reports of international arbitral awards recueil des...

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Diplomatic Claim - Ethiopia's Claim 8

19 December 2005

XXVI pp. 407-428VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT Xi

Partial Award Diplomatic Claim—Ethiopia’s Claim 8

Decision of 19 December 2005

Sentence partielle Demande diplomatique—Réclamation de l’Éthiopie No 8

Décision du 19 décembre 2005

PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 409

PartialAward,DiplomaticClaim—Ethiopia’sClaim8,Decisionof19December2005

Sentencepartielle,Demandediplomatique—Réclamationdel’ÉthiopieNo8,

Décisiondu19décembre2005

JurisdictionoftheCommission—extinctionofclaimsnottimelyfiled—nojuris-dictiono�erclaimsrelatingtoe�entsnotoccurredduringthewar .

Diplomaticrelations—commendablenatureofthedecisionofbelligerentsnottose�erdiplomaticrelationsduringthewar—theViennacon�entionondiplomaticrela-tionsof1961,largelycodifyingcustomarydiplomaticlaw,istheapplicablelaw—in�io-labilityofen�oysandpremisesconsideredasthefundamentalrequisiteofdiplomaticrelationse�enduringwar—eachStateremainedfreeatanytimetose�erunilaterallyitsdiplomaticrelationswiththeotherbelligerent—nopossibilityofunilateralderogationfromthekeyobligationwhilediplomaticrelationsaremaintained—questioningofadiplomatforlessthanonehournot�iewedasconstitutinganinterrogationotherwiseprohibited—shortarrestsanddetentionsoftheChargénot�iewedasinhibitinghisfree-domoftra�elortheperformanceofhisconsularfunctions—meetingswithaccrediteddiplomatscalledbytherecei�ingStatenotconsideredasaninterrogationotherwiseprohibited—noimmunityofinspectionofembassycorrespondencenotclearlyidenti-fiedasdiplomaticbag-obligationoftherecei�ingStatetopromptlytransferembassydocumentstothemissiononcetheirofficialcharacterbecameapparent .

Compétence de la Commission—extinction des réclamations soumises horsdélai—pasdecompétencerelati�eauxréclamationsconcernantdesé�énementsnonsur�enuspendantlaguerre .

Relationsdiplomatiques—natureadmirabledeladécisiondesbelligérantsdenepasinterrompreleursrelationsdiplomatiquespendantlaguerre—laCon�entiondeViennesurlesrelationsdiplomatiquesde1961,codifiantlargementledroitdiplomatiquecoutumier,représenteledroitapplicable—l’in�iolabilitédesen�oyésetlocauxdiplomatiquesestconsidérée comme l’exigence fondamentale des relations diplomatiques, y comprisdurantlaguerre—chaqueÉtatrestelibreàchaqueinstantderompreunilatéralementses relations diplomatiques a�ec l’autre belligérant—pas de possibilité de dérogerunilatéralementàl’obligationcleftantquelesrelationsdiplomatiquessontmaintenues—lequestionnementd’undiplomatependantmoinsd’uneheuren’estpasconsidérécommeconstituantuninterrogatoireautrementinterdit—arrestationsetdétentionsdecourteduréeduChargéd’affairenonperçuescommedesentra�esàsalibertédemou�ementetàl’accomplissementdesesfonctionsconsulaires—lesréunionsa�ecdesdiplomatesaccrédités à la demande de l’État accréditaire ne sont pas considérées comme desinterrogatoiresautrementinterdits—pasd’immunitéd’inspectiondelacorrespondancedel’ambassadenonclairementidentifiéecommecourrierdiplomatique—obligationdel’Étataccréditairedetransférerrapidementlesdocumentsd’ambassadeàlamission,unefoisleurnatureofficiellede�enueapparente .

410 eritrea/ethiopia

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Diplomatic Claim Ethiopia’s Claim 8

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

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

TheHague,December19,2005

PARTIAL AWARD—Diplomatic Claim—Ethiopia’s Claim 8 between the Claimant,

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, represented by:

Government of Ethiopia

Ambassador Fisseha Yimer, Permanent Representati�e of the FederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,Gene�a,Co-Agent

Mr .HabtomAbraha,ConsulGeneral,EthiopianMissioninTheNeth-erlands

Mr .IbrahimIdris,Director,LegalAffairsGeneralDirectorate,Minis-tryofForeignAffairsoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbaba

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

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


and the Respondent, The State of Eritrea, represented by:

Government of EritreaHisExcellency,MohammedSuleimanAhmed,AmbassadoroftheState

ofEritreatoTheNetherlandsProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-AgentfortheGo�ernmentofEritrea,Legal

Ad�isortotheOfficeofthePresidentofEritrea;HowardM .HoltzmannPro-fessorofInternationalLaw,YaleLawSchool

Ms .LorraineCharlton,DeputyLegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresi-dentofEritrea

Counsel and AdvocateProfessorJamesR .Crawford,SC,FBA,WhewellProfessorofInternation-

alLaw,Uni�ersityofCambridge;MemberoftheAustralianandEnglishBars;MemberoftheInstituteofInternationalLaw

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

Table of ConTenTs

I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412B . GeneralComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

II . PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414

III . JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414

A . ClaimsNotFiledbyDecember12,2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415B . TemporalJurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416


i. inTroduCTion

a. summary of the Positions of the Parties

1 . ThisClaim(“Ethiopia’sDiplomaticClaim”)hasbeenbroughttotheCommissionby theClaimant, theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .TheClaimantaskstheCom-missiontofindtheRespondent,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”),liableforloss,damageandinjurysufferedbyEthiopiafromtheinjuriessustainedbytheEthio-piandiplomaticmissionandconsularpostandpersonnelinEritreaasaresultoftheRespondent’salleged�iolationsoftheinternationallawofdiplomaticandconsularrelations .TheClaimantrequestsmonetarycompensation .

2 . The Respondent asserts that it fully complied with internationallawinitstreatmentofEthiopia’sdiplomaticandconsularmissionsandpersonnelinEritrea .TheRespondentrequeststheCommissiontodismissEthiopia’sClaim8initsentirety .

IV . THEMERITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

A . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419C . CategoriesofClaims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420D . TreatmentoftheChargéd’Affaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420E . HarassmentofEmbassyPersonnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422F . SeizureofEmbassyDocuments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423G . InterferencewithEmbassyAccess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424H . FailuretoProtecttheSecurityoftheEmbassyanditsPersonnel 426

V . AWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428D . FindingsonLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . 428


b. General Comment

3 . AsdescribedintheCommission’spre�iousPartialAwards,1thePartieswagedacostly,large-scaleinternationalarmedconflictalongse�eralareasoftheircommonfrontierbetween1998and2000 .TheParties’diplo-maticrelationsob�iouslycouldnotanddidnotcontinueunscathed .ThisPartialAwardandthecompanionPartialAwardissuedtodayinEritrea’sClaim20(“Eritrea’sDiplomaticClaim”)containfindingsof�iolationsofinternationaldiplomaticlaw,moreorlessserious,bybothParties .

4 . Howe�er,attheoutset,theCommissionwishestostressthePar-ties’ commendable decisions not to se�er diplomatic links despite thearmedconf lict .OneneedonlyrecallOppenheimtoappreciatethetrulyexceptionalcharacterofthissituation:

Theoutbreakofwaratoncecausestheruptureofdiplomaticintercoursebetweenthebelligerents,ifthishasnotalreadytakenplace .Therespecti�ediplomaticen�oysarerecalled .2

5 . Following the interruption of diplomatic relations in wartime, acommonpracticehasbeenforStates toentrustresidualdiplomaticandconsular functionstodiplomaticrepresentati�esofneutralStatesactingastheirprotectingpowers .3Whileitisconcei�ablethattheappointmentofneutralStatesser�ingasprotectingpowersinthecircumstancesheremightha�epro�idedmoreeffecti�ediplomaticandconsularandotherser�icesthanwerepro�idedbytheParties’respecti�ediplomaticmissions,thefactisthatEthiopiaandEritreachoseinsteadtoattempttomaintaindiplomaticrelationsthroughoutthewar,despiteuna�oidablefrictionande�engreatpersonalriskfordiplomatsandstaff .

1 PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Eritrea’sClaim17BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(July1,2003);PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Ethiopia’sClaim4BetweentheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(July1,2003);PartialAward,CentralFront,Eritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7&22BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(April28,2004);PartialAward,CentralFront,Ethiopia’sClaim2BetweentheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(April28,2004);PartialAward,Ci�iliansClaims,Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23&27–32BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(Dec .17,2004);PartialAward,Ci�iliansClaims,Ethio-pia’sClaim5BetweentheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(Dec .17,2004) .

2 Vol .II,Oppenheim’s International LawSect .98(HerschLauterpachted .,Long-mans,7thed .1952) .

3 SeeLeslieC .Green,The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflictp .81(ManchesterUni�ersityPress,2ded .2000) .Thetasksofprotectingpowersunderthe1977ProtocolAdditionaltotheGene�aCon�entionsofAug .12,1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictimsofInternationalArmedConflicts(“ProtocolI”)aremoreextensi�ethanthosetraditionallyperformedbyneutraldiplomatsrepresentinganad�erseparty .Id .


6 . Ha�ing said this, and as amplified in the section below onApplicable Law, this unusual situationhascreatedunusual challengesfortheapplicationofdiplomatic law .Certainofthecorefunctionsofadiplomaticmission—forexample,“promotingfriendlyrelationsbetweenthesendingStateandtherecei�ingState”assetoutinArticle3,paragraph(c),oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations4—becomeob�iouslyincongruousinwartime .Certainofthepremisesofeffecti�ediplomaticrep-resentation—forexample, free tra�el, freeaccess, intelligencegathering,abilitytoinf luencepublicopinion—cannotbepresumedtocontinuewith-outstrainduringhostilities .

ii. ProCeedinGs

7 . TheCommission informedthePartiesonAugust29,2001 that itintendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerningliability,andsecond,ifliabilityisfound,concern-ingdamages .EthiopiafiledthisClaimonDecember12,2001,andEritreafileditsStatementofDefenseonApril15,2002 .Ethiopia’sMemorialwasfiledonNo�ember1,2004,andEritrea’sCounter-MemorialonJanuary17,2005 .Ethio-piadidnotincludematerialsonthisClaiminitsReplyfilingsofMarch10,2005 .AhearingonliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceduringtheweekofApril11–15,2005inconjunctionwithahearinginEritrea’sDiplomaticClaimduringtheweekofApril4–8,2005 .

iii. JurisdiCTion

8 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementestablishestheCommission’sjurisdiction .Itpro�ides,inter alia, thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforallloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�ernmentoritsnationalsagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconf lictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”Article5,paragraph8,oftheAgreementrequiresclaimstobefiledbyDecember12,2001 .

9 . InitsCounter-Memorial,theRespondentcontendsthatcertainofEthiopia’sclaimsfalloutsidetheCommission’sjurisdictionbecausetheywerenotfiledbyDecember12,2001orarenotrelatedtotheconflict .TheCommis-sionwilladdresseachcategoryofjurisdictionalcontentioninturn .

4 ViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations,April18,1961,500U .N .T .S .p .95 .


a. Claims not filed by december 12, 200110 . The Respondent challenges the Commission’s jurisdiction

o�erse�eralclaimsassertedbyEthiopiainitsMemorialthat,accordingtotheRespondent,werenotincludedinEthiopia’sStatementofClaimforitsClaim8filedonDecember12,2001 .AsstatedintheCommission’spriorPartialAwards,thePartiesagreethatclaimsnotf i ledwiththeCom-missionbythatdatewereextinguishedbythetermsofArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreement .ThetaskoftheCommission,therefore,istodeterminewhetherEthiopiahaspursuedclaimsherethatwerenotincludedinitsState-mentofClaim .

11 . ThefollowingclaimsassertedbyEthiopiainitsMemorialaresubjecttothisjurisdictionalchallenge: 1 . AllegedharassmentandarrestofEmbassy�isitorsbyEritrean

securityagentspredatingMarch1999; 2 . AllegedbeatingandotherharassmentofEmbassy�isitorsby

Eritreansecurityagents; 3 . AllegedblockingofEmbassyaccessbyEritreansecurityagents

inMayandJune2000; 4 . AllegedharassmentbyEritreansecurityagentsofdiplomatic

staffinthecourseoftheirJune1998departure; 5 . Anallegedincidentinwhichfourrockswerethrownintothe

EmbassycompoundonAugust7,1998; 6 . AllegedintrusionofEmbassypremisesbyanindi�idualclimb-

ingo�erthefenceonAugust10,1998; 7 . AllegedentryoftheEmbassycompoundbyEritreansecurity

agentswithoutEthiopianauthorizationinMayorJune1998; 8 . AllegedplacementofabusstopnearthemaingateoftheEm-

bassy; 9 . Allegedrefusalbypri�atemerchantsinAsmaratotransact

businesswithEmbassyemployees; 10 . AllegeddenialofaccesstotheEmbassymailbox; 11 . AllegedinterferencewithrecruitmentoflocalEmbassystaffin

March2001;and 12 . AllallegedclaimsrelatingtotheEthiopianConsulateinAssab,

includingallegationsthatEritrearefusedtofacilitatetherepa-triationofconsularstaff,restrictedtheconsularstaff ’sfreedomofmo�ementandcommunication,closedtheConsulate,andseizedconsularproperty .

12 . UponstudyofEthiopia’sStatementofClaim, theCommissionagreesthatthefirst,fifth,se�enth,eighth,ninth,ele�enthandtwelfthoftheseclaimswerenotidentifiedoralludedtointheStatementofClaim .Consequently,theywereextinguishedpursuanttoArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreementandtheCommissioncannotconsiderthem .


13 . TheCommissionfindsthattheClaimantidentifiedtheremain-ingfi�eclaimsintheStatementofClaimwithsufficientparticularitytogi�etheRespondent“fairwarning”ofthenatureoftheclaims,asen�isionedinArticle24,paragraph3,subparagraph(d),oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedure .Readincontext,theseclaimsarenotdistinctcausesofactionbutratherspecificexamplesorillustrationsofbroaderallegationsofmiscon-ductintheStatementofClaim .

b. Temporal Jurisdiction

14 . UnderArticle5,paragraph1,oftheAgreement,theCommis-sion’sjurisdictionextendstoclaims“relatedtotheconflictthatwasthesub-ject”ofcertainagreementsbetweentheParties .TheCommissionheldinitsDecisionNo .1thatthecentralreferencepointfordeterminingitstemporaljurisdictionisthearmedconflictbetweentheParties .5Howe�er,jurisdic-tionalsoextendstoclaimsin�ol�ingsubsequente�entsarisingasaresultofthearmedconf lictoroccurringinthecourseofmeasurestodisengagecontendingforcesorotherwiseendthemilitaryconfrontation .

15 . EritreaobjectstothefollowingEthiopianclaimsongroundsthattherele�antallegede�entsoccurredbeforetheconflictstartedinMay1998oraftertheconflictformallyendedinDecember2000:

1 . AllegedarrestsofanEmbassyguard,gardeneranddri�erinMay2001;

2 . AllegedarrestofanEmbassydri�erinAugust2001; 3 . AllegedarrestofanEmbassyguardinAprilorMay2002; 4 . Allegedarrestofa�isitortotheEmbassyinFebruary2001; 5 . AllegedarrestofanEmbassyemployeeinNo�emberorDecem-

ber2001; 6 . AllegedplacementofabusstopnearthemaingateoftheEm-

bassyin1997;and 7 . AllegedinterferencewithrecruitmentoflocalEmbassystaffin

March2001 .16 . TheCommissionhasalreadyfoundabo�ethatitlacksjurisdiction

ofthesixthandse�enthclaimsbecausetheywerenotfiledbeforeDecem-ber12,2001 .TheCommissionfindsthatitalsolacksjurisdictionofthefirst,third,fourthandfifthclaimsbecausetheyconcerne�entsallegedlyoccurringafterDecember2000thatdonotfallwithintheextendedparam-etersofCommissionDecisionNo .1 .Withrespecttothesecondclaim,the

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


Claimantinfactallegesthattherele�antindi�idualwasarrestedonAugust2,2000,ratherthan2001,6andsotheCommissionhasjurisdiction .

17 . AllotherclaimsassertedbytheClaimantinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission .

iV. THe meriTs

a. applicable law18 . UnderArticle5,paragraph13,of theAgreement,“inconsidering

claims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Arti-cle19oftheCommission’sRulesofProceduredefinestherele�antrulesinthefamiliarlanguageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice .Article19directstheCommissiontolookto: 1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,

establishingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties; 2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeac-

ceptedaslaw; 3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations; 4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemost

highlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .

19 . BothPartiesrelyupontheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRela-tionsof1961andtheViennaCon�entiononConsularRelationsof1963,7whichlargelycodifycustomaryinternationaldiplomaticandconsularlaw,asthesourcesofapplicablelawfortheDiplomaticClaims .AlthoughEthiopiaisnotapartytothelatter,thereisnoneedtoapplyitbecausetheClaimant’slate-filedclaimsconcerningtheConsulateinAssabfalloutsidetheCommis-sion’sjurisdiction .

20 . AstheInternationalCourtofJusticeunderscoredintheCaseConcerningUnitedStatesDiplomaticandConsularStaffinTehran,thefun-damentalrequisitefortheconductofrelationsbetweenStatesisthein�iolabil-ityofdiplomaticen�oysandpremises“[e]�eninthecaseofarmedconf lict .”8Articles22and29of theViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationspro�ide:

6 See Ethiopia’sClaim8,ClaimsforLoss,DamageorInjurytoEthiopia’sDiplomaticPersonnelandDiplomaticProperty,Memorial,filedbyEthiopiaonNo�ember1,2004,para2 .26(“TheEritreansecurityagentsarrested[the indi�idual]againonHamle26,1992E .C .or2August2000G .C .”)[hereinafterETDiplomaticMEM]and DocumentaryAnnexes,Vol .II,TAB31 .

7 ViennaCon�entiononConsularRelations,April24,1963,596U .N .T .S .p .262 .8 UnitedStatesDiplomaticandConsularStaffinTehran(United States v. Iran),1980

I .C .J .p .3,atpara .86(Judgment,May24,1980) .


Article221 . Thepremisesofthemissionshallbein�iolable .Theagentsoftherecei�-ingStatemaynotenterthem,exceptwiththeconsentoftheheadofthemission .2 . Therecei�ingStateisunderaspecialdutytotakeallappropriatestepstoprotectthepremisesofthemissionagainstanyintrusionordamageandtopre�entanydisturbanceofthepeaceofthemissionorimpairmentofitsdignity .3 . Thepremisesofthemission,theirfurnishingsandotherpropertyther-eonandthemeansoftransportofthemissionshallbeimmunefromsearch,requisition,attachmentorexecution .Article29Thepersonofadiplomaticagentshallbein�iolable .Heshallnotbeliabletoanyformofarrestordetention .Therecei�ingStateshalltreathimwithduerespectandshalltakeallappropriatestepstopre�entanyattackonhisperson,freedomordignity .

21 . In thisDiplomaticClaimand in itsdefense toEritrea’sDiplo-maticClaim,Ethiopiatakesthepositionthatastateofwarmustmodifytheapplicationofinternationaldiplomaticlaw .Incomparison,EritreaarguesforstrictapplicationofthestandardsintheViennaCon�entiononDip-lomaticRelationsdespiteastateofwar .

22 . ThereislittlejurisprudenceonthepointsatissueintheDiplomaticClaimsbecause,asnotedintheIntroductiontothisPartialAward,nationsengagedinarmedconflicttypicallyse�ertheirdiplomaticrelations,withdrawtheiremissariesandclosetheirmissions,andrelyonprotectingpowersfortheprotectionoftheirpropertyandforconsularfunctions .TheViennaCon-�entiononDiplomaticRelationscontemplatesthisandsuchStatepracticeasexiststendstofocusonthedisrupti�eimpactofwarondiplomaticrelations,forexample,ontheorderlyclosingof thesendingState’smissionandtherecei�ingState’sobligationstosafeguardtheother’sdiplomaticpremisesuntiltheendofhostilities .

23 . Here, as noted, the Parties, first, exceptionally attempted tomaintaindiplomaticrelationsdespitethestrainuna�oidablyputbythewarontheprinciplesembodiedintheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationsand,second,ha�eagreedthattheCon�entionnonethelessgo�ernstheParties’DiplomaticClaims .TheCommissionthereforefacesthetaskofconsideringhowtheprinciplesintheCon�entionshouldbeconstruedandappliedinthecourseoftheParties’armedconflict .

24 . Thesearelargelyunchartedlegalwaters .Howe�er,theCommissiondoesnotacceptthatthePartiescouldderogatefromtheirfundamentalobligationsundertheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations,notablythoserelatingtothein�iolabilityofdiplomaticagentsandpremises,becauseoftheexigenciesofwar .NeitherPartycancomplainthatabidingbysuch


obligationswasincompatiblewithitsheightenedsecurityinterestsduringtheconflict,becauseeachwasfreeatalltimestorelie�eitselfofsuchobligationsbyunilaterallyterminatingdiplomaticrelationswiththeother .Diplomacyispremisedonreciprocityand,assetforthinArticle2oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations,“[t]heestablishmentofdiplomaticrelations . . . . .takesplacebymutualconsent .”

25 . Whileunilateralderogationsfromkeyobligationsarenotauthor-ized,thefoundationalprincipleofdiplomaticreciprocitypro�idessomeguid-ancetotheCommissioninassessingtheParties’applicationoftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationsduringanarmedconflict .Acceptingthatarecei�ingStatemustha�esomewhatgreaterlatitudeinwartimetomon-itorande�entolimitacti�itiesofthediplomaticmissionofanenemy,theCommissionhastakenparticularnoteofthespecificmannerinwhichbothPartiesperformedtheirdiplomaticobligationsduringtheconf lict .TheCommission,notsurprisingly,hasfoundbroadlycorrespondingcom-plianceandnoncomplianceincertainareas .Ascautionedabo�e,thisisnotto say that matching �iolations of fundamental obligations under theViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationscancanceleachotherout .Itis to say that, in dealing with the uncertainties generated by the Par-ties’reciprocal(andlaudable)decisionstomaintaindiplomaticrelationsdespitewar, reciprocitycanpro�ideahelpful indicator inapplyingthef lexibilitypro�idedintheCon�ention,forexample,inassessingtherea-sonablenessofthedeadlinessetforthedepartureofdiplomatsandthele�elofmonitoringofeachother’sdiplomats .

26 . AcriticalstandardfortheCommissioninapplyinginternationaldiplomaticlawmustbetheimpactofthee�entscomplainedaboutonthefunctioningofthediplomaticmission .ParticularlyinlightofthelimitedresourcesandtimeallocatedtothisCommissionandtheseriousclaimsofinternationalhumanitarian law�iolationspresentedbytheParties,andremainingattenti�etotheprincipleofreciprocity,theCommissionagainisconstrainedtolookforserious�iolationsimpedingtheeffecti�efunctioningofthediplomaticmission .

b. evidentiary issues27 . AsinitspriorPartialAwards,theCommissionrequiresclear

andcon�incinge�idenceinsupportofitsfindings .28 . TheClaimantsubmitted18witnessdeclarationsinsupportofthis

Claim,aswellas33documentaryexhibits,includingse�eralNotes Verbales andotherdiplomaticcorrespondence .TheRespondentsubmitted14wit-nessstatementsand15documentaryexhibits .TherewerenowitnessesonthisDiplomaticClaimatthehearing .

29 . Asaninitialmatter,theCommissionnotesthateachPartyobjectstotheother’shea�yrelianceonthewitnessstatementsofitshead(orheads)


ofmission,whilesimultaneouslyrelyinghea�ilyonitsown .Relianceonsuch statements is bound to be the case in these Diplomatic Claims,wheretheAmbassadororChargéd’Affaireshasplayedsuchano�er-archingrole .TheCommissionhasgi�enbalancedweighttothesedeclarationsfrombothParties .

C. Categories of Claims30 . Ethiopiaorganized itsargumentande�idence in thisDiplo-

maticClaimintosixcategories,asfollows: 1 . Allegedarrest,detentionandinterrogationoftheChargé

d’Affaires; 2 . AllegedharassmentofEmbassypersonnel; 3 . AllegedseizureofEmbassydocuments; 4 . AllegedinterferencewithEmbassyaccess; 5 . AllegedfailuretoprotectthesecurityoftheEmbassyandits

personnel;and 6 . Allegedfailuretofacilitatetherepatriationofstaffofthe

ConsulateinAssabandtheirfamilies,andrestrictionoftheirfreedomofmo�ementandcommunication .

TheCommissionwilladdresstheclaimsinthecategoriesandorderadoptedbytheClaimant .

31 . TheCommissionwillnotaddress themeritsof the lastcategorybecause,asexplainedabo�e,allclaimsconcerningthestatusandtreat-mentoftheAssabConsulateunderinternationaldiplomaticandconsularlawwerenottimelyfiled,andsowereextinguished .Totheextentthatindi-�idual consular officers, staff and family members fall within the cat-egories forwhich theCommissionassessed liability in thePartialAwardinEthiopia’sClaim5regardingthetreatmentofci�ilians(“PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCi�iliansClaims”),Ethiopiamayassertdamagesclaimswithrespecttotheminthedamagesphaseinthatcase .

d. Treatment of the Chargé d’affaires32 . EthiopiacomplainsthatEritrea�iolatedArticles26,29and

31 of the Vienna Con�entiononDiplomaticRelationsbymistreatingtheEthiopianChargéinse�eralrespects .ThetextofArticle29issetoutabo�e .Inbrief,Article26protectsfreetra�elintheterritoryoftherecei�ingState,whileArticle31guaranteesimmunityfromcriminalprosecutionandcom-pulsiontogi�ee�idence .

33 . TheClaimantcontendsthatEritreanguardstwicearrestedandthenbriefly(forlessthanonehour)detainedandinterrogatedtheChargéatlocalpolicestationsafterhe�isitedEthiopiannationals inAbaShawlinSeptember1998andMedebereinOctober1999 .Ethiopiapresentedclear


andcon�incinge�idenceof thesee�ents in the formofdeclarations fromtheChargéandtheEmbassydri�erandcontemporaneousnotesfromtheEthiopianEmbassytotheEritreanMinistryofForeignAffairsobjectingtotheChargé’smistreatment .Eritreabasesitsdefenseprimarilyonthelackofcorroboratingdescriptionsinpressaccountsbyforeignreporterswhoaccom-paniedtheChargéontherele�antconsular�isits,whichtheCommissiondoesnot findsufficient too�ercomeEthiopia’sprima facie case .TheCommissionfindsEritrea liable for�iolatingArticle29of theViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationsbyarrestingandbrieflydetainingtheChargéinSeptember1998andOctober1999withoutregardtohisdiplomaticimmunity .

34 . TheCommissiondoesnotconsiderthatthesecircumstancesalsoga�eriseto�iolationsofArticle26orArticle31oftheCon�ention .TheCommissionisnotcon�incedthatEritreanofficialsquestioningtheChargéforlessthanonehourconstitutedinterrogationinthecontextofcompulsionofe�idence .NoristheCommissioncon�incedthatthearrestsanddetentionsoftheChargéinhibitedhisfreedomtotra�elinEritreatoperformhisconsu-larfunctionsforEthiopiannationals .Indeed,thee�entscomplainedofoccurredwhiletheChargéwastra�elinginAsmaraintheperformanceofhisofficialduties .Theseclaimsaredismissed .

35 . Similarly, theCommissiondismisses the relatedclaim that theRespondent�iolatedArticle29oftheViennaCon�entiononConsularRela-tionsbyfailingtoprotecttheChargéfromstudentsallegedlythrowingrocksathiscarwhenhewaslea�ingMedebereinOctober1999 .TheClaimantfailedtopro�ethatthisrelati�elyminorincidentchilledtheChargé’sperformanceofhisfunctions .

36 . Finally,theClaimantcomplainsabouttwoinstancesinwhichErit-reasummonedtheChargétotheMinistryofForeignAffairstoquestionhimaboutaletterhehadwrittenandcirculatedtoforeigngo�ernmentsdemand-ingjudicialactionagainstanEritreanpolicemanwhohadkilledanEthiopiannational .Eritreadeniesthatthesemeetingstookplace,onthebasisofadecla-rationfromthethenDirectorGeneraloftheAsiaandAfricaDepartmentoftheMinistry .Eritreaalsoargued—andtheCommissionfindstheargumentcon�incing—thatEthiopia’sowne�idenceshowsthattheChargéattendedanysuchmeetingswillingly .TheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRela-tionsdoesnotprohibittherecei�ingStatefromcallingformeetingswithaccrediteddiplomatsand, indeed,suchmeetings—ifnotcoerced—arenotprohibitedinterrogationsbutratheranintegralpartofeffecti�ediplomacy .Absentclearandcon�incingproofthattheChargéwascoerced,theCommis-sionfindsno�iolationofinternationallawandsodismissesthisclaim .


e. Harassment of embassy Personnel37 . Similar to thecontentionsmadebyEritrea in itscompanion

DiplomaticClaim,Ethiopiapresentsbroadclaims thatEritreansecu-rityagents “consistentlyengaged inharassment, intimidation,abusi�esearch,interrogation,arrestanddetention”ofnon-diplomaticEmbassystaffwhowereEthiopiannationals .9Ethiopiaacknowledgesthatlocally-hiredstaffha�elimitedpri�ilegesandimmunities,butnotesthatunderArticle38,para-graph2,oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationsEritreamaynotexerciseitsjurisdictiono�ersuchstaffinamannerinterferingwiththeper-formanceofthefunctionsofthemission .Ethiopiabasesitsclaimsonse�eraldetaileddeclarationsofsur�eillanceandtailing;arrests;detentionsofse�eralhourstose�eralweeks,includingatAdiAbeyto;beatings,includingonethatallegedlyleftagardenerwithbrokenribs;andabusi�esearches,includingoffemalestaff .TheEmbassydri�er,inparticular,allegedlywasimprisonedforthreemonthsandbrutallybeaten .Ethiopiaclaimsthatthisper�asi�emistreatmentcausedEmbassyguards,dri�ersandagardenertoquit,therebydisruptingthefunctioningofthemission .

38 . EritreadeniesanycampaignofharassmentandjustifiesanyarrestsonthefailureofEthiopianstaffat theEmbassy tocarry�alidresidencepermits .Forcertainstaff,Eritreapresented credible immigration filesshowingexpiredpermitsat thetimeofarrestanddetention .EritreadidnotaddressthephysicalabuseallegedbytheClaimant .

39 . Withoutinanywaycondoningphysicalabuseorotherindig-nities suffered by Embassy staff, the Commission fails to find clear andcon�incinge�idencethatthetreatmentofpermanentresidentser�icestaffcompromisedtheessentialfunctioningoftheEthiopianmission .Theonlyspecificallegationmadeby theClaimant to thiseffectconcernsaminorandisolatede�ent: theintruderwhoattemptedtoburntheEmbassyflag(discussedbelow)entered thepremiseswhenaguardwas indetention .O�erall,thee�idenceintherecordindicates, instead,thate�enwithoutafullpanoplyofser�icestaff(ordiplomatsforthatmatter)theEthiopianEmbassystayedopenandcontinuedtopro�ideser�icesthroughoutthewar .TheCommissiondismissesthisclaimforfailureofproof .

40 . AsinthecaseofthestaffoftheAssabConsulate,theCommis-sionnotesthattotheextentthatindi�idualEmbassystaffmembersfallwithinthecategories forwhichtheCommissionassessedliabilityinthePartialAwardinEthiopia’sCi�iliansClaims,includingliabilityforwrongfulandabusi�edetention,Ethiopiamayassertdamagesclaimswithrespecttotheminthedamagesphaseinthatcase .

41 . The Claimant makes a separate claim that Eritrean officialsmistreatedagroupofEthiopiandiplomatsinthecourseoftheirdeparture

9 ETDiplomaticMEM,supra note6,atpara .2 .19 .


fromAsmarainJune1998,in�iolationofArticles29and44oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations .Article44requirestherecei�ingState,e�eninthecaseofarmedconflict,topro�idethenecessarymeansoftrans-portfordiplomatstoenablethemtolea�eattheearliestpossiblemoment .Inspecific,onthebasisof adeclaration fromanEmbassyconsul,EthiopiaallegesthatEritreansecurityofficersobstructedthedepartingdiplomatsat theentrance to theairportandagainat the terminal,therebyputtingthematriskofmissingthe48-hourdeparturedeadlineimposedbyEritrea .TheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialcontainsdeclarationsfromtwoEri-treanMinistryofForeignAffairsofficialsdenyinganymistreatmentanddescribingassistancepro�idedtothedepartingEthiopiandiplomats .Intheabsenceofanyclarifyinge�idence inEthiopia’s March 2005 Reply, andnotingthatanyobstructiondidnotinfactcausethediplomatstomissthe48-hourdeparturedeadline(which,theCommissionnotes,matchedthatimposedbyEthiopiaoncertainEritreandiplomats),theCommissiondismissesthisclaimforlackofproof .

f. seizure of embassy documents42 . EthiopiaclaimsthatonApril29,1999,EritreanCustomsoffi-

cialsattheAsmaraairportinterceptedandretainedadiplomaticbagsentfromtheEthiopianConsulateinJeddahtotheEmbassy,whichcontained100blankpassports,in�oicesandreceipts,in�iolationofArticles24,27and29oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations .Article24confirmsthein�iolabilityofalldiplomaticdocumentsandofficialcorrespondence .Article27,paragraph3,specificallystatesthata“diplomaticbagshallnotbeopenedordetained,”andArticle27,paragraph4,that“packagesconstitutingthediplomaticbagmustbear�isibleexternalmarksoftheircharacter .”AstoArticle29(quotedabo�e),EthiopiaallegesthattheEmbassyhadrunoutofblankpassportsinMarch1999andsoEritrea’sconfiscationofthebagseri-ouslydisrupteditsconsularfunctions .

43 . ThePartiesagreeonse�eralpoints:(a)thepackageatissueisaboxshipped�iaDHL;(b)atthein�itationoftheEritreanMinistryofForeignAffairs,theEthiopianChargéwaspresentattheopeningofthebox;and(c)EritreanonethelessdidnotreleasetheboxoritscontentstoEthiopiadespiteformaldemands .TheheartofEritrea’sdefenseis,simplyput,thattheboxwasnotlabeledasadiplomaticbag .Eritreapresentedtheboxandcontentsase�idenceatthehearing .

44 . Ha�ingseenthebox,theCommissionfindsthatitwasnotlabeledinanyfashiontoindicateitscharacterasadiplomaticbagandhenceEthi-opiacannotpro�ea�iolationofArticle27oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations .Howe�er,itisundisputedthattheboxconstitutedoffi-cialEthiopiancorrespondenceandthatEritrearefusedtoreleaseittoEthio-piaformorethanfi�eyears .Althoughtheboxmaynotha�ebeenentitledto


immunityfrominspectionand,indeed,theChargéappearedtoha�epartici-pated�oluntarilyinsuchinspection,EritreawasunderanobligationpromptlytotransfertheboxanditscontentstotheEthiopianmissionafteritsofficialcharacterbecameapparent .TheCommissionfindsEritrealiablefor�iolatingofficialEthiopiandiplomaticcorrespondenceandinterferingwiththefunc-tioningofthemissioninbreachofArticles24and29oftheCon�ention .

G. interference with embassy access

45 . ParalleltoEritreancomplaints,Ethiopiacomplainsofincreasedmon-itoringofitsEmbassybysecurityagentsaftertheoutbreakofthewar .EthiopiaallegesthatfourtosixEritreansecuritypersonnel,�isiblystationedoutsidetheEmbassy,searchedstaffmembersand�isitorsalike,questioned�isitorsaboutthepurposeoftheir�isits,confiscatedtheirEthiopianidentificationcardswhiletheywereinsidetheEmbassycompound,andoccasionallyassaultedthem .Insupportofthisclaimforharassmentandintimidation,Ethiopiapresenteddec-larationsfromEmbassystaff,contemporaneouscorrespondencebetweentheEmbassyandtheEritreanMinistryofForeignAffairs,andasmallnumberofdeclarationsfromEthiopiancitizenswho�isitedorattemptedto�isittheEmbassyduringthearmedconflict .

46 . InadditiontoobjectingtotheClaimant’srelianceonnonspecificwitnessdeclarationsin the Ci�ilians Claims record, Eritrea denies anyunlawfulmonitoring,harassmentorintimidation .Eritreapresenteddecla-rationsfrompersonsli�ingintheneighborhoodoftheEmbassywhodeniedseeingEritreanguardsstationedattheEmbassyduringthewar .Eritreaalsopresentedthereportoftheinter�iewsofEthiopiansinEritreaconductedbyDr .RichardReidoftheUni�ersityofAsmarainAugust1999,recountingnoproblemsforEthiopiansinaccessingtheEmbassypriortothattime .10

47 . TheCommissionhasexaminedcarefullyEthiopia’sspecificalle-gationsofseriousinterferencewithEmbassyaccessandcommunicationsin�iolationofArticles22,25and27oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations .Article22(quotedabo�e)obligestherecei�ingStatetoprotectthein�iolabilityofthemissionpremisesandpre�entanydisturbanceofthepeaceofthemission .Article25obligestherecei�ingStateto“accordfullfacilitiesfortheperformanceofthefunctionsofthemission,”andArticle27“topermitandprotectfreecommunicationonthepartofthemissionforallofficialpurposes”(otherthanwirelesscommunication) .

48 . TheClaimantallegesthatinMarch1999EritreansecurityagentsbeganarrestingEthiopianswho�isitedtheEmbassyonthepretexttheywere

10 EritreasubmittedDr .Reid’sAugust1999report,entitled“EthiopianNationalsinAsmara:AReport,”asDocumentaryAnnexA,Volume3,toEritrea’sCounter-MemorialtoEthiopia’sClaim5,filedbyEritreaonJanuary15,2004intheCi�iliansClaims,andtheCommissionheardDr .ReidasawitnessinthehearingofthoseclaimsinMarch2004 .


spies .Ethiopiabasesthisclaimondeclarationsfromlessthantenindi�idu-alswhoallegedlywerearrestedbetweenMarch1999andDecember2001 .Asthislimitede�idencedoesnotsupportapatternofunlawfularrestdisrupt-ingthefunctioningoftheEmbassy,theCommissiondismissesthisclaimforlackofproof .

49 . TheClaimantalsochargesthatEritreansecurityagentscomplete-lyblocked�isitoraccesstotheEmbassyfor25daysstartingonJuly16,1999and20daysstartingonMay17,2000(aperiodwhenEthiopiawascarryingoutamajormilitaryoffensi�etakingEthiopiantroopsdeepintoEritreanterritory) .EthiopiapresenteddeclarationsfromtheChargé,anEmbassyguardandonestudentwhodescribedbeingbarred(albeitbriefly)fromtheEmbassyinJuly1999,aswellasaNote Verbale andasubsequentreporttotheEritreanMinistryofForeignAffairscomplainingabouttheblockedaccess .FortheJuly1999period,Eritreadeniestheallegations,primarilyonthebasisofDr .Reid’sreportthatatleastsomeEthiopiannationalswereabletoobtainorrenewtheiridentificationcardsattheEmbassyinAugust1999 .FortheMay2000period,EritreaagainreliesonthedeclarationsofresidentsintheEmbassyneighborhoodwhoreportedseeingEthiopianslinedupandenteringtheEmbassythroughoutthewar .Onbalance,theCommissionfindsEritrea’se�idencesufficientlypersuasi�etorebutEthiopia’sprima facie case,andsodismissesthisclaimforfailureofproof .

50 . On the basis of the e�identiary record in this case and theCommission’spriorconsiderationofthesituationinbothAsmaraandAddisAbabaduringthearmedconflict,theCommissionhasnodoubtthatEritreaandEthiopiaeachincreaseditsmonitoringoftheother’sEmbassyanditsscrutinyofbothstaffand�isitorstotheEmbassy .OncetheParties(theCom-missionnotesagain,commendably)decidedtokeeptheirEmbassiesopenduringthewar,thisisneithersurprisingnorcontrarytointernationallaw .Equally,gi�enthetensioninbothcapitals,theCommissionhasnodoubtthattherewassomele�elofharassmentandintimidationofEmbassystaffand�isitors .Thee�idence,fortunately,showsthatanybeatingorotherphysicalabuseof�isitorswasrare .Therecord,particularlydiplomaticcorrespond-ence,alsore�ealsaperhapsuna�oidabledilemma:eachmissionsome-times requestedandother timesobjected toan increasedsecuritypres-ence,astheneedforextraprotectioninwartimecompetedwiththeproblemsinherentintheenemy’sser�ingassecuritypro�ider .Onbalanceandparticu-larlyinlightoftheseriousnessofotherclaimscompetingforitsattention,theCommissioncannotfindthatEritrea’ssecuritymeasures in�ol�ingtheEthiopianEmbassy,whilesometimes intrusi�eande�enperhapsabusi�e,compromisedthebasicfunctioningoftheEthiopianmissionin�iolationoftheapplicableinternationaldiplomaticlaw .

51 . TheCommissionturnsnexttoEthiopia’scontentions,certainofwhicharesimilartothosepursuedbyEritreainitscompanionDiplomaticClaim,thatEritreaunlawfullyinterferedwithEthiopianEmbassycommunicationsby:(a)


disconnectingsixtelephonelines;(b)tappingallEmbassylines;(c)lockingtheEmbassymailbox;(d)routinelyopeningandseizingofficialcorrespondence;and(e)denyingtheEmbassy’srequestforInternetser�ice .Althoughfreecom-municationsareessentialtotheproperfunctioningofadiplomaticmission,theseparticularclaimscannotwithstandscrutiny .

52 . First,e�enacceptingthatEritreamayha�edepri�edtheEmbassyofsixtelephonelines,thee�idenceintherecorddemonstratesthattheEmbassyhadsufficientremaininglines—atleastfour—tocarryonitsday-to-dayopera-tions .Second,thereisinsufficiente�idenceintherecordthatEmbassytelephonelinesweretapped .Thesolee�idenceforthisclaimcomesfromtheChargé,whoreachedthisconclusionuponlearningthatthetelephonesofcertainEthiopi-answhocalledtoreportarrests,injuriesordeathsallegedlywerecutoff .E�enassumingthate�idencefromsuchpersonswouldcircumstantiallypro�etap-pingofEmbassylines,therecordcontainsnodeclarationsfromthem .Third,EthiopiafailedtoexplainhowitsEmbassymailboxwaslockedafterFebruary1999andbaseditsclaimofroutinecensorshiponatmosteightallegedlyopenedletters .TheCommissiondismissestheseclaimsofunlawfulinterferencewithfreeEmbassycommunications,whichinanye�entarerelati�elyminorintheo�erallcontextofthiscase,forfailureofproof .

53 . Ethiopia’sclaimconcerningInternetser�icerequiresseparatecon-sideration .EthiopiacontendsthattheChargé,onadatenotspecified,request-edInternetser�icefromtheEritreanTelecommunicationSer�iceofficeandsoughtthenecessarypermissionfromtheMinistryofForeignAffairs,nei-therofwhichwasforthcoming .Eritreapresentedconclusi�ee�idencethatInternetser�icewasnota�ailableinEritreauntilafterDecember2000 .Thisclaim,therefore,fallsoutsidetheCommission’stemporaljurisdiction .

H. failure to Protect the security of the embassy and its Personnel

54 . TheClaimantchargesEritreawith�iolatingArticle22oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationsbyfailingtoprotecttheEmbassyanditspersonnelfromintrusiononAugust10,1999,whenanindi�idualjumpedo�ertheEmbassyfencearoundmidnight,andonJune23,2000,whenanotherindi-�idualjumpedo�erthefenceandattemptedtoburntheEmbassyflag .Eritreapresentedclearandcon�incinge�idencethatittookactionconsistentwithitsobligationsundertheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelationsinconnec-tionwithbothinstances:Eritreanpolicearrestedbothintruders,thefirstofwhomwasinitiallystoppedbytheEmbassyguardandthesecondofwhomwasintoxicatedandpro�edunabletoburntheflag .TheCommissionfindsno�iola-tionoftheapplicablelawinconnectionwiththeseclaims .


V. aWardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

a. Jurisdiction1 . TheCommissionlacksjurisdictiono�erclaimsthatwerenot

f i ledbyDecember12,2001,andhencewereextinguished .ConsequentlytheCommissiondismissesthefollowingclaimsforlackofjurisdiction:

a . claims that Eritrean security agents harassed and arrestedEmbassy�isitorsbeforeMarch1999;b . theclaimthatfourrockswerethrownintotheEmbassycom-poundonAugust7,1998;c . claimsthatEritreansecurityagentsenteredtheEmbassycom-poundwithoutEthiopianauthorizationinMayorJune1998;d . claimsforEritrea’splacementofabusstopnearthemaingateoftheEmbassy;e . claimsthatpri�atemerchantsinAsmararefusedtotransactbusi-nesswithEmbassyemployees;f . claimsthatEritreainterferedwithrecruitmentoflocalEmbassystaffinMarch2001;andg . allclaimsrelatingtotheEthiopianConsulateinAssab,includ-ingallegationsthatEritrearefusedtofacilitatetherepatriationofconsularstaff,restrictedtheconsularstaff’sfreedomofmo�ementandcommunication,closedtheConsulate,andseizedconsularprop-erty .

2 . TheCommissionalsodismissesthefollowingclaimsbecausetheyconcerne�entsallegedlyoccurringafterDecember2000,whichdonotfallwithinitstemporaljurisdiction:

a . claimsthatanEmbassyguard,gardeneranddri�erwerearrestedinMay2001;b . claims that an Embassy guard was arrested in April or May2002;c . claimsthata�isitor to theEmbassywasarrested inFebruary2001;d . claimsthatanEmbassyemployeewasarrestedinNo�emberorDecember2001;ande . claims that Eritrea denied the Embassy’s request for Internetser�ice,whichtheRespondentpro�eddidnotbecomea�ailableuntilafterDecember2000 .

3 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .


b. applicable lawAsagreedbytheParties,theprimaryapplicablelawistheViennaCon�en-

tiononDiplomaticRelationsof1961,whichlargelycodifiescustomarylaw .

C. evidentiary issuesTheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishthe

liabilityofaPartyfor�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .

d. findings on liability for Violation of international law

1 . TheRespondentisliablefor�iolatingArticle29oftheViennaCon-�entiononDiplomaticRelationsbyarrestingandbrieflydetainingtheEthi-opianChargéd’AffairesinSeptember1998andOctober1999withoutregardtohisdiplomaticimmunity .

2 . TheRespondent,ha�ingretainedaboxcontainingEthiopianEmbassycorrespondenceincludingblankpassportsforfi�eyears,islia-blefor�iolatingofficialEthiopiandiplomaticcorrespondenceandinterfer-ingwiththefunctioningofthemissioninbreachofArticles24and29oftheViennaCon�entiononDiplomaticRelations .

3 . Allotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .DoneatTheHague,this19thdayofDecember2005 .

[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte

[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich

[Signed]JohnR .Crook

[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul

[Signed]LucyReed