds,mutilation,crueltreatmentandtorture . . . . .outragesonpersonaldignity,inparticularhumiliatinganddegradingtreat-ment .”Article27ofGene�aCon�entionIVpro�ides(emphasisadded):

Protectedpersonsareentitled,inallcircumstances,torespectfortheirper-sons,theirhonour,theirfamilyrights,theirreligiouscon�ictionsandprac-tices,andtheirmannersandcustoms .Theyshallatalltimesbehumanelytreated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of �iolence orthreats thereofandagainst insultsandpubliccuriosity .Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution or any form of indecent assault.

76 . Article76,paragraph1,ofGene�aProtocolIadds:“Womenshallbetheobjectofspecialrespectandshallbeprotectedinparticularagainstrape,forcedprostitutionandanyotherformofindecentassault .”

77 . Both Parties ha�e explained in the course of the proceed-ingsthatrapeissuchasensiti�ematterintheirculturethat�ictimsareextremelyunlikelytocomeforward;andwhentheyorotherwitnessesdopresenttestimony,thee�idencea�ailableislikelytobefarlessdetailedandexplicitthanfornon-sexualoffenses .TheCommissionacceptsthis,andhastakenitintoaccountine�aluatingthee�idence .16Todootherwisewouldbetosubscribetotheschoolofthought,nowfortunatelyeroding,thatrapeisine�itablecollateraldamageinarmedconflict .

78 . Gi�entheseheightenedculturalsensiti�ities,inadditiontothetypi-callysecreti�eandhenceunwitnessednatureofrape,theCommissionhasnotrequirede�idenceofapatternoffrequentorper�asi�erapes .TheCom-missionremindsthePartiesthat,initsPartialAwardsinthePOWClaims,itdidnotestablishan in�ariablerequirementofe�idenceof frequentorper�asi�e�iolationstopro�eliability .Therele�antstandardbearsrepeating,withemphasisadded:

16 See PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atparas .139–142;PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atparas .36—41;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atparas .34–40 .


TheCommissiondoesnotseeitstasktobethedeterminationofliabilityofaPartyforeachindi�idualincidentofillegalitysuggestedbythee�idence .Rather, it istodetermineliabilityforserious�iolationsofthelawbytheParties,whichareusually illegalactsoromissionsthatwerefrequentorper�asi�eandconsequentlyaffectedsignificantnumbersof�ictims .17

79 . Rape,whichbydefinitionin�ol�esintentionalandgrie�ousharmtoanindi�idualci�ilian�ictim,isanillegalactthatneednotbefrequenttosupportStateresponsibility .ThisisnottosaythattheCommission,whichisnotacriminal tribunal,couldorhasassessedgo�ernmentliabilityforisolatedindi�idualrapesoronthebasisofentirelyhearsayaccounts .WhattheCommissionhasdoneislookforclearandcon�incinge�idenceofse�eralrapesinspecificgeographicareasunderspecificcircumstances .

80 . Eritrea’se�idenceofallegedrapeintheWesternFrontareasisrelati�elycircumscribed,consistingprimarilyof27witnessdeclarations,threeofwhichdescribeinter�iewsundertheauspicesoftheEritreanMinis-tryofInformationofallegedrape�ictims,and�ideofootagefromthoseinter-�iews(whichweredoneingroupsandindi�idually)andfromadocumentaryforAustraliantele�ision .

81 . Ofthe27declarations(outofthetotalof191witnessdeclara-tions submitted by Eritrea with its Memorial), none was from a rape�ictimandonlytwowerefromeyewitnessestorapeorattemptedrape .OneeyewitnessdescribedEthiopiansoldiersrepeatedlyrapingawomaninhershopinTeseney, theotheranEthiopiansoldierdraggingawomanawayfromTokombiabeforebeingstoppedbyothersoldiers .Twodoctors,whosetestimonytheCommissionfindsdetailedandcredible,describedtreat-ingsomesixwomeninTeseneyandBarentuwhosaidtheyhadbeenrapedbyEthiopiansoldiers;bothdoctorsstatedtheyassumedmanymoreunreportedrapes .Oneofthedoctors,whohastestifiedpersonallybeforetheCommis-sioninapre�iouscase,treatedaBarentuwomanknowntobementallyillandfoundhermedicalconditionconsistentwithherreportofrepeatedrape .OneotherdeclarantfromBarentutestifiedthathehadpersonalknowledgeoftherapeofthementallyillwoman .TheotherdeclarationslargelycontainsecondandthirdhandinformationaboutrapeacrosstheWesternFront .

82 . TheAustraliantele�isiondocumentarycontainsinter�iewswithtenwomenfromTeseney,eightofwhomsaidtheywererapeorattempt-ed rape�ictims .TheWomen’sAssociationOfficeandEritreanMinistryofInformationinter�iewedsometenwomen,fromBarentu,AdikeshiandAsheshi,whosaidtheywere�ictimsofrapeorattemptedrapeorfamil-iarwithincidentsofrape .Particularlytroublingwasthestorytoldbyonefatherwhohadretrie�edhisdaughteraftershewasabductedandgang-rapedbyEthiopiansoldiers .

17 PartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atpara .54;PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim,supra note1,atpara .56 .


83 . ItisthetaskoftheCommissiontotakethise�idenceintoaccount,inparticulartobalancetheob�iousdifficultiesposedbythird-partyandinter�iewtestimonyagainstthenaturalinclinationof�ictims(ande�enwitnesses)nottospeakpubliclyaboutrape .TheCommissionissatisfiedthatthereisclearandcon�incinge�idenceofse�eralincidentsofrapeofEritrean ci�ilian women by Ethiopian soldiers in Barentu and Teseney,which e�idencehasgoneunrebuttedbyEthiopia .TheCommissionfindsthatEthiopiafailedtoimposeeffecti�emeasuresonitstroops,asrequiredbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw,topre�entrapeofci�ilianwomeninBarentuandTeseney .

84 .ForotherareasintheWesternFront,althoughtherewase�idenceofoccasionalrape(deser�ingofatleastcriminalin�estigation),theCommissiondidnotfindsufficiente�idenceonwhichtofindEthiopialiableforfailingtoprotectci�ilianwomenfromrapebyitstroops .

m. awardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:1 . JurisdictionAllclaimsassertedintheseWesternFrontClaimsarewithinthejuris-

dictionoftheCommission .2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawTheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsof

internationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelorbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEthiopia:

a . Forpermittinglootingandburningofbuildingsanddestructionofli�estockinthetownofTeseneyduringMayandJune2000;b . Forpermittinglootingandburningofhousesanddestructionofli�estockinthe�illageofAlighidirandtheburninganddetona-tionofthenearbycottonfactoryanditsstoredcottonduringMayandJune2000;c . Forpermittinglootingandburningofstructuresanddestruc-tionofli�estockinthetownofGulujduringMayandJune2000,Ethiopia is liable for 90% (ninetypercent)of the total lossanddamagetopropertyinGulujduringthattime;d . For permitting looting in the �illage of Talbadia during June2000;e . For permitting looting in the �illage of Gergef during June2000;f . Forpermittinglootingandstrippingofbuildingsanddestruc-tionofli�estockinOmhajerfromMay16,2000untilthedepartureofthelastEthiopianforcesinSeptember2000,Ethiopiaisliablefor


75%(se�enty-fi�epercent)ofthetotalpropertydamageinOmhajerduringthattime;g . Forpermitt ingbreaking,enteringandlootingofhous-es,businessestablishmentsandgo�ernmentbuildingsinthetownofBarentuduringitsoccupationfromMay18to26,2000;h . Forthedestructionofthepolicestation,thecourthouse,theGash-SetitHotelandConferenceCenter,andabakeryinthetownofBarentuduringitsoccupation;i . ForpermittinglootingofbuildingsanddestructionofthepolicestationinthetownofTokombia,andthedestructionofthenearbyRothmantobaccoplant,duringitsoccupationinMay2000;j . ForpermittinglootingofbuildingsinMolkiSub-ZobaonMay15to16,2000;andk .Forfailuretotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�enttherapeofwomeninthetownsofBarentuandTeseney .1 . AllotherclaimspresentedintheWesternFrontClaimsaredis-missed .

V. unlaWful aerial bombardmenT (eriTrea’s Claim 26)

a. Jurisdiction85 . Thisclaim,asfiledonDecember12,2001,wasaclaimfor the

allegedly unlawful aerial bombardment of ci�ilian targets in six namedplaces .ThesewereAsmara,Assab,AdiKeih,Mendefera,FortoandMas-sawa .WhenEritreafileditsMemorialonthisClaimonNo�ember1,2004,howe�er,theClaimwasrestatedasaclaimthatEthiopiahadconductedanillegallydisproportionateandindiscriminateaircampaign .Moreo�er,initsMemorialandintheaccompanyinge�idence,referencewasmadetomanyallegedaerialbombardmentsaffectingci�ilians,includingthebombingofchurches,otherthanthosereferredtointheStatementofClaim .

86 . EthiopiachallengedtheCommission’sjurisdictiono�erclaimsrelatingtotheseadditionalincidents .Article5,paragraph8,oftheAgree-mentstatesthatanyclaimsthatcouldha�ebeenf i ledbyDecember12,2001butwerenot f i ledby thatdatewereextinguishedandcannotbeconsideredbytheCommission .Eritrearespondedthatmanyaerialbomb-ingclaimsweremadeaspartofotherclaims,specifically theWesternandCentralFrontClaims,aswellasClaim21oninternallydisplacedper-sons .

87 . TheCommissionagreesthatsomeaerialbombardmentclaimswerementionedinsomeoftheWesternFrontClaims,aswellasinClaim21,whichconcernsdisplacedpersons .Thereferencestoaerialbombardmentin


theseClaimswereconsiderablynarrowerthaninClaim26,asrestatedintheMemorial .Ne�ertheless,theCommissionispreparedtopermitthoseclaimsthatweresufficientlyclearlyidentifiedinotherStatementsofClaimfiledonDecember12,2001,tobedealtwithinClaim26insteadoftheClaimsinwhichtheywerefiled,excluding,ofcourse,CentralFrontClaimspre�iouslyresol�edintheCommission’sPartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims .Moreo�er,theCommissionholdsthatClaim26,asthusexpanded,pro�idesanadequatejurisdictionalbasisfortheClaimasrestatedintheMemorial .Conse-quently,theCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erClaim26 .

b. evidentiary issues1 . QuestionofProofRequired

88 . Asdiscussedabo�e,theCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .

2 . E�idencePresented

89 . In support of its aerial bombardment claims, Eritrea presentedo�er90swornwitnessdeclarations,reportsfromtwoexperts,andse�eralpressreports .Initsdefense,Ethiopiapresentedeightswornwitnessdecla-rations,mostfrommilitaryofficers,aswellasmapsandgo�ernmentpressstatements .

90 . Atthehearing,thefollowingwitnesseswerepresented:

ByEritrea:Maj .(Ret .)PaulNoack—ExpertWitness

ByEthiopia:BrigadierGeneralAdemMohammed—FactWitness

C. The merits91 . Claim26,asthusrestructured,isbasically(withoneexceptiondis-

cussedbelow)notaseriesofclaims foreachof theseparatealleged inci-dents,butratheraclaimthatEthiopiacarriedoutapatternofindiscriminateaerialbombardmentsthatcausedci�iliancasualtiesandpropertylossesatanumberofdifferentplaces .Thisreorientationoftheseclaims,apartfromthejurisdictionalproblemsitbrings,isconsistentwiththeCommission’sgen-eralapproach,whichistofindliabilityforfrequentorper�asi�e�iolationsofinternationallaw .IthasbeentheCommission’sgeneralpracticetoruleonanindi�idualincidentonlywhenthatincidentwasunusuallyseriousase�i-dencedbylargenumbersof�ictimsorpotential�ictimsora�eryserious�io-lationofapplicableinternationallaw .ThisreorientationofEritrea’saerialbombingclaimsisalsosensiblebecause,liketheclaimsforartilleryshelling,


neitherPartyislikelytobeabletopro�e,incident-by-incident,whethereachallegedbombingincidentwaslawfulornot .

92 . Thedifficultiesofsuchincident-by-incidentanalysisbecomeclearwhenoneconsidersthatitwouldbenecessaryfortheCommissiontoconsider,inter alia, thefollowingquestionsinrelationtoeache�entcitedbyEritrea:

Whattargetortargetswereauthorizedtobeattacked?Onwhatbasiswaseachtargetselected?Howmuchcarewasusedinthatselection?Howwelltrainedwerethepilotstominimizeerror?How close to legitimate military objecti�es were any ci�ilian �ic-tims?DidtheEthiopiancommandersknow,orshouldtheyha�eknown,thatci�iliansorci�ilianobjectswerelocatedwheretheywere,infact,located?Didtherele�antEritreanauthoritiestakeallfeasibleprecautionarymeasuresasrequiredbyArticle58ofGene�aProtocolItoprotectci�iliansagainsttheeffectsofattackas,forexample,byensuringthatinternallydisplacedpersons(“IDP”)campswerenotlocatedclosetomilitaryobjecti�es?AnddidtheEthiopiancommandersandpilotstakeallfeasiblemeas-urestopre�enterrorsintheseattacks?

Itseemsprobablethatthenecessaryinformationrele�anttoeachbombingclaimwouldrarelybea�ailabletothePartiesandhencetotheCommission .

93 . Thus,exceptwithrespecttotheHarsilewaterreser�oir,whichis considered separatelybelow,theCommissionwilldecideall theotheraerialbombingallegationso�erwhichtheCommissionhasjurisdictionasaclaimthatEthiopiaconductedanindiscriminateanddisproportionatebomb-ingcampaign .Insupportofthisclaim,Eritreacitede�idencethatci�ilianswerekilledandinjuredandci�ilianobjectsweredestroyedordamagedinanumberoftowns,�illagesandIDPcampsduringthearmedconflict .Eritreaallegedthat these lossesoccurredbecausetheEthiopianAirForcedidnotcomplywiththeobligationsofinternationalhumanitarianlawtodistinguishbetweenmilitaryobjecti�esandci�iliansandci�ilianobjectsandtoa�oiddisproportionateci�ilianlosses .EritreareliedparticularlyuponthoserulesoflawfoundinArticles48,51,52and57ofGene�aProtocolI .

94 . Ethiopia, in response, denied that its preparations for andconductofitsaerialbombingsfailedtocomplywithrele�antlegalobliga-tions .EthiopiaalsoaccusedEritreaoffailingtocomplywiththeobligationsrequiredbyArticle58ofGene�aProtocolI,totakeappropriatemeasurestoseparateci�iliansandci�ilianobjectsfrommilitaryobjecti�estothemaxi-mumextentfeasible .


95 . Thepro�isionsofGene�aProtocolIcitedbythePartiesrepresentthebestandmostrecenteffortsoftheinternationalcommunitytostatethelawontheprotectionoftheci�ilianpopulationagainsttheeffectsofhos-tilities .TheCommissionbelie�es that thosepro�isionsreflectagenerallyshared�iew that someof thepracticesof theSecondWorldWar, suchastargetareabombingofcities,shouldbeoutlawedforthefuture,andtheCommissionconsidersthemtoexpresscustomaryinternationalhumanitar-ianlaw .Thosepro�isionsmaybesummarizedasfollows:theyemphasizetheimportanceofdistinguishingbetweenci�iliansandcombatantsandbetweenci�ilianobjectsandmilitaryobjecti�es;18theyprohibittargetingci�ilians19orci�ilianobjects;20theyprohibitindiscriminateattacks,includingattacksthatmaybeexpectedtoproduceci�ilianlossesthatwouldbedisproportionatetotheanticipatedmilitaryad�antage;21andtheyrequirebothattackeranddefendertotakeallfeasibleprecautionstothoseends .22

96 . Consideringthee�idencesubmittedbybothParties,theCommis-sionnotesthattheEthiopianaerialbombardmentcampaignwasalimitedone .Asidefromcloseairsupportmissions,whichrequiredthepresenceofaforwardaircontroller,Ethiopiaestimatedthatinterdictionmissions,whicharetheonesthatcouldha�egi�enrisetoEritrea’sclaims,num-beredonlyinthetwentiesduringthewholewar .Eritreadidnotdisputethesefiguresorofferconflictinge�idence .Exceptforabriefperiodattheoutsetof thewarandduringtheEthiopianoffensi�esinFebruary1999andMayandJune2000,therewerelongperiodswhenanaerialwarfaremoratoriumpressedbytheUnitedNationswasrespected .Asalwaysinaerialbombing,thereweresomeregrettableerrorsof targetingandofdeli�eryby theEthiopianAirForce,andsomeci�iliancasualtiesandpropertyloseswerecausedbythoseerrors .Also,therewerecasualtiesandlossesthatprobablycouldha�ebeena�oidedifEritreahaddonemoretokeepci�iliansandmili-taryobjecti�esfurtherapart .ItalsoappearsthatEthiopiamaynotha�erespondedtoEritreanallegationsthatci�ilianshadbeenhitbyEthiopianbombardmentasitshouldha�edonebysendingreconnaissancemissionsto�erifywhathappened .

97 . Allofthesecasualtiesandlosseswereregrettableandtragicconse-quencesofthewar,buttheydonotinthemsel�esestablishliabilityforthisclaimunderinternationallaw .Aftercarefulconsiderationofall thee�i-dence,includingthetestimonyatthehearingbythemilitaryexpertpre-sentedbyEritreaandbyaseniorEthiopianAirForceofficer,theCom-missionconcludesthatEritreahasnotpro�editsclaimthatEthiopia’saerial

18 Gene�aProtocolI,supra note8,art .48 .19 Id. art .51(2) .20 Id. art .52 .21 Id. art .51(4)&(5) .22 Id. arts .57&58 .


bombingwasindiscriminateorwasdisproportionateinthatitwouldbeexpectedtocauseci�ilianlosseswhich,inthewordsofArticle51ofGene�aProtocolI,“wouldbeexcessi�einrelationtotheconcreteanddirectmilitaryad�antageanticipated .”Consequently,Claim26,exceptforthatpartrelatingtotheHarsilewaterreser�oir,failsforlackofproof .

98 . HarsileWaterReser�oir:Ethiopiaacknowledgesthatitmadese�eralairstrikesonthewaterreser�oirlocatedatthe�illageofHarsile,whichislocatedinaharshdesertregionabout17kilometersfromthelargeportcityofAssab .BombsweredroppedonthreedaysinFebruary1999andonceinJune2000,butthereser�oireitherwasnotdamagedoranydamagewasquicklyrepaired .Ethiopia’sseniorAirForceofficerwhotestifiedatthehear-ingindicatedthatthereser�oirwastargetedbecauseEthiopiabelie�edthatthelossofthatsupplyofdrinkingwaterwouldha�erestrictedEritrea’smilitarycapacityontheEasternFront,andheidentifiedafewEritreanmilitaryunitsthatEthiopiabelie�edobtainedtheirwaterfromthereser�oir .Howe�er, inresponsetoaquestion,heacknowledgedthat itwaspossible thatwaterfromthereser�oirwasusedbyci�ilians .

99 . Eritrea submitted witness statements indicating, first, that thereser�oirser�edonlyci�iliansandwasthesolesourceofdrinkingwaterforthetownofAssaband,second,thattheEritreanarmedforcesinthatareahadtheirownwellsandundergroundstoragetanks .Eritreaclaimedthattheseattacksonthereser�oirwereillegalunderArticle54ofGene�aProtocolI,whichprohibitsattacksonobjectsindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulation .

100 . Basedonthee�idenceintherecord,theCommissionhasnodoubtthattheGo�ernmentofEthiopiaknewthatthereser�oirwasa�italsourceofwaterforthecityofAssab .Thus,itseemsclearthatEthiopia’spurposeintargetingthereser�oirwastodepri�eEritreaofthesustenance�alueofitswater,andthatEthiopiadidnotdosoonanerroneousassump-tionthatthereser�oirpro�idedwateronlytotheEritreanarmedforces .

101 . As theareaaroundAssab isextremelyharsh,hotanddry, theCommissionconsidersit�eryfortunatethatthewaterinthereser�oirwasnotlostormadeuna�ailablebythoseairstrikes .Neither,apparently,wasanearbyrefugeecampdamagedbythestrikes,buttheabsenceofsignificantdamagewouldnotjustifyafailurebytheCommissiontodecidethelegalityofthoseattacks .

102 . The Parties do not disagree that an attack on the reser�oirwouldbeprohibitedbyArticle54ofGene�aProtocolI,werethatpro�isiontoapplybetweenthem .Inrele�antpart,itpro�ides:

2 . Itisprohibitedtoattack . . . . .objectsindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulation,suchas . . .drinkingwaterinstallationsandsup-plies . . .forthespecificpurposeofdenyingthemfortheirsustenance�al-uetotheci�ilianpopulationortothead�erseParty,whate�erthemoti�e . . .


3 . Theprohibitionsinparagraph2shallnotapplytosuchoftheobjectsco�eredbyitasareusedbyanad�erseParty:

(a)assustenancesolelyforthemembersofitsarmedforces . . . .

103 . Initsdefense,EthiopiaassertedthatdestructionoftheHarsilewaterreser�oirwouldha�elimitedsignificantlyEritrea’sabilitytoconductmilitaryoperationsontheEasternFrontand,consequently,thatthereser�oirwasalegitimatemilitaryobjecti�eundertheapplicablecustomaryinterna-tionalhumanitarianlaw .EthiopiafurthermaintainedthatArticle54ofGene�aProtocolIwasanewde�elopmentin1977thathadnotbecomeapartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawbythe1998–2000war .

104 . TheCommissionrecognizesthedifficultyitfacesindecidingthisquestion,asthereha�ebeenlessthanthreedecadesforStatepracticerelatingtoArticle54tode�elopsinceitsadoptionin1977 .Article54representedasignificantad�anceinthepriorlawwhenitwasincluded in theProtocolin1977,soitcannotbepresumedthatithadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawmorethan20yearslater .Howe�er,theCom-mission also notes the compelling humanitarian nature of that limitedprohibition,aswellasStates’increasedemphasisona�oidingunnecessaryinjuryandsufferingbyci�iliansresultingfromarmedconflict .TheCommis-sionalsoconsidershighlysignificantthefactthatnoneofthe160Statesthatha�ebecomePartiestotheProtocolhasmadeanyreser�ationorstatementofinterpretationrejectingorlimitingthebindingnatureofthatprohibition .Onlytwoofthosestatementsrelatetothescopeoftheprohibition .One,bytheUnitedKingdom,merelyemphasizeswhatparagraph2ofArticle54says,i .e .,thatitprohibitsonlyattacksthatha�ethespecificpurposeofdenyingsustenance to theci�ilianpopulationor thead�erseParty .Theother,byFrance,preser�esarighttoattackobjectsusedsolelyforthesustenanceofmembersofthearmedforces .AllotherstatementsreferringtoArticle54alsorefertootherarticles,andrelatesolelytothethornyissueoftherightofreprisal .TheUnitedStateshasnotyetratifiedGene�aProtocolI,buttheCommissionnoteswithinterestthattheUnitedStatesAnnotatedSupplement(1997)toitsNa�alHandbook(1995)makesthesignificantcommentthattheruleprohibitingtheintentionaldestructionofobjectsindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulationforthespecificpurposeofdenyingtheci�ilianpopulationoftheiruseisa“customaryrule”acceptedbytheUnitedStatesandcodifiedbyArticle54,paragraph2,ofProtocolI .

105 . WhiletheProtocolhadnotattaineduni�ersalacceptancebythetimetheseattacksoccurredin1999and2000,ithadbeen�erywidelyaccept-ed .TheCommissionbelie�esthat,inthosecircumstances,atreatypro�isionofacompellinghumanitariannaturethathasnotbeenquestionedbyanystatementsofreser�ationorinterpretationandisnotinconsistentwithgeneralStatepracticeinthetwodecadessincetheconclusionofthetreatymayreason-ablybeconsideredtoha�ecometoreflectcustomaryinternationalhumanitar-


ianlaw .23RecallingthepurposeofArticle54, theCommissionconcludesthatthepro�isionsofArticle54thatprohibitattackagainstdrinkingwaterinstallationsandsuppliesthatareindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulationforthespecificpurposeofdenyingthemfortheirsustenance�aluetothead�ersePartyhadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawby1999and,consequentlywasapplicabletoEthiopia’sattacksontheHarsilereser�oirinFebruary1999andJune2000 .Therefore,thoseaerialbombardments,whichfortunatelyfailedtodamagethereser�oir,werein�iolationofapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Asnodamagehasbeenshown,thatfinding,byitself,shallbesatisfactiontoEritreaforthat�iolation .

d. awardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:1 . Jurisdiction

a . ClaimsofunlawfulaerialbombardmentthatweretimelyfiledbytheClaimantinotherClaimssubmittedtotheCommissionthatha�enotpre�iouslybeendecidedbytheCommissionwillbeadmittedinthisClaimtotheexclusionoftheClaimsinwhichtheywerefiled .b . Thisclaim,asthusexpandedandrestatedbytheClaimantasaclaimthattheRespondentconductedanunlawful,indiscriminateanddisproportionatebombingcampaign,iswithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawa . Thepro�isionsofGene�aProtocolIrele�anttothisClaim,whicharefoundinArticles48,51,52,57and58ofthatProtocol,expressedcustomary internationalhumanitarian lawduring the1998–2000armedconflictbetweentheParties .b . TheclaimthatEthiopiaconductedanindiscriminateanddispro-portionatebombingcampaignin�iolationoftherele�antpro�isionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawfailsforlackofproof .c . The pro�isions of Article 54 of Gene�a Protocol I that pro-hibitattackagainstdrinkingwater installationsandsupplies thatareindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulationforthespecificpurposeofdenyingthemfortheirsustenance�aluetothead�ersePartyhadbecomecustomary internationalhumanitarianlawby1999 .

23 TheCommissionnoteswithappreciationthenew,exhausti�estudyofcustomarylawbytheICRC,Jean-MarieHenckaerts&LouiseDoswald-Beck,Customary Interna-tional Humanitarian Law(CambridgeUni�ersityPress,2005) .ThatstudyconcludesthatabroaderprohibitionthantheonestatedinArticle54(2)hasbecomecustomarylaw .TheCommissionneednot,anddoesnot,endorsethestudy’sbroaderconclusion .


d . TheaerialbombingattacksbytheRespondent inFebruary1999andJune2000againsttheHarsilewaterreser�oirwerein�iolationofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .

e . AsnodamagetotheHarsilewaterreser�oirhasbeenshown,thefindingof�iolationoflaw,byitself,shallrepresentsatisfactiontotheClaimant .

f . AllotherclaimspresentedinthisClaimaredismissed .

Vi. aerial bombardmenT of HirGiGo PoWer sTaTion (eriTrea’s Claim 25)

a. Jurisdiction106 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementestablishestheCommis-

sion’sjurisdiction .Itpro�ides,inter alia, thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforallloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�-ernmentagainst theother thatarerelated to theearlierconf lict betweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”

107 . InthisClaim,theClaimantallegedthattheRespondent’saerialbombardmentoftheClaimant’spowerstationatHirgigo�iolatedrulesofinternational law .EthiopiadidnotcontesttheCommission’sjurisdictiono�ertheclaimsassertedbyEritreaandtheCommissionisawareofnojuris-dictionalimpediments .Thus,theClaimfallsdirectlywithinthescopeoftheCommission’sjurisdiction .

b. evidentiary issues1 .QuestionofProofRequired108 . Asdiscussedabo�e,theCommissionrequiresclearandcon-

�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .2 .E�idencePresented109 . InsupportofitsClaimonthebombingofHirgigoPowerStation,

Eritreapresentedo�er20swornwitnessdeclarations,oneofwhichwasanexpert statement . In itsdefense,Ethiopiapresentedse�enswornwitnessdeclarations,sixfrommilitaryofficers,andse�eralgo�ernmentpressstate-ments .

110 . Atthehearing,thefollowingwitnesseswerepresented:ByEritrea:

Maj .(Ret .)PaulNoack—ExpertWitness


ByEthiopia:

BrigadierGeneralAdemMohammed—FactWitness

C. The merits

111 . OnMay28,2000, twoEthiopian jetaircraftdroppedse�enbombs that hit and seriouslydamagedtheHirgigoPowerStation,whichislocatedabouttenkilometersfromtheportcityofMassawa .Atthattime,constructionwascomplete,andthepowerstationwasinthetestingandcom-missioningphase .Whilenotyet fullyoperational, thepower stationhadsuccessfullysuppliedsomepowerbrieflytoAsmaraandMendefera .Eritreaassertedthatthebombingoftheplantwasunlawfulbecausetheplantwasnotalegitimatemilitaryobjecti�e,anditrequestedthattheCommissionholdEthiopialiabletocompensateEritreaforthedamagecausedtoEritreabythat�iolationofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .

112 . Withrespecttotheapplicablelaw,EritreapointedtoArticle52,paragraph2,ofGene�aProtocolI,whichdefinestheobjectsthatarelegitimatemilitaryobjecti�esasfollows:

Insofarasobjectsareconcerned,militaryobjecti�esarelimitedtothoseobjectswhichbytheirnature,location,purposeorusemakeaneffecti�econtribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction,captureorneutralization,inthecircumstancesrulingatthetime,offersadefinitemilitaryad�antage .

113 . Thispro�isionwasnotapplicableaspartofatreatybindingonboth Parties to the conf lict, but it is widely accepted as an expressionofcustomaryinternational law,andEthiopiadidnotcontendotherwise .TheCommissionnotes thatnoneof the160Parties tothatProtocolhasattachedto itssignatureor instrumentofratificationareser�ationorstatementofinterpretationthatwouldindicatedisagreementwiththatdefini-tion .24TheCommissionisofthe�iewthattheterm“militaryad�antage”canonlyproperlybeunderstoodinthecontextofthemilitaryoperationsbetweenthePartiestakenasawhole,notsimplyinthecontextofaspecificattack .25Thus,withrespecttothepresentclaim,whethertheattackonthepowerstationofferedadefinitemilitaryad�antagemustbeconsideredinthecontextofitsrelationtothearmedconf lictasawholeatthetimeoftheattack .TheCommissionfindsthatArticle52,paragraph2,ofGene�aPro-

24 TheCommissionisawarethattherehasbeencriticismofArticle52(2)ongroundsthatitistoorestricti�e .See, e.g., W .HaysParks,“AirLawandtheLawofWar”, 32Air Force Law Reviewpp .137–144(1990) .

25 See, e.g., The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictp .162(DieterFlecked .,OxfordUni�ersityPress,1995)[hereinafterFleck] .


tocolI isastatementofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawand,assuch,wasapplicabletotheconflictbetweenthetwoParties .26

114 . BeforeconsideringthequestionwhetherthepowerstationatHir-gigowasamilitaryobjecti�eassodefined,theCommissionmustfirstaddressafactualdispute .InitsStatementofDefense,Ethiopiasimplydeniedthatithadtargetedanon-militaryobjecti�e .Howe�er,initsMemorialandconsistentlythereafter,includingbytestimonyatthehearingbyaseniorEthiopianAirForceofficer,Ethiopiamaintainedthat,althoughthepowerplantqualifiedasalegitimatemilitaryobjecti�e,itsobjecti�eonMay28wasnotthepowerplant,butratheranti-aircraftmissilelauncherslocatedatHirgigo .Ethiopiaallegedthatthetwoaircraftinquestionhadbeenassigned,astheirprimaryobjec-ti�e,theportofMassawa .Itfurtherallegedthat,astheaircraftapproachedthatarea,theydetectedeitherthelaunchingofananti-aircraftmissileortheirowndetectionbymissilecontrolradar(thee�idencewasinconsistentonthatpoint)fromananti-aircraftinstallationwithintheperimeteroftheplantatHirgigo .Ethiopia furtheralleged that thepilots immediately soughtandobtainedinstructionstoswitchtargetsandattacktheanti-aircraftdefensesatthepowerplant .Consequently,Ethiopiaassertedthatitdidnotmakethepowerplantitsobjecti�e .

115 . Eritreadisputedthatexplanation,pointingtotheproximityofHir-gigotoMassawa,tothefactthattheaircraftweref lying�erylowataspeedofperhapseightkilometersperminute,tothee�idencefromthoseonthegroundthattheaircraftwereseenandheardonlyjustpriortothereleaseoftheirbombsontheplant,andtotheimpossibilityofdirectradiocommu-nicationbetweensuchlowflyingaircraftandtheirbaseindistantMekele .EthiopiarespondedtothelastpointbyallegingthatthecommunicationswererelayedthroughanotheraircraftthatcircledhighenoughtomaintainradiocontactbetweentheattackingaircraftandtheairbaseatMekele .

116 . IftheCommissionweretoaccepttheEthiopianexplanation,then the question whether the power plant was a legitimate militaryobjecti�e, as defined in Article 52, paragraph2,ofGene�aProtocol I,would not be rele�ant . The Commission recognizes the seriouspracticaldifficultieswiththatexplanationtowhichEritreahaspointed,anditisnotsatisfiedthatEthiopiahasadequatelyrespondedtothem .Moreo�er,theCom-missionnotesthatthee�idenceindicatedthat,whileEritreadidha�eanti-aircraftgunslocatednearthesiteoftheplant,butnotattheplantsiteitself,theattackingaircraftdroppedse�enbombsdirectlyontheplant,ratherthanonthoseanti-aircraftguns .Further,thee�idenceindicatedthattheaircrafthaddroppedtheirbombsandwereturningawaywhenthefirstanti-aircraftfirewasheard .Consideringallthee�idence,theCommissionconcludesthat

26 See,e .g .,TheodorMeron,Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Lawp .64(ClarendonPress,1989)andCustomary International Humanitarian Law,supranote23,atpp .29–32 .


Ethiopiahasfailedtopro�eitsfirstdefense,thattheanti-aircraftweaponsweretheobjecti�eoftheattack,ratherthanthepowerplant .Consequently,theCommissionturnstotheallegationofEritreathatthepowerplantwasnotalegitimatemilitaryobjecti�e .

117 . Asafirststep,theCommissionmustdecidewhetherthepowerplantwasanobjectthatbyitsnature,location,purposeorusemadeaneffec-ti�econtributiontomilitaryactionat the time itwasattacked .TheCom-missionagreeswithEthiopiathatelectricpowerstationsaregenerallyrec-ognized tobeof sufficient importance toaState’scapacity tomeet itswartimeneedsofcommunication,transportandindustrysoasusuallytoqualifyasmilitaryobjecti�esduringarmedconflicts .TheCommissionalsorecognizesthatnotallsuchpowerstationswouldqualifyasmilitaryobjec-ti�es,forexample,powerstationsthatareknown,orshouldbeknown,tobesegregatedfromageneralpowergridandarelimitedtosupplyingpowerforhumanitarianpurposes,suchasmedicalfacilities,orotherusesthatcouldha�enoeffectontheState’sabilitytowagewar .Eritreaassertedthat,inMay2000,theHirgigoplantwasnotyetproducingpowerforuseinEritreaandthatEritrea’smilitaryforceshadtheirownelectricgeneratingequipmentandarenotdependentongeneralpowergridsinEritrea .Eritreaalsosubmittede�idence supporting its assertion that itsDefenseMinistryusednomorethanfourpercentofEritrea’snon-militarypowersupplyandthatEritreanmanufacturingcompaniesdidnotproducesignificantmilitaryequipment .

118 . TheHirgigoplanthadbeenunderconstructionforaconsid-erabletime,andthee�idenceindicatedthatmuchoftherelatedtransformerandtransmissionfacilitiesthatwouldbenecessary for it to transmit itspoweraroundthecountrywereinplace .Also,theCommissionnotesthewitnessstatementbytheheadoftheNorthernRedSeaRegionoftheEritreaElectricAuthorityinwhichhestated:“Hirgigowasgoingtobeamajorassetforus .TheplantwewereusingtosupplypowertoMassawawasinGrar .Itwasbig,butitwasoldandonitslastlegs .”

119 . Infairnesstothatwitness,itshouldbeacknowledgedthathealsostatedthathethoughtthereasonEthiopiabombedthepowerstationwas itseconomic importancetoEritrea .Ne�ertheless,theCommission,byamajority,findsinhisreferencetothepowersupplyforMassawabeingoldandonitslastlegsasuggesti�eexampleofthepotential�aluetoacountryatwarofalarge,newandnearlycompletedpowerstationsocloseastobe�isiblefromMassawa .WhilethefactthatEritreaplacedanti-aircraftgunsinthe�icinityofthepowerstationdoesnot,byitself,makethepowerstationamilitaryobjecti�e,itindicatedthatEritreanmilitaryauthoritiesthemsel�es�iewedthestationasha�ingmilitarysignificance .

120 . TheCommission,byamajority,hasnodoubtthattheportandna�albaseatMassawaweremilitaryobjecti�es .It followsthatthegeneratingfacilitiespro�idingtheelectricpowerneededtooperatethemwereobjectsthatmadeaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryaction .The


questiontheniswhethertheintendedreplacementforthatpowergen-erationcapacityalsomadeaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryaction .Ethio-piaassertedthataStateatwarshouldnotbeobligatedtowaituntilanobjectis,infact,putintousewhenthepurposeofthatobjectissuchthatitwillmakeaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryactiononceithasbeentested,commis-sionedandputtouse .Certainly,astheBritishDefenseMinistry’sManualof theLawofArmedConflictmakesclear, theword“purpose” inArticle52’sdefinitionofmilitaryobjecti�es“meansthefutureintendeduseofanobject .”27TheCommissionagrees .28

121 . TheremainingquestioniswhethertheHirgigopowerplant’s“totalorpartialdestruction . . . inthecircumstancesruling”inlateMay2000“offer[ed]adefinitemilitaryad�antage .”Ingeneral,alargepowerplantbeingconstructedtopro�idepowerforanareaincludingamajorportandna�alfacilitycertainlywouldseemtobeanobjectthedestructionofwhichwouldofferadistinctmilitaryad�antage .29Moreo�er,thefactthatthepowerstationwasofeconomicimportancetoEritreaise�idencethatdamagetoit,inthecircumstancespre�ailinginlateMay2000whenEthiopiawastryingtoforceEritreatoagreetoendthewar,offeredadefinitead�antage .30“Thepurposeofanymilitaryactionmustalwaysbetoinf luencethepoliticalwillofthead�ersary .”31Thee�idencedoesnot—andneednot-establishwhetherthedamagetothepowerstationwasafactorinEritrea’sdecisiontoaccepttheCease-FireAgreementofJune18,2000 .Theinflictionofeconomiclossesfromattacksagainstmilitaryobjecti�esisalawfulmeansofachie�ingadefinitemilitaryad�antage,andtherecanbefewmilitaryad�antagesmoree�identthaneffecti�epressuretoendanarmedconflictthat,eachday,addedtothenumberofbothci�ilianandmilitarycasualtiesonbothsidesofthewar .For thesereasons, theCommission,byamajority, f inds that, inthecircumstancespre�ailingonMay28,2000,theHirgigopowerstationwasamilitaryobjecti�e,asdefinedinArticle52,paragraph2,ofGene�a

27 The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflictpp .55&56(U .K .MinistryofDefence,OxfordUni�ersityPress,2004) .

28 Eritreadidnotallegethatci�iliancasualtiesresultedfromtheairstrike,soques-tionsofproportionalityinrelationtosuchcasualtiesdonotarise .Further,asexplainedabo�e,thepowerplantwasamilitaryobjecti�e,andnotaci�ilianobjectwithinthemean-ingofArticle52 .Accordingly,theissueofproportionalitylikewisedoesnotarisewithrespecttopropertydamagethere .

29 See LeslieGreen,The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflictp .191(ManchesterUni�ersityPress,2ded .2000);EricDa�id,Principes de droit des conflits armésp .272(Bruylant,3rded .2002);and YoramDinstein,The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflictpp .96–97(CambridgeUni�ersityPress,2004) .

30 ForarecentcollectionofStatepracticeindicatingthatmanyeconomicinstalla-tionsand,indeed,theeconomicpotentialofanenemyStateconstitutemilitaryobjecti�es,see Vol .IICustomary International Humanitarian Law,supra note23,atpp .216–222 .

31 Fleck,supra note25,atp .157 .


ProtocolIandthatEthiopia’saerialbombardmentofitwasnotunlawful .Consequently,thisClaimisdismissedonthemerits .

d. awardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommission,byamajority(thePresi-

dentfilingaseparateopinion),determinesasfollows:1 . JurisdictionTheCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erthisClaim .2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawTheClaimisdismissedonthemerits .

Vii. PreVenTinG disPlaCed Persons from reTurninG (eriTrea’s Claim 14)

a. introduction122 . ThisClaimwasstyled intheStatementofClaimasaclaimfor

lossesandinjuriesintheareasofEritreastilloccupiedbyEthiopia,includingfromEthiopia’sforciblepre�entionofdisplacedEritreansreturningtotheirhomes,all allegedly in�iolationofArticle49ofGene�aCon�entionIV .Howe�er,itbecameclearinthefurtherpleadingsthattheclaimwasdirectedate�entsthatoccurredaftertheconclusionoftheAgreementintheTem-porarySecurityZoneandinareassouthof thatzonethatweredeter-minedbytheBoundaryCommissionin2002tobeontheEritreansideoftheborder .TheRespondentchallengedthejurisdictionoftheCommissiononthegroundsthattheStatementofClaim,first,wastoo�agueastobothtimeandplacetopermitadefenseand,second,failedtostatealegalorfactualclaimwithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .Onthemerits,theRespondentdeniedthattheclaimwas�alid .

b. evidentiary issues1 .QuestionofProofRequired123 . Asdiscussedabo�e,theCommissionrequiresclearandcon-

�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .2 .E�idencePresented124 . In supportofClaim14 (andClaim21, fordisplacementof

ci�ilians),Eritreapresented57swornwitnessdeclarationsinAnnexAtoitsMemorial,oneofwhichwasanexpertstatement .Eritreaalsosubmit-tedphotographsandsatellite images inhardcopyandelectronicformat,�ideofootage,pressreports,andreportsfrominternationalorganizations


andNGOs .Ethiopiadidnotsubmitdeclarationsorotherdefensi�ee�idence .NeitherPartypresentedwitnessesatthehearing .

C. Jurisdiction

125 . WhiletheStatementofClaimwascertainlylackinginpreci-sion, the Commission recognizes that a claim concerning mostly futuree�entscouldscarcelybeprecise,anditisreluctanttodismisstheclaimonthatbasis .UponexaminationoftheClaimant’se�idence,howe�er,theCom-missionfindsthatmostofitportraysthefrustrationofEritreans’effortstoreturntotheirhomesaftertheconflictwasendeddefiniti�elyonDecember12,2000 .TheRespondentassertedthattheCommissionhasnojurisdictiono�ersuchclaims,first,becausetheydonotrelatetoe�entsthatoccurredduringtheconflict,butrathertoseparatee�entsthatallegedlyoccurredfollowingconclusionoftheAgreement,and,second,because,astheCommissionheldinitsDecisionNumber1ofJuly24,2001,ithasnojurisdictiono�erclaimsregardingtheinterpretationorimplementationoftheAgreement .

126 . TheClaimantrespondedthat,sincetheoriginaldisplacementsoccurredduringthewar,theclaimsassertedherearebasedone�ents“relatedtotheconflict .”Inthisregard,theClaimantanalogizedtheplightoftheseci�ilianstothesituationofPOWswhowerestillimprisonedafterthecon-flictwasterminated,andreferredtotheCommission’sPartialAwardinErit-rea’sPOWClaimfindingthatEthiopiahadanon-goingdutyafterDecember12,2000,tofacilitatethepromptrepatriationofallPOWs .32

127 . TheCommission’sjurisdictionunderArticle5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementislimitedtoclaims“relatedto”theconflictbetweentheParties .InitsDecisionNumber1ofJuly24,2001,theCommissiondecidedthat ithasjurisdictiono�eralimitedbodyofclaimsfore�entsoccurringafterDecember2000ifaPartydemonstratesthatthosee�ents“aroseasaresultofthearmedconflict . . .oroccurred in thecourseofmeasures todisengagecontendingforcesorotherwisetoendthemilitary confrontationbetweenthetwosides”(emphasisadded) .33TheCommissioncannotagreethatthepresentclaimsmeettheserequirementsofDecisionNumber1oragreewiththeallegedrele�ancetotheCommission’sPartialAwardsrelatingtoprisonersofwar .TheobligationtorepatriatePOWsisanexplicitelementofanintegratedbodyoflaw,Gene�aCon�entionIIIof1949,broughtintooperationbythewar .Inspecific,thedutytorepatriatePOWs“withoutdelayafterthecessationofhostilities”isexplicitlyestablishedbyArticles118and119ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Accordingly,theParties’claimsfortherepatriationofPOWsare“relatedtotheconflict”withinthescopeofDecisionNumber1 .

32 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim,supra note1,para .146 .33 Commission Decision No . 1: The Commission’s Mandate/Temporal Scope of

Jurisdiction,issuedJuly24,2001 .


128 . Gene�a Con�ention IV creates no corresponding duty withrespecttothereturnofdisplacedci�ilians .TheCommissionappreciatesthe importanceoftheresettlementofdisplacedpersonsafterthecloseofhostilities,butclaimsrelatingtothesemattersfalloutsideoftherestrictedtemporalscopeofitsjurisdictionundertheAgreement .Indeed,returnorresettlementislikelytorequireconsiderabletimeandresources,extend-inglongaftertheconflict’send .Inthatconnection,theCommissionnotesthereferenceinthePreambleoftheAgreementtothecommitmentoftheOrganizationofAfricanUnityandtheUnitedNationsto“workcloselywiththeinternationalcommunitytomobilizeresourcesfortheresettlementofdisplacedpersons .”Consequently,anypartofthisClaimthatisbasedon e�ents subsequenttoDecember12,2000mustbedismissedforlackofjurisdiction .

129 . DecisionNumber1alsoestablishedthattheCommissiondoesnotha�esuper�isoryjurisdictiono�erinterpretationorapplicationoftheAgree-ment .ThisincludestheParties’obligationunderArticle1,paragraph2,oftheAgreementto“respectandfullyimplement”theirearlierAgreementofJune2000ontheCessationofHostilities .InsofarasthisClaimisbaseduponconductwithintheTemporarySecurityZone,whichwasestablishedpursuanttotheJune2000AgreementonCessationofHostilities,itlikewiseliesoutsidetheCommission’slimitedjurisdictionasdefinedbyDecisionNumber1 .

d. The merits

130 . Article49ofGene�aCon�entionIVrelatestotransfersofpro-tected persons from occupied territory . Among other things, it prohibits“indi�idualormassforcibletransfers,aswellasdeportationsofprotectedpersonsfromoccupiedterritorytotheterritoryoftheOccupyingPower . . . . .regardlessoftheirmoti�e .”ThefewdeclarationssubmittedbyEritreathatmaybebasedone�entsoccurringduringtheconflictareneitherclearastotimingnorsufficientlydetailedtowarrantafindingof�iolationofArticle49 .TotheextentthatanypartofthisClaimmaybewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission,itmustbedismissedforlackofproof .

e. award

In�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

1 .Jurisdiction

AllportionsofthisClaimbasedone�entssubsequenttoDecember12,2000andallportionsbasedonactswithintheTemporarySecurityZonearedismissedforlackofjurisdiction .

2 .FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLaw


TotheextentanypartofthisClaimin�ol�esactionspriortoDecem-ber12,2000outsideoftheTemporarySecurityZone,itisdismissedforfail-ureofproof .

Viii. disPlaCemenT of CiVilians (eriTrea’s Claim 21)

a. introduction131 . IntheStatementofClaimforClaim21,Eritreagenerallysought

relieffortheinjuriesandlossescausedbytheinternaldisplacementofitsci�iliansasaresultofshelling,aerialbombardment,explosionsand“otherconditionsthatmadeitimpossibleforthemtoremain .”34Howe�er,initsMemorial,Eritreaclearlyidentifiedtwospecifictypesofdisplacementforwhichitclaimed .Thefirstwasindirectdisplacement,thatis,displacementofci�ilianscausedby their fearofallegedEthiopian�iolationsof inter-nationallawintheconductofmilitaryoperations .Thesecondwasdirectdisplacement,thatis,displacementresultingfromordersandforcefulactionsbyEthiopianarmedforcesdesignedtocompelsuchdisplacement .Thesetwotypesmustbeconsideredseparately .

b. evidentiary issues1 . QuestionofProofRequired132 . Asdiscussedabo�e,theCommissionrequiresclearandcon-

�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .2 . E�idencePresented133 . InsupportofClaim21(andClaim14forpre�entingdisplaced

persons fromreturning),Eritreapresented57swornwitnessdeclarationsinAnnexAtoitsMemorial,oneofwhichwasanexpertstatement .Eritreaalsosubmittedphotographsandsatelliteimagesinhardcopyandelectronicformat,�ideofootage,pressreports,andreportsfrominternationalorgani-zationsandNGOs .Ethiopiadidnotsubmitdeclarationsorotherdefensi�ee�idence .NeitherPartypresentedwitnessesatthehearing .

C. indirect displacement134 . ItisundeniablethatmanythousandsofEritreanci�iliansweredis-

placedasaresultofEthiopia’soffensi�esin1999and2000,particularlyontheWesternandCentralFronts .Thee�idencesuggestedthat,asinotherwars,

34 Eritrea’sClaim21 for InternallyDisplacedPersonsandRefugees,StatementofClaim,filedbyEritreaonDecember12,2001,para .C .2 .


manyEritreanci�iliansf ledtheirhomesuponlearningthatenemyarmedforcesweread�ancingintheirdirection .Therewasalsoe�idencethatinsomeinstancesthoseci�ilianshadbeenad�isedororderedtodosobylocalEritreanauthorities .Indeed,theinternaldisplacementduringthewarofbothEritreanandEthiopianci�ilians,manyofthemsubsistencefarmersandtheirfamilies,producedtragiceconomicandsocialimpactsuponthepeoplesofbothcoun-triesandtheirgo�ernments .TheCommissionaccordinglyhasconsideredthisclaim,likeClaim14,withgreatcare .

135 . Howe�er,thejurisdictionoftheCommissionislimitedtoclaimsbasedon�iolationsofinternationallaw,andsuchdisplacementsstand-ingalonearenote�idenceofsuch�iolations .TheCommissionreferredtothismatterinitsPartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaim,intermsthatareequally�alidforthepresentclaim .

Theflightofci�iliansfromthepercei�eddangerofhostilitiesisacommon,andoftentragic,occurrenceinwarfare,butitdoesnot,assuch,gi�erisetoliabilityunderinternationalhumanitarianlaw .WhileProtocolIprohibits“actsorthreatsof�iolencetheprimarypurposeofwhichistospreadterroramongtheci�ilianpopulation,”itimplicitlyrecognizesthatci�iliansmay,ne�ertheless,beterrorizedbecauseofthehostilities .Moreo�er,Ethiopiadoesnotallegeorpro�ethatEritreadeliberatelytriedtocausetheci�ilianinhabit-antsoftheweredatofleebyterrorizingthem,letalonethatspreadingterrorwastheprimarypurposeofitsactsduringthein�asionandoccupation .35

136 . Inaddition,Claim21posessignificantquestionsofadmissibility,becauseitappearstoduplicateclaimsad�ancedbyEritreainothercases,inparticulartheindirectdisplacementclaims asserted in Eritrea’s Centraland Western Front Claims . The Commission posed questions bearingontheadmissibilityofClaim21tothePartiesbeforetheAprilhearing,butrecei�ednoresponses .IntheabsenceoffurtherclarificationfromeitherParty,theCommissionconsidersthatitfullyaddressedEritrea’sindirectdisplacementclaimsinitspriorPartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaimsandthatithasrespondedfullytoEritrea’sclaimsande�idencerele-�anttosuche�entsontheWesternFrontinthefirstpartofthisPartialAward .Consequently,theduplicati�eindirectdisplacementclaimsfortheCentralandWesternFrontsarenotadmissibleinClaim21 .Ne�ertheless,alle�idencesubmittedinthisClaim,includingthewrittendeclarationsinAnnexAtotheMemorial,remainsintherecordandmaybereferredtoasappropriateinsubsequentproceedings .EritreadidnotfileaclaimfortheEasternFrontassuch,soitsindirectdisplacementclaimsrelatedtothatfrontarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommissionandareadmissible .Howe�er,theyfailforlackofproofofa�iolationofinternationallaw .

35 Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, atpara .53 .


d. direct displacement137 . Eritrea also claims that, after Ethiopian armed forces entered

Eritrean�illages,theyfrequentlyorderedandforciblycompelledEritreanresidentstolea�e .DirectdisplacementclaimsareinadmissibletotheextenttheyrelatetoplaceswithintheareaadministeredbyEthiopiapriortotheconflict,meaningsouthoftheUnitedNationsMissioninEthiopiaandEritrea(“UNMEE”)line,becausetheCommissionhasalreadydecidedsuchclaimsindealingwithruralexpelleesinthePartialAwardinEritrea’sCi�iliansClaims .Atthehearing,Eritreaconcededthatitsclaimsforcertainofthe23�illagesitnamedassitesofdirectdisplacementfellwithinthiscategory .

138 . DirectdisplacementclaimsrelatingtoareasnorthoftheUNMEElinearewithintheCommission’sjurisdictionandareadmissible .Howe�er,withrespecttoall incidentsexceptthosein�ol�ingthe�illageofAwgaro,discussed below, the minimal e�idence submitted by Eritrea was neitherclearnorcon�incing .Thefewwitnessdeclarationssufferfromoneormoredefects:theydonotpro�ideanybasisfortheCommissiontoassesswhethertheallegedexpulsionstookplaceinthecourseoffightingforcontrolofthe�illage,whetherthereweremilitaryjustificationsfortheactionsallegedlycausing the displacement, or whether the declarantsfled�oluntarily toa�oiddangerscreatedbytheEthiopianattackandimpendingoccupation .

139 . Theoneexceptioniswithrespect tothe�illageofAwgaro,a�illageofsome600familieslocatedse�eralmilesintoEritreaneartheGashRi�er .Thee�idenceofe�entsinAwgaropresentedamuchmoredetailedandcompellingpicturethanwaspro�idedforotherlocations .At least twel�edeclarantsdescribedinconsiderableandconsistentdetailwhathappenedaftertheEthiopianoccupationofthisundefended�illage,whichhadne�erbeenthetargetofamilitaryattackandwasfullyintactwhenEthiopiansol-diersarri�edinMay2000 .Themorningaftertheunresistedoccupation,anEthiopianofficerorderedallresidentstogatherinthemarketplaceandtoldthemthattheymustlea�ebeforenightfallandproceeddirectlytorelocatethemsel�esnorthoftheGashRi�er .Thee�idenceindicatedthat,asaresultofthatorderandthethreatenedforcebehindit, theentirepopulationofthe�illage-somese�eralthousandpersons,fromnewbornstoelderly—wasdisplaced .Thee�idencealsoindicatedthatthe�illagerswerepermittedtotakeonlythepersonalpropertytheycouldcarry,withsomefamiliespermittedtouseasingledonkey .Se�eralwitnessesassertedthat,laterthatday,theyobser�edEthiopiansoldiersbeginlootingandburninghomesinthe�illageandconfiscating the remaining animals . The Awgaro residents had tomaketheirway,withminimalsustenance,toareasnorthoftheGashRi�er,wheremanyofthemhadtostayintheAdi Keshi IDP refugee camp fortheremainingperiodoftheconf lict .ManydeclarantsdescribedfindingAwgaro inruinswhen they finallyreturned to it .Eritreasupported itswitnesstestimonywith,amongotherthings,anNGOreportofthousandsofEritreansbeingforciblyexpelledinMay2000fromAwgaroandneighbor-


ingsmalltowns .O�erall,thee�idenceconsistentlyindicatedforcedexpul-sionbasedsolelyonethnicity .

140 . Ethiopiadidnotpresentrebuttale�idence .Thereasonsfortheordertolea�eremainunclear .WhiletheRespondentarguedthattheordermayha�ebeengi�enforlegitimatesecurityreasons,itpro�idednoproofof that defense . Ethiopia denied that Awgaro was occupied territoryasthattermisusedinGene�aCon�entionIV,butessentiallyconcededthatifitwereoccupiedterritorythentheforceddisplacementofalltheresidentsofAwgarowouldconstitutea�iolationofArticle49ofthatCon�ention .Asnotedabo�e,Article49significantlyrestricts(althoughitdoesnotwhollypre-clude)therightofanoccupanttoforceresidentstomo�efromtheirhomes .

141 . Althoughthee�idencerele�anttothenatureanddurationofEthi-opia’soccupationofAwgaroisquitelimited,theCommissionconcludes,inparticularfromtheuncontestedarri�alandpresenceofEthiopianforcesatthetimeofthee�identexpulsionofallresidentfamilies,thatAwgarowasinoccupiedterritoryforpurposesofGene�aCon�entionIVandthatEthio-pia’sconducttherewassubjecttothestricturesofArticle49 .Consequently,absentanylegitimatejustificationfortheexpulsionorder,theCommissionfindsthattheAwgaroincidentwaspresumpti�elyunlawful .

142 . AstroublingastheAwgaroincidentis,thequestionremainswheth-ertheCommissionshouldholdEthiopialiableforit .Standingalone,itdoesnotestablishapatternofsystematic,frequentorper�asi�edirectdisplace-ments,which is thestandardtheCommissionhasgenerallyappliedinordertofindliability .Howe�er,itwillberecalledthatthestandardorigi-nallysetbytheCommissioninitsPartialAwardsintheParties’POWClaims,andquotedinparagraph78abo�eindiscussingWesternFrontrapeallegations,wastoestablish“liabilityforserious�iolationsofthelawbytheParties,”whichareusually–butneednotbe–frequentorper�asi�e�iolations .TheCommissionconsiders theAwgaro incidentsuchaserious incident,in�ol�ingas itdidtheentire�illagepopulationofsome600familiesas�ictims,thatitdoes,byitself,engageStateresponsibility .Consequently,theCommissionholdsEthiopialiablefortheunlawfuldirectdisplacementoftheEritreanresidentsofAwgaro .

e. award

In�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

1 .Jurisdiction

a . TheclaimsforindirectdisplacementareinadmissibleinthisClaimtotheextentthattheyrelatetothepre�iouslyadjudicatedWesternFrontorCentralFront .


b . TheclaimsforindirectdisplacementthatrelatetotheEast-ernFrontareadmissibleandwithinthejurisdictionoftheCom-mission .

2 .FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawa . AllclaimsforindirectdisplacementrelatingtotheEasternFrontaredismissedforfailureofproofof�iolationofinternationallaw .b . TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantfortheunlawfuldis-placementofalltheresidentsofAwgaroin�iolationofArticle49ofGene�aCon�entionIV .c . AllotherclaimspresentedinthisClaimaredismissedforfailureofproof .

iX. Combined aWard seCTions

a. award in eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9–13: Western front

1 . JurisdictionAllclaimsassertedintheseWesternFrontClaimsarewithinthejuris-

dictionoftheCommission .2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawTheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsof

internationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelorbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEthiopia:

a . Forpermittinglootingandburningofbuildingsanddestructionofli�estockinthetownofTeseneyduringMayandJune2000;b . Forpermittinglootingandburningofhousesanddestructionofli�estockinthe�illageofAlighidirandtheburninganddetonationofthenearbycottonfactoryanditsstoredcottonduringMayandJune2000;c . Forpermittinglootingandburningofstructuresanddestructionofli�estockinthetownofGulujduringMayandJune2000,Ethio-piaisliablefor90%(ninetypercent)ofthetotallossanddamagetopropertyinGulujduringthattime;d . Forpermitting looting in the�illageofTalbadiaduring June2000;e . For permitting looting in the �illage of Gergef during June2000;f . Forpermittinglootingandstrippingofbuildingsanddestruc-tionofli�estockinOmhajerfromMay16,2000untilthedepartureofthelastEthiopianforcesinSeptember2000,Ethiopiaisliablefor75%(se�enty-fi�epercent)ofthetotalpropertydamageinOmhajerduringthattime;


g . Forpermittingbreaking,enteringandlootingofhouses,busi-nessestablishmentsandgo�ernmentbuildingsinthetownofBaren-tuduringitsoccupationfromMay18to26,2000;h . For the destruction of the police station, the courthouse, theGash-SetitHotelandConferenceCenter,andabakeryinthetownofBarentuduringitsoccupation;i . ForpermittinglootingofbuildingsanddestructionofthepolicestationinthetownofTokombia,andthedestructionofthenearbyRothmantobaccoplant,duringitsoccupationinMay2000;j . ForpermittinglootingofbuildingsinMolkiSub-ZobaonMay15to16,2000;andk . Forfailuretotakeeffecti�emeasurestopre�enttherapeofwomeninthetownsofBarentuandTeseney .1 . AllotherclaimspresentedintheWesternFrontClaimsaredis-missed .

b. award in eritrea’s Claim 26: unlawful aerial bombardment

1 . Jurisdictiona . ClaimsofunlawfulaerialbombardmentthatweretimelyfiledbytheClaimantinotherClaimssubmittedtotheCommissionthatha�enotpre�iouslybeendecidedbytheCommissionwillbeadmit-tedinthisClaimtotheexclusionoftheClaimsinwhichtheywerefiled .b . Thisclaim,asthusexpandedandrestatedbytheClaimantasaclaimthattheRespondentconductedanunlawful,indiscriminateanddisproportionatebombingcampaign,iswithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawa . Thepro�isionsofGene�aProtocolIrele�anttothisClaim,whichare found in Articles 48, 51, 52, 57 and 58 of that Protocol,expressedcustomary internationalhumanitarianlawduringthe1998–2000armedconflictbetweentheParties .b . TheclaimthatEthiopiaconductedanindiscriminateanddis-proportionatebombingcampaign in�iolationof the rele�antpro�isionsofcustomary internationalhumanitarianlawfailsforlackofproof .c . Thepro�isionsofArticle54ofGene�aProtocolIthatprohibitattack against drinking water installations and supplies that areindispensabletothesur�i�aloftheci�ilianpopulationforthespe-cificpurposeofdenying themfor their sustenance�alue to the


ad�ersePartyhadbecomecustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawby1999 .d . TheaerialbombingattacksbytheRespondent inFebruary1999andJune2000againsttheHarsilewaterreser�oirwerein�iolationofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .e . AsnodamagetotheHarsilewaterreser�oirhasbeenshown,thefindingof�iolationoflaw,byitself,shallrepresentsatisfactiontotheClaimant .f . AllotherclaimspresentedinthisClaimaredismissed .

C. award in eritrea’s Claim 25: aerial bombardment of Hirgigo Power station

1 . JurisdictionTheCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erthisClaim .2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawTheClaimis

dismissedonthemerits .

d. award in eritrea’s Claim 14: Preventing displaced Persons from returning

1 . JurisdictionAllportionsofthisClaimbasedone�entssubsequenttoDecember12,

2000andallportionsbasedonactswithintheTemporarySecurityZonearedismissedforlackofjurisdiction .

2 . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawTotheextentanypartofthisClaimin�ol�esactionspriortoDecem-

ber12,2000outsideoftheTemporarySecurityZone,itisdismissedforfailureofproof .

e. award in eritrea’s Claim 21: displacement of Civilians1 .Jurisdiction

a . The claims for indirect displacement are inadmissible inthisClaimto theextentthattheyrelatetothepre�iouslyadjudi-catedWesternFrontorCentralFront .b . Theclaims for indirectdisplacement that relate to theEasternFrontareadmissibleandwithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

2 .FindingsofLiabilityforViolationsofInternationalLawa . AllclaimsforindirectdisplacementrelatingtotheEasternFrontaredismissedforfailureofproofof�iolationofinternationallaw .


b . TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantfortheunlawfuldis-placementofalltheresidentsofAwgaroin�iolationofArticle49ofGene�aCon�entionIV .c . AllotherclaimspresentedinthisClaimaredismissedforfailureofproof .

Attachment:SeparateopinionofthePresident,Hans�anHoutte,relatingtoClaim25

DoneatTheHague,this19thdayofDecember2005[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte

[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich

[Signed]JohnR .Crook

[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul

[Signed]LucyReed

Aerial Bombardment of Hirgigo Power Station (Eritrea’s Claim 25)—Separate Opinion

1 . Customaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw,asformulatedinArticle52,paragraph2,ofGene�aProtocolI,limitsmilitaryobjecti�es“tothoseobjectswhichbytheirnature, location,purposeorusemakeaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryactionandwhosetotalorpartialdestruction,captureorneutralization,inthecircumstancesrulingatthetime,offersadefinitemilitaryad�antage .”

2 . This restricti�e definition requires, cumulati�ely, (1) that theobjecti�emakesaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryaction;and(2)thatitsdestruction,captureorneutralizationpro�idesadefinitemilitaryad�antage .

3 . As regards thefirst condition, theobjecti�e’s contribution to themilitaryactionmustbe“effecti�e”intheactualsituation,notin abstracto. Otherwise,e�eryobjectpotentiallyofusetoenemytroopscouldbecomeamilitaryobjecti�e .136Similarly,moreisrequiredthanamerecontributiontothe“war-fightingcapability”oftheenemy .237

1 MarcoSassóli&AntoineA .Bou�ier,“HowDoesLawProtectinWar?”pp .161–162(ICRC1999) .

2 See San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Seap .161(Cambridge,1995) .See also YoramDinstein,“LegitimateMilitaryObjecti�esundertheCurrentJusinBello”,31Israel Yearbook on Human Rightsp .7(2001) .


4 . Asregardsthesecondcondition,areferencetothehypotheticalorspeculati�eeffectofthedestructionofthemilitaryobjecti�eontheconductofthewaris,inmy�iew,notsufficient .Ademonstrationofthe“definite militaryad�antage”oftheattackisrequired .338Theinflictionofeconomiclossor theunderminingofmorale throughthedestructionofaci�ilianobject,ortheprobabilitythatthedestructionmaybringthedecision-mak-erstothenegotiationtable,donotmakethatobjectamilitaryobjecti�e .439

5 . An object is entitled to the full protection afforded to ci�ilianobjectsifthesetwoconditionsha�enotbeenfulfilled .Indeed,undertheprin-cipleofcustomarylawaslaiddowninArticle52,paragraph3,“[i]ncaseofdoubtwhetheranobjectwhichisnormallydedicatedtoci�ilianpurposes . . .isbeingusedtomakeaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryaction,itshallbepresumednottobesoused .”

6 . Theburdenofproofliesuponthepartythatmustjustifythemilitaryaction .540

7 . The Hirgigo power station, which was intended to become aprincipalsupplierofelectricityinEritrea,unquestionablyhadaci�ilianpurpose .Itcouldha�ebeenamilitaryobjecti�eifitwasestablishedthatitmadeorcouldmakeaneffecti�econtributiontomilitaryaction,orwasorcouldbeoffundamentalimportancefortheconductofwar .6541Adeter-minationthat theHirgigopowerstationwasamilitaryobjecti�emustsufficientlyspecifythebasisforthisassumption .742

3 ICRC Commentary to the Protocol Additional to the Gene�a Con�entions ofAugust12,1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictimsofInternationalArmedCon-flicts(ProtocolI),June8,1977,para .2024,available at http://www .icrc .org[hereinafterICRCCommentary];MichaelBothe,KarlJosefPartsch&WaldemarA .Solf,New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflictsp .324(MartinusNijhoff,1982)[hereinafterBotheet al.] .

4 ICRCCommentary,supra note3,atpara .2017;Dinstein,supra note2,atpp .1&5;The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictsp .442(DieterFlecked .,OxfordUni�ersityPress,1995)[hereinafterFleck];WaldemarA .Solf,Article 52, in Botheetal .,supra note3,atp .326;H .DeSaussure,Remarks, 2 Am .U .J .Int’lL .&Pol .pp .513–514(1987);FinalReporttotheProsecutorbytheCommitteeEstablishedtoRe�iewtheNATOBombingCampaignAgainsttheFederalRepublicofYugosla�ia,39I .L .M .p .1257(2000),atpara .55[hereinafterICTYReport];MichaelBothe,The Protection of the Civilian Popu-lation and NATO Bombing on Yugoslavia: Comments on a Report to the Prosecutor of the ICTY, 12(3)E .J .I .L .p .531(2001)[hereinafterBothe];EricDa�id,Principes de droit des conflits armés p .273(Bruylant,3rded .2002)[hereinafterDa�id] .

5 See, e.g., ICRCCommentary,supra note3,atpara .2034;Da�id,supra note4,atp .274;Fleck,supra note4,atp .164 .

6 See, e.g., ICTYReport,supra note4,paras .38&39;Fleck,supra note4,atpp .158&161 .

7 Bothe,supra note4,atp .535 .


8 . Ethiopiahasdeclared—andEritreahasnotdenied—thatstock-pilesofmilitaryhardwareandweaponswerestoredattheMassawaport .843Consequently,theMassawaportwasundoubtedlyamilitaryobjecti�e .Ethio-piadidnot,howe�er,inmyopinion,sufficientlyspecifytheextenttowhichHirgigopowerstation,byitsnatureorpurpose,madeorwouldmakeaneffecti�econtributiontothemilitaryactionorthatitsdestructionofferedadefinitemilitaryad�antage .Ethiopia’sgeneralstatementthat“cuttingoffthepowertoMassawawouldha�epresentedEthiopiawithaclearmilitaryad�antageofinterruptingpowertothemilitaryofficesinMassawa”944isinsuf-ficient .Moreo�er,thepresenceofanti-aircraftmissilesinthe�icinityoftheHirgigostationdoesnotindicateinitselfthatthestationhadmilitarysig-nificance,especiallyasmissileswerealreadylocatedinthearea longbeforetheconstructionofthestationhadstarted .1045

9 . Furthermore,militaryactionmustbeproportional,i .e .themilitaryad�antagemustoutweighthedamagetoci�iliansandci�ilianobjects .1146This basic requirement of proportionality is expressed in Article 57 ofGene�aProtocolI,whichhasalreadybeenappliedbytheCommissionascustomaryinternationallaw:

Withrespecttoattacks,thefollowingprecautionsshallbetaken:(a)thosewhoplanordecideuponanattackshall:

(i) . . . (ii) takeallfeasibleprecautionsinthechoiceofmeansand

methodsofattackwitha�iewtoa�oiding,andinanye�enttominimizing, . . . . .damagetoci�ilianobjects;

(iii) refrainfromdecidingtolaunchanyattackwhichmaybeexpectedtocause . . .damagetoci�ilianobjects,oracombi-nationthereof,whichwouldbeexcessi�einrelationtothecon-creteanddirectmilitaryad�antageanticipated .

10 . EthiopiastatedtotheCommissionthatitdidnotplanthebomb-ingoftheHirgigostationonMay28,2000 .Itfollows,therefore,thatEthio-piadidnotin�estigatebeforehandwhethertheconcreteanddirectmilitaryad�antageofthisbombingoutweighedthedamagetoci�ilsociety,asArti-

8 Ethiopia’sCounterMemorialtoEritrea’sClaim25,filedbyEthiopiaonJanuary17,2005,atp .24 .

9 Id. atp .24 .10 TranscriptoftheEritrea-EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofApril2005,

PeacePalace,TheHague,atp .378(Apr .7,2005) .11 See, e.g., ICRCCommentary,supra note3,atparas .2023&2028;Da�id,supra

note4,atp .273;YoramDinstein,The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflictp .94(CambridgeUni�ersityPress,2004);HoraceB .Robertson,Jr .,“The PrincipleoftheMilitaryObjecti�eintheLawofArmedConflict”, in The Law of Military Operationsp .211(Na�alWarCollegePress,1998) .


cle57requires .Internationallawdoesnotpermitbombingfirstandjustifica-tionlater .1247

11 . Inassessingproportionality,itisrele�anttoconsiderthatEthiopiawasawareatthetimeoftheattackthatthepowerstationwasnotyetfullyoperational .Furthermore,thefactthatneithertheportofMassawaitselfnortheGrarpowerstation(whicheffecti�elysuppliedpowertotheMassawaport)weree�erbombedisalsorele�ant .Indeed,ifdifferentmeansarea�ailabletoblockharbouracti�ities,themethodthatismosteffecti�eandthatcaus-estheleastdamagetoci�iliansmustbechosen .1348Finally,theexpectedbenefitsoftheHirgigopowerstationtoci�iliansandtheexpenseandtimerequiredtorepairthedamagecausedbytheattackshouldalsobetakenintoaccount .Consideringtheseelements,Ifindthepotentialmilitaryad�antagecausedby thebombing tobedisproportionate to thedamage toci�ilianobjectsandtheci�ilianpopulation .

[Signed]HansVanHoutte

12 Da�id,supra note4,atp .274 .13 LeslieGreen,The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflictp .193(ManchesterUni-

�ersityPress,2ded .2000) .

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES...

Documents

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