OCR of the Document

View the Document >>

International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo – Judgment, June 19, 2012 (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo judgment). Not classified.

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES AFFAIRE AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO RÉPUBLIQUE DE GUINÉE c RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO INDEMNISATION DUE PAR LA RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO À LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE GUINÉE ARRÊT DU 19 JUIN 2012 2012 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS CASE CONCERNING AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO REPUBLIC OF GUINEA v DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO COMPENSATION OWED BY THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA JUDGMENT OF 19 JUNE 2012 6 CIJ1032 indb 1 26 11 13 09 37 Mode officiel de citation  Ahmadou Sadio Diallo République de Guinée c République démocratique du Congo indemnisation arrêt C I J Recueil 2012 p  324 Official citation  Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo Compensation Judgment I C J Reports 2012 p  324 ISSN 0074-4441 ISBN 978-92-1-071146-3 6 CIJ1032 indb 2 No de vente Sales number 1032 26 11 13 09 37 19 JUIN 2012 ARRÊT AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO RÉPUBLIQUE DE GUINÉE c RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO INDEMNISATION DUE PAR LA RÉPUBLIQUE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO À LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE GUINÉE AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO REPUBLIC OF GUINEA v DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO COMPENSATION OWED BY THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA 19 JUNE 2012 JUDGMENT 6 CIJ1032 indb 3 26 11 13 09 37 324 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraphs Chronology of the Procedure I Introductory Observations 1-10 11-17 II Heads of Damage in respect of which Compensation Is requested 18-55 A Claim for compensation for non-material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo B Claim for compensation for material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo 18-25 26-55 1 Alleged loss of Mr  Diallo’s personal property including assets in bank accounts 27-36 2 Alleged loss of remuneration during Mr   Diallo’s unlawful detentions and following his unlawful expulsion 37-50 3 Alleged deprivation of potential earnings 51-55 III Total Sum Awarded and Post-Judgment Interest 56-57 IV Procedural Costs 58-60 Operative Clause 61 4 6 CIJ1032 indb 5 26 11 13 09 37 325 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE YEAR 2012 2012 19 June General List No  103 19 June 2012 CASE CONCERNING AHMADOU SADIO DIALLO REPUBLIC OF GUINEA v DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO compensation owed by the democratic republic of the congo to the republic of guinea Introductory observations Object of the present proceedings pursuant to Court’s Judgment of 30 Novem‑ ber 2010 — Determination of amount of compensation — Injury resulting from unlawful detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo — Guinea’s exercise of diplomatic protection  — General rules governing compensation — Establishment of injury and causal nexus between the wrongful acts and that injury — Valuation of the injury  — General rule that it is for the party which alleges a particular fact to prove existence of that fact — That rule to be applied flexibly in this case as Respondent may be in a better position to establish certain facts — Evidence adduced by Guinea as starting point of the Court’s inquiry — Assessment in light of evidence introduced by the Democratic Republic of the Congo DRC  — Allow‑ ance for the difficulty in providing certain evidence because of abruptness of Mr  Diallo’s expulsion — The Court’s inquiry limited to the injury resulting from the breach of Mr  Diallo’s rights as an individual Claim for compensation for non‑material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo Non‑material injury may take various forms — Establishment of non‑material injury even without specific evidence — Non‑material injury of Mr  Diallo as an inevitable consequence of the wrongful acts of the DRC already ascertained by the Court in its Judgment on the merits — Reasonable to conclude that the wrongful conduct of the DRC caused Mr  Diallo significant psychological suffering and loss of reputation — Number of days for which Mr  Diallo was detained as well as fact that he was not mistreated taken into account — Context in which the wrongful 5 6 CIJ1032 indb 7 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 326 detentions and expulsion occurred as well as their arbitrary nature as factors aggravating Mr  Diallo’s non‑material injury — Importance of equitable consider‑ ations in the quantification of compensation for non‑material injury — US$85 000 in compensation awarded Claim for compensation for material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo Alleged loss of personal property Property of the two companies not taken into account given the Court’s prior decision that claims related thereto were inadmissible — Personal property located in Mr  Diallo’s apartment appearing on an inventory prepared 12 days after his expulsion  — Failure of Guinea to prove extent of loss of Mr  Diallo’s personal property listed on inventory and extent to which any such loss was caused by the unlawful conduct of the DRC — Lack of any evidence regarding value of items on inventory — Mr  Diallo nevertheless required to transport his personal property to Guinea or to arrange for its disposition in the DRC — US$10 000 awarded based on equitable considerations High‑value items not specified on the inventory — No evidence put forward by Guinea that Mr  Diallo owned these items at the time of his expulsion  that they were in his apartment if he did own them  or that they were lost as a result of Mr  Diallo’s treatment by the DRC — No compensation awarded Assets alleged to have been contained in bank accounts — No information pro‑ vided by Guinea about total sum held in bank accounts the amount of any particu‑ lar account or the name s of bank s in which account s were held — No evi‑ dence put forward by Guinea demonstrating that the unlawful detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo caused the loss of any assets held in bank accounts — No compensation awarded Alleged loss of remuneration during Mr  Diallo’s unlawful detentions and fol‑ lowing his expulsion Cognizable character as a component of compensation of claim for income lost as a result of unlawful detention — Estimation may be appropriate where amount of lost income cannot be calculated precisely — No evidence however offered by Guinea to support the claim that Mr  Diallo was earning US$25 000 per month as gérant of Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire — Evidence on the contrary that neither of the companies was conducting business during the years immedi‑ ately prior to Mr  Diallo’s detentions — Failure of Guinea to prove how Mr  Dial‑ lo’s unlawful detentions would have caused him to lose any remuneration he could have been receiving — Guinea’s claim for loss of remuneration during period of Mr  Diallo’s detention rejected — Reasons for rejecting claim equally applicable to Guinea’s highly speculative claim relating to the period following Mr  Diallo’s expulsion — No compensation awarded Alleged deprivation of potential earnings Guinea’s claim concerning “potential earnings” as beyond the scope of the pro‑ ceedings given the Court’s prior decision on the inadmissibility of Guinea’s claims relating to the injuries alleged to have been caused to the companies — No com‑ pensation awarded 6 6 CIJ1032 indb 9 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 327 Total sum awarded and post‑judgment interest The total sum awarded to Guinea is US$95 000 to be paid by 31 August 2012 — Should payment be delayed post‑judgment interest on the principal sum due to accrue as from 1 September 2012 at an annual rate of 6 per cent — Sum awarded to Guinea in the exercise of diplomatic protection of Mr  Diallo intended to pro‑ vide reparation for the latter’s injury Procedural costs Article 64 of the Statute of the Court as implying that there may be circums‑ tances which would make it appropriate for the Court to allocate costs in favour of one of the parties — No such circumstances exist in the present case JUDGMENT Present    President Tomka  Vice‑President Sepúlveda‑Amor  Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde  Judges ad hoc Mahiou Mampuya  Registrar Couvreur In the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo between the Republic of Guinea represented by Mr  Mohamed Camara First Counsellor for Political Affairs Embassy of Guinea in the Benelux countries and in the European Union as Agent  Mr  Hassane II Diallo Counsellor and chargé de mission at the Ministry of Justice as Co‑Agent and the Democratic Republic of the Congo represented by H E Mr  Henri Mova Sakanyi Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Kingdom of Belgium the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg as Agent  7 6 CIJ1032 indb 11 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 328 Mr  Tshibangu Kalala Professor of International Law at the University of Kinshasa member of the Kinshasa and Brussels Bars and member of the Congolese Parliament as Co‑Agent The Court composed as above after deliberation delivers the following Judgment  1   On 28 December 1998 the Government of the Republic of Guinea hereinafter “Guinea” filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Democratic Republic of the Congo hereinafter the “DRC” named Zaire between 1971 and 1997 in respect of a dispute concerning “serious violations of international law” alleged to have been committed upon the person of Mr  Ahmadou Sadio Diallo a Guinean national In the Application Guinea maintained that  “Mr  Ahmadou Sadio Diallo a businessman of Guinean nationality was unjustly imprisoned by the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo after being resident in that State for thirty‑two 32  years despoiled of his sizable investments businesses movable and immovable property and bank accounts and then expelled ” Guinea added  “ t his expulsion came at a time when Mr  Ahmadou Sadio Diallo was pursuing recovery of substantial debts owed to his businesses Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire by the Congolese State and by oil companies established in its territory and of which the State is a shareholder” According to Guinea Mr  Diallo’s arrests detentions and expulsion constituted inter alia violations of “the principle that aliens should be treated in accordance with ‘a minimum standard of civilization’ of the obligation to respect the freedom and property of aliens and of the right of aliens accused of an offence to a fair trial on adversarial principles by an impartial court” To found the jurisdiction of the Court Guinea invoked in the Application the declarations whereby the two States have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court 2   On 3 October 2002 the DRC raised preliminary objections in respect of the admissibility of Guinea’s Application In its Judgment of 24 May 2007 on these preliminary objections the Court declared the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be admissible “in so far as it concerns protection of Mr  Diallo’s rights as an individual” and “in so far as it concerns protection of his direct rights as associé in Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire” However the Court declared the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be inadmissible “in so far as it concerns protection of Mr  Diallo in respect of alleged violations of rights of Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire” Ahmadou Sadio Diallo 8 6 CIJ1032 indb 13 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 329 Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo Preliminary Objec‑ tions Judgment I C J  Reports 2007  II pp  617‑618 para  98 subpara  3  a b and  c of the operative part 3  In its Judgment of 30 November 2010 on the merits the Court found that  in respect of the circumstances in which Mr  Diallo had been expelled on 31 January 1996 the DRC had violated Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights hereinafter the “Covenant” and Article 12 paragraph 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights hereinafter the “African Charter” Ahmadou Sadio Diallo Republic of Guinea v Demo‑ cratic Republic of the Congo Merits Judgment I C J  Reports 2010  II p  692 para  165 subpara   2 of the operative part The Court also found that in respect of the circumstances in which Mr  Diallo had been arrested and detained in 1995‑1996 with a view to his expulsion the DRC had violated Article 9 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Covenant and Article 6 of the African Charter ibid p  692 para  165 subpara   3 of the operative part 4   The Court further decided that “the Democratic Republic of the Congo was under obligation to make appropriate reparation in the form of compensation to the Republic of Guinea for the injurious consequences of the violations of international obligations referred to in subparagraphs  2 and 3 of the operative part ” ibid p  693 para  165 subpara   7 of the operative part namely the unlawful arrests detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo 5  In addition the Court found that the DRC had violated Mr  Diallo’s rights under Article 36 paragraph 1  b of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ibid p  692 para  165 subpara   4 of the operative part It did not however order the DRC to pay compensation for this violation ibid p  693 para  165 subpara   7 of the operative part 6   In the same Judgment the Court rejected all other submissions by Guinea relating to the arrests and detentions of Mr  Diallo including the contention that he was subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 10 paragraph 1 of the Covenant during his detentions ibid subpara   5 of the o ­ perative part Furthermore the Court found that the DRC had not ­violated Mr  Diallo’s direct rights as an associé in the companies Africom‑ Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire ibid subpara   6 of the ­operative part 7  Finally the Court decided with respect to the question of compensation owed by the DRC to Guinea that “failing agreement between the Parties on this matter within six months from the date of the said Judgment this question      shall be settled by the Court” ibid subpara   8 of the operative part Considering itself to have been “sufficiently informed of the facts of the      case” the Court found that “a single exchange of written pleadings by the Parties would then be sufficient in order for it to decide on the amount of compensation” ibid p  692 para  164 8  The time‑limit of six months thus fixed by the Court having expired on 30 May 2011 without an agreement being reached between the Parties on the question of compensation due to Guinea the President of the Court held a meeting with the representatives of the Parties on 14 September 2011 in order to ascertain their views on the time‑limits to be fixed for the filing of the two pleadings envisaged by the Court 9   By an Order of 20 September 2011 the Court fixed 6 December 2011 and 21 February 2012 as the respective time‑limits for the filing of the Memorial of Guinea and the Counter‑Memorial of the DRC on the question of compensa- 9 6 CIJ1032 indb 15 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 330 tion due to Guinea The Memorial and the Counter‑Memorial were duly filed within the time‑limits thus prescribed 10   In the written proceedings relating to compensation the following submissions were presented by the Parties  On behalf of the Government of Guinea in the Memorial  “In compensation for the damage suffered by Mr  Ahmadou Sadio Diallo as a result of his arbitrary detentions and expulsion the Republic of Guinea begs the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it on behalf of its national the following sums  — US$250 000 for mental and moral damage including injury to his reputation  — US$6 430 148 for loss of earnings during his detention and following his expulsion  — US$550 000 for other material damage  and — US$4 360 000 for loss of potential earnings  amounting to a total of eleven million five hundred and ninety thousand one hundred and forty‑eight American dollars US$11 590 148 not including statutory default interest Furthermore as a result of having been forced to institute the present proceedings the Guinean State has incurred unrecoverable costs which it should not in equity be required to bear and which are assessed at US$500 000 The Republic of Guinea also begs the Court to order the DRC to pay it that sum The Democratic Republic of the Congo should also be ordered to pay all the costs ” On behalf of the Government of the DRC in the Counter‑Memorial  “Having regard to all of the arguments of fact and law set out above the Democratic Republic of the Congo asks the Court to adjudge and declare that  1 compensation in an amount of US$30 000 is due to Guinea to make good the non‑pecuniary injury suffered by Mr  Diallo as a result of his wrongful detentions and expulsion in 1995‑1996  2 no default interest is due on the amount of compensation as fixed above  3 the DRC shall have a time‑limit of six months from the date of the Court’s judgment in which to pay to Guinea the above amount of compensation  4 no compensation is due in respect of the other material damage claimed by Guinea  5 each Party shall bear its own costs of the proceedings including costs and fees of its counsel advocates advisers assistants and others ”     10 6 CIJ1032 indb 17 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 331 I   Introductory Observations 11   It falls to the Court at this stage of the proceedings to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to Guinea as a consequence of the unlawful arrests detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo by the DRC pursuant to the findings of the Court set out in its Judgment of 30 November 2010 and recalled above In that Judgment the Court indicated that the amount of compensation was to be based on “the injury flowing from the wrongful detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo in 1995‑96 including the resulting loss of his personal belongings” I C J  Reports 2010  II p  691 para  163 12   The Court begins by recalling certain of the facts on which it based its Judgment of 30 November 2010 Mr  Diallo was continuously detained for 66 days from 5 November 1995 until 10 January 1996 ibid p  662 para  59 and was detained for a second time between 25 and 31 January 1996 ibid p  662 para  60 that is for a total of 72 days The Court also observed that Guinea failed to demonstrate that Mr  Diallo was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment during his detentions ibid p  671 paras  88‑89 In addition the Court found that Mr  Diallo was expelled by the DRC on 31 January 1996 and that he received notice of his expulsion on the same day ibid p  659 para  50 and p  668 para  78 13   The Court turns to the question of compensation for the violations of Mr  Diallo’s human rights established in its Judgment of 30 November 2010 It recalls that it has fixed an amount of compensation once in the Corfu Channel case United Kingdom v Albania Assessment of Amount of Compensation Judgment I C J  Reports 1949 p  244 In the present case Guinea is exercising diplomatic protection with respect to one of its nationals Mr  Diallo and is seeking compensation for the injury caused to him As the Permanent Court of International Justice stated in the Factory of Chorzów case Merits Judgment No  13 1928 P C I J Series A No  17 pp  27‑28 “ i t is a principle of international law that the reparation of a wrong may consist in an indemnity corresponding to the damage which the nationals of the injured State have suffered as a result of the act which is contrary to international law” The Court has taken into account the practice in other international courts tribunals and commissions such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea the European Court of Human Rights ECHR the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights IACHR the Iran‑United States Claims Tribunal the Eritrea‑Ethiopia Claims Commission and the United Nations Compensation Commission which have applied general principles governing compensation when fixing its amount including in respect of injury resulting from unlawful detention and expulsion 14  Guinea seeks compensation under four heads of damage  non‑material injury referred to by Guinea as “mental and moral dam11 6 CIJ1032 indb 19 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 332 age”   and three heads of material damage  alleged loss of personal property  alleged loss of professional remuneration referred to by Guinea as “loss of earnings” during Mr  Diallo’s detentions and after his expulsion  and alleged deprivation of “potential earnings” As to each head of damage the Court will consider whether an injury is established It will then “ascertain whether and to what extent the injury asserted by the Applicant is the consequence of wrongful conduct by the Respondent” taking into account “whether there is a sufficiently direct and certain causal nexus between the wrongful act      and the injury suffered by the Applicant” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punish‑ ment of the Crime of Genocide Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro Judgment I C J  Reports 2007  I pp  233‑234 para  462 If the existence of injury and causation is established the Court will then determine the valuation 15   The assessment of compensation owed to Guinea in this case will require the Court to weigh the Parties’ factual contentions The Court recalled in its Judgment of 30 November 2010 that as a general rule it is for the party which alleges a particular fact in support of its claims to prove the existence of that fact I C J  Reports 2010  II p  660 para  54  see also Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 the for‑ mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v Greece Judgment I C J  Reports 2011  II p  668 para  72  Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay Argentina v Uruguay Judgment I C J  Reports 2010  I p  71 para  162 The Court also recognized that this general rule would have to be applied flexibly in this case and in particular that the Respondent may be in a better position to establish certain facts I C J  Reports 2010  II pp  660‑661 paras  54‑56 16   In the present stage of the proceedings the Court once again will be guided by the approach summarized in the preceding paragraph Thus the starting point in the Court’s inquiry will be the evidence adduced by Guinea to support its claim under each head of damage which the Court will assess in light of evidence introduced by the DRC The Court also recognizes that the abruptness of Mr  Diallo’s expulsion may have diminished the ability of Mr  Diallo and Guinea to locate certain documents calling for some flexibility by the Court in considering the record before it 17  Before turning to the various heads of damage the Court also recalls that the scope of the present proceedings is determined in important respects by the Court’s Judgments of 24 May 2007 and of 30 November 2010 Having declared Guinea’s Application inadmissible as to alleged violations of the rights of Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire I C J  Reports 2007  II p  616 para  94 the Court will not take account of any claim for injury sustained by the two companies rather than by Mr  Diallo himself Moreover the Court will award no compensation in respect of Guinea’s claim that the DRC violated Mr  Diallo’s direct rights as an associé in Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire 12 6 CIJ1032 indb 21 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 333 because the Court found that there was no such violation in its Judgment of 30 November 2010 I C J  Reports 2010  II p  690 para  157 and pp  690‑691 para  159 The Court’s inquiry will be limited to the injury resulting from the breach of Mr  Diallo’s rights as an individual that is “the injury flowing from the wrongful detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo in 1995‑1996 including the resulting loss of his personal belongings” ibid p  691 para  163 II   Heads of Damage in respect of which Compensation Is Requested A   Claim for Compensation for Non‑Material Injury Suffered by Mr  Diallo 18   “Mental and moral damage” referred to by Guinea or “non‑pecuniary injury” referred to by the DRC covers harm other than material injury which is suffered by an injured entity or individual Non‑material injury to a person which is cognizable under international law may take various forms For instance the umpire in the Lusitania cases before the Mixed Claims Commission United States Germany mentioned “mental suffering injury to a claimant’s feelings humiliation shame degradation loss of social position or injury to his credit or to his reputation” opinion in the Lusitania cases 1 November 1923 United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards RIAA Vol  VII p  40 The Inter‑American Court of Human Rights observed in Gutiérrez‑Soler v Colombia that “ n on pecuniary damage may include distress suffering tampering with the victim’s core values and changes of a non-pecuniary nature in the person’s everyday life” judgment of 12 September 2005 merits reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  132 para  82 19   In the present case Guinea contends that “Mr  Diallo suffered moral and mental harm including emotional pain suffering and shock as well as the loss of his position in society and injury to his reputation as a result of his arrests detentions and expulsion by the DRC ” No specific evidence regarding this head of damage is submitted by Guinea 20   The DRC for its part does not contest the fact that Mr  Diallo suffered “non‑pecuniary injury” However the DRC requests the Court to “take into account the specific circumstances of this case the brevity of the detention complained of the absence of any mistreatment of 13 6 CIJ1032 indb 23 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 334 Mr  Diallo and the fact that Mr  Diallo was expelled to his country of origin with which he had been able to maintain ongoing and high‑level contacts throughout his lengthy stay in the Congo” 21  In the view of the Court non‑material injury can be established even without specific evidence In the case of Mr  Diallo the fact that he suffered non‑material injury is an inevitable consequence of the wrongful acts of the DRC already ascertained by the Court In its Judgment on the merits the Court found that Mr  Diallo had been arrested without being informed of the reasons for his arrest and without being given the possibility to seek a remedy I C J  Reports 2010  II p  666 para  74 and p  670 para  84   that he was detained for an unjustifiably long period pending expulsion ibid pp  668‑669 para  79   that he was made the object of accusations that were not substantiated ibid p  669 para  82   and that he was wrongfully expelled from the country where he had resided for 32 years and where he had engaged in significant business activities ibid pp  666‑667 paras  73 and 74 Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the DRC’s wrongful conduct caused Mr  Diallo significant psychological suffering and loss of reputation 22   The Court has taken into account the number of days for which Mr  Diallo was detained and its earlier conclusion that it had not been demonstrated that Mr  Diallo was mistreated in violation of Article 10 paragraph 1 of the Covenant ibid p  671 para  89 23   The circumstances of the case point to the existence of certain factors which aggravate Mr  Diallo’s non‑material injury One is the context in which the wrongful detentions and expulsion occurred As the Court noted in its Judgment on the merits “it is difficult not to discern a link between Mr  Diallo’s expulsion and the fact that he had attempted to recover debts which he believed were owed to his companies by amongst others the Zairean State or companies in which the State holds a substantial portion of the capital” I C J  Reports 2010  II p  669 para  82 In addition Mr  Diallo’s “arrest and detention aimed at allowing such an expulsion measure one without any defensible basis to be effected can only be character­ ized as arbitrary within the meaning of Article 9 paragraph 1 of the Covenant and Article 6 of the African Charter” ibid 24   Quantification of compensation for non‑material injury necessarily rests on equitable considerations As the umpire noted in the Lusitania cases non‑material injuries “are very real and the mere fact that they are difficult to measure or estimate by money standards makes them none the 14 6 CIJ1032 indb 25 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 335 less real and affords no reason why the injured person should not be compensated therefore as compensatory damages” RIAA Vol  VII p  40 When considering compensation for material or non‑material injury caused by violations of the Covenant or the African Charter respectively the Human Rights Committee and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights recommended “adequate compensation” without specifying the sum to be paid see for example A  v Australia HRC 3 April 1997 communication No  560 1993 United Nations doc  CCPR C 59 D 560 1993 para  11  Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana ACHPR 26 May 2010 communication No  313 05 28th Activity Report Ann  IV p  110 para  244 Arbitral tribunals and regional human rights courts have been more specific given the power to assess compensation granted by their respective constitutive instruments Equitable considerations have guided their quantification of compensation for non‑material harm For instance in Al‑Jedda v United Kingdom the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights stated that for determining damage “ i ts guiding principle is equity which above all involves flexibility and an objective consideration of what is just fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case including not only the position of the applicant but the overall context in which the breach occurred” application No  27021 08 judgment of 7 July 2011 ECHR Reports 2011 para  114 Similarly the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights has said that the payment of a sum of money as compensation for non-pecuniary damages may be determined by that court “in reasonable exercise of its judicial authority and on the basis of equity” Cantoral Benavides v Peru judgment of 3 December 2001 reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  88 para  53 25   With regard to the non‑material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo the circumstances outlined in paragraphs 21 to 23 lead the Court to consider that the amount of US$85 000 would provide appropriate compensation The sum is expressed in the currency to which both Parties referred in their written pleadings on compensation B   Claim for Compensation for Material Injury Suffered by Mr  Diallo 26   As previously noted see paragraph 14 Guinea claims compensation for three heads of material damage The Court will begin by address15 6 CIJ1032 indb 27 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 336 ing Guinea’s claim relating to the loss of Mr  Diallo’s personal property  it will then consider Guinea’s claims concerning loss of professional remuneration during Mr  Diallo’s unlawful detentions and following his unlawful expulsion from the DRC  and finally it will turn to Guinea’s claim in respect of “potential earnings” 1   Alleged loss of Mr  Diallo’s personal property including assets in bank accounts 27  Guinea claims that Mr  Diallo’s abrupt expulsion prevented him from making arrangements for the transfer or disposal of personal property that was in his apartment and also caused the loss of certain assets in bank accounts Guinea refers to an inventory of items in Mr  Diallo’s apartment that was prepared 12 days after he was expelled claiming that the inventory understated his personal property because it failed to include a number of high‑value items that were in the apartment It states that all of these assets have been irretrievably lost and estimates the value of lost tangible and intangible assets including bank accounts at US$550 000 28  The DRC contends that Guinea was responsible for having produced the inventory in question as evidence before the Court only later to declare it incomplete Citing Guinea’s role in preparing the inventory the DRC characterizes that inventory as “credible” and “serious” and contends that Guinea cannot now claim that Mr  Diallo owned additional assets not reflected in it The DRC further asserts that it cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of any property that was in the apartment because the DRC did not order Mr  Diallo’s eviction from the apartment and because Mr  Diallo’s personal property was under the control of officials from the Guinean embassy and of Mr  Diallo’s friends and relatives Further the DRC states that Guinea has provided no evidence regarding bank assets 29   The Court here addresses Guinea’s claim for the loss of Mr  Diallo’s personal property without taking into account property of the two companies to which Guinea also refers given the Court’s prior decision that Guinea’s claims relating to the companies were inadmissible see paragraph 17 above The personal property at issue in Guinea’s claim may be divided into three categories  furnishings of Mr  Diallo’s apartment that appear on the above‑referenced inventory  certain high‑value items alleged to have been in Mr  Diallo’s apartment which are not specified on that inventory  and assets in bank accounts 30  As to personal property that was located in Mr  Diallo’s apartment it appears that the inventory of the property in Mr  Diallo’s apart16 6 CIJ1032 indb 29 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 337 ment which both Parties have submitted to the Court was prepared approximately 12 days after Mr  Diallo’s expulsion from the DRC While Guinea complains about omissions from the inventory the high‑value items discussed below both Parties appear to accept that the items that are listed on the inventory were in the apartment at the time the inventory was prepared 31   There is however uncertainty about what happened to the property listed on the inventory Guinea does not point to any evidence that Mr  Diallo attempted to transport or to dispose of the property in the apartment and there is no evidence before the Court that the DRC barred him from doing so The DRC states that it did not take possession of the apartment and that it did not evict Mr  Diallo from the apartment Mr  Diallo himself stated in 2008 that the company from which the apartment was leased took possession of it soon after his expulsion and that as a result he had lost all of his personal effects Therefore taken as a whole Guinea has failed to prove the extent of the loss of Mr  Diallo’s personal property listed on the inventory and the extent to which any such loss was caused by the DRC’s unlawful conduct 32   Even assuming that it could be established that the personal property on the inventory was lost and that any such loss was caused by the DRC’s unlawful conduct Guinea offers no evidence regarding the value of the items on the inventory either with respect to individual items or in the aggregate 33  Despite the shortcomings in the evidence related to the property listed on the inventory the Court recalls that Mr  Diallo lived and worked in the territory of the DRC for over thirty years during which time he surely accumulated personal property Even assuming that the DRC is correct in its contention that Guinean officials and Mr  Diallo’s relatives were in a position to dispose of that personal property after Mr  Diallo’s expulsion the Court considers that at a minimum Mr  Diallo would have had to transport his personal property to Guinea or to arrange for its disposition in the DRC Thus the Court is satisfied that the DRC’s unlawful conduct caused some material injury to Mr  Diallo with respect to personal property that had been in the apartment in which he lived although it would not be reasonable to accept the very large sum claimed by Guinea for this head of damage In such a situation the Court considers it appropriate to award an amount of compensation based on equitable considerations see paragraph 36 below Other courts including the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights have followed this approach where warranted see e g  Lupsa v Romania application No  10337 04 judgment of 8 June 2006 ECHR Reports 2006‑ VII paras  70‑72  Chaparro Alvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v Ecuador judgment of 21 November 2007 preliminary objections merits reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  170 paras  240 and 242 34  The Court next considers Guinea’s contention that Mr  Diallo’s apartment contained certain high‑value items not specified on the inven17 6 CIJ1032 indb 31 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 338 tory described above Guinea mentions several items in its Memorial e g a diamond‑studded watch and two paintings by a renowned artist but offers few details and provides no evidence to support the assertion that the items were located in Mr  Diallo’s apartment at the time of his detentions and expulsion There is no statement by Mr  Diallo describing these goods There are no records of purchase even as to items allegedly purchased from well‑known establishments selling high‑value luxury items that can be expected to keep records of sales and which are located outside the territory of the DRC thus making them accessible to Mr  Diallo Guinea has put forward no evidence whatsoever that Mr  Diallo owned these items at the time of his expulsion that they were in his apartment if he did own them or that they were lost as a result of his treatment by the DRC For these reasons the Court rejects Guinea’s claims as to the loss of high‑value items not specified on the inventory 35  As to assets alleged to have been contained in bank accounts Guinea offers no details and no evidence to support its claim There is no information about the total sum held in bank accounts the amount of any particular account or the name s of the bank s in which the account s were held Further there is no evidence demonstrating that the unlawful detentions and expulsion of Mr  Diallo caused the loss of any assets held in bank accounts For example Guinea does not explain why Mr  Diallo could not access any such accounts after leaving the DRC Thus it has not been established that Mr  Diallo lost any assets held in his bank accounts in the DRC or that the DRC’s unlawful acts caused Mr  Diallo to lose any such financial assets Accordingly the Court rejects Guinea’s claim as to the loss of bank account assets 36  The Court therefore awards no compensation in respect of the high‑value items and bank account assets described in paragraphs 34 and 35 above However in view of the Court’s conclusions above see paragraph 33 regarding the personal property of Mr  Diallo and on the basis of equitable considerations the Court awards the sum of US$10 000 under this head of damage 2   Alleged loss of remuneration during Mr  Diallo’s unlawful detentions and following his unlawful expulsion 37   At the outset the Court notes that in its submissions at the conclusion of its Memorial Guinea claims US$6 430 148 for Mr  Diallo’s loss of earnings during his detentions and following his expulsion How18 6 CIJ1032 indb 33 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 339 ever Guinea makes reference elsewhere in its Memorial to a sum of US$80 000 for Mr  Diallo’s loss of earnings during his detentions As presented by Guinea this claim for US$80 000 although not reflected as a separate submission is clearly distinct from its claim for US$6 430 148 which in the reasoning of the Memorial only concerns the alleged “loss of earnings” following Mr  Diallo’s expulsion The Court will interpret Guinea’s submissions in light of the reasoning of its Memorial as it is entitled to do see e g Nuclear Tests Australia v France Judgment I C J  Reports 1974 p  262 para  29  Nuclear Tests New Zealand v France Judgment I C J  Reports 1974 p  466 para  30 Therefore in the present Judgment it will first consider the claim of US$80 000 for loss of professional remuneration during Mr  Diallo’s detentions see paragraphs 38‑46 and then will examine the claim of US$6 430 148 for loss of professional remuneration following his expulsion see paragraphs 47‑49 38  Guinea asserts that prior to his arrest on 5 November 1995 Mr  Diallo received monthly remuneration of US$25 000 in his capacity as gérant of Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire Based on that figure Guinea estimates that Mr  Diallo suffered a loss totalling US$80 000 during the 72 days he was detained an amount that according to Guinea takes account of inflation Guinea states that remuneration from the two companies was Mr  Diallo’s “main source of income” and does not ask the Court to award compensation in respect of any other income relating to the period of Mr  Diallo’s detentions Guinea further asserts that Mr  Diallo was unable to carry out his “normal management activities” while in detention and thus to ensure that his companies were being properly run 39   In response the DRC contends that Guinea has not produced any documentary evidence to support the claim for loss of remuneration The DRC also takes the view that Guinea has failed to show that Mr  Diallo’s detentions caused a loss of remuneration that he otherwise would have received In particular the DRC asserts that Guinea has failed to explain why Mr  Diallo as the sole gérant and associé of the two companies could not have directed that payments be made to him According to the DRC no compensation for loss of remuneration during the period of Mr  Diallo’s detention is warranted 40   The Court observes that in general a claim for income lost as a result of unlawful detention is cognizable as a component of compensation This approach has been followed for example by the European 19 6 CIJ1032 indb 35 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 340 Court of Human Rights see e g Teixeira de Castro v Portugal application No  44 1997 828 1034 judgment of 9 June 1998 ECHR Reports 1998‑IV paras  46‑49 by the Inter‑American Court of Human Rights see e g Suárez‑Rosero v Ecuador judgment of 20 January 1999 reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  44 para  60 and by the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission see United Nations Compensation Commission Governing Council Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the Fourteenth Instalment of “E3” Claims United Nations doc  S AC 26 2000 19 29 September 2000 para  126 Moreover if the amount of the lost income cannot be calculated precisely estimation may be appropriate see e g Elci and Others v Turkey applications Nos  23145 93 and 25091 94 judgment of 13 November 2003 ECHR para  721  Case of the “Street Children” Villagrán‑Morales et al  v Guatemala judgment of 26 May 2001 reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  77 para  79 Thus the Court must first consider whether Guinea has established that Mr  Diallo was receiving remuneration prior to his detentions and that such remuneration was in the amount of US$25 000 per month 41  The claim that Mr  Diallo was earning US$25 000 per month as gérant of the two companies is made for the first time in the present phase of the proceedings devoted to compensation Guinea offers no evidence to support the claim There are no bank account or tax records There are no accounting records of either company showing that it had made such payments It is plausible of course that Mr  Diallo’s abrupt expulsion impeded or precluded his access to such records That said the absence of any evidence in support of the claim for loss of remuneration at issue here stands in stark contrast to the evidence adduced by Guinea at an earlier stage of this case in support of the claims relating to the two ­companies which included various documents from the records of the companies 42  Moreover there is evidence suggesting that Mr  Diallo was not receiving US$25 000 per month in remuneration from the two companies prior to his detentions First the evidence regarding Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire strongly indicates that neither of the companies was conducting business — apart from the attempts to collect debts ­allegedly owed to each company — during the years immediately prior to Mr  Diallo’s detentions In particular the record indicates that the ­operations of Africontainers‑Zaire had even according to Guinea experi­ enced a ­serious decline by 1990 In addition as the Court noted previously the DRC asserted that Africom‑Zaire had ceased all commercial activities by the end of the 1980s and for that reason had been struck from the Trade Register I C J  Reports 2007  II p  593 para  22  I C J  Reports 2010  II p  677 para  108   this assertion was not challenged by Guinea It appears that disputes about the amounts payable by various entities to Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire continued into 20 6 CIJ1032 indb 37 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 341 the 1990s in some cases even after Mr  Diallo’s expulsion in 1996 But there is no evidence of operating activity that would have generated a flow of income during the years just prior to Mr  Diallo’s detentions 43   Secondly in contrast to Guinea’s claim in the present phase of the proceedings devoted to compensation that Mr  Diallo was receiving monthly remuneration of US$25 000 Guinea told the Court during the preliminary objections phase that Mr  Diallo was “already impoverished in 1995” This statement to the Court is consistent with the fact that on 12 July 1995 Mr  Diallo obtained in the DRC at his request a “Certificate of Indigency” declaring him “temporarily destitute” and thus permitting him to avoid payments that would otherwise have been required in order to register a judgment in favour of one of the companies 44   The Court therefore concludes that Guinea has failed to establish that Mr  Diallo was receiving remuneration from Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire on a monthly basis in the period immediately prior to his detentions in 1995‑1996 or that such remuneration was at the rate of US$25 000 per month 45   Guinea also does not explain to the satisfaction of the Court how Mr  Diallo’s detentions caused an interruption in any remuneration that Mr  Diallo might have been receiving in his capacity as gérant of the two companies If the companies were in fact in a position to pay Mr  Diallo as of the time that he was detained it is reasonable to expect that employees could have continued to make the necessary payments to the gérant their managing director and the owner of the companies Moreover as noted above see paragraph 12 Mr  Diallo was detained from 5 November 1995 to 10 January 1996 then released and then detained again from 25 January 1996 to 31 January 1996 Thus there was a period of two weeks during which there was an opportunity for Mr  Diallo to make arrangements to receive any remuneration that the companies allegedly had failed to pay him during the initial 66‑day period of detention 46   Under these circumstances Guinea has not proven to the satisfaction of the Court that Mr  Diallo suffered a loss of professional remuneration as a result of his unlawful detentions   47   In addition to the claim for loss of remuneration during his unlawful detentions Guinea asserts that the unlawful expulsion of Mr  Diallo by the DRC deprived him of the ability to continue receiving remuneration as the gérant of Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire Based on its claim described above that Mr  Diallo received remuneration of US$25 000 per month prior to his detentions in 1995‑1996 Guinea asserts 21 6 CIJ1032 indb 39 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 342 that during the period that has elapsed since Mr  Diallo’s expulsion on 31 January 1996 he has lost additional “professional income” in the amount of US$4 755 500 Guinea further asserts that this amount should be adjusted upward to account for inflation such that its estimate of Mr  Diallo’s loss of professional remuneration since his expulsion is US$6 430 148 48  The DRC reiterates its position regarding the claim for unpaid remuneration from the period of Mr  Diallo’s detentions in particular the lack of evidence to support the claim that Mr  Diallo was receiving remuneration of US$25 000 per month prior to his detentions and expulsion 49   For the reasons indicated above the Court has already rejected the claim for loss of professional remuneration during the period of Mr  Diallo’s detentions see paragraphs 38‑46 Those reasons also apply with respect to Guinea’s claim relating to the period following Mr  Diallo’s expulsion Moreover Guinea’s claim with respect to Mr  Diallo’s post‑expulsion remuneration is highly speculative and assumes that Mr  Diallo would have continued to receive US$25 000 per month had he not been unlawfully expelled While an award of compensation relating to loss of future earnings inevitably involves some uncertainty such a claim cannot be purely speculative cf  Khamidov v Russia application No  72118 01 judgment of 15 November 2007 merits and just satisfaction ECHR para  197  Chaparro Alvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v Ecuador judgment of 21 November 2007 preliminary objections merits reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  170 paras  235‑236  see also Commentary to Article 36 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Yearbook of the International Law Com‑ mission 2001 Vol  II  2 pp  104‑105 concerning “lost profits” claims Thus the Court concludes that no compensation can be awarded for Guinea’s claim relating to unpaid remuneration following Mr  Diallo’s expulsion   50  The Court therefore awards no compensation for remuneration that Mr  Diallo allegedly lost during his detentions and following his expulsion 3   Alleged deprivation of potential earnings 51  Guinea makes an additional claim that it describes as relating to Mr  Diallo’s “potential earnings” Specifically Guinea states that Mr  Diallo’s unlawful detentions and subsequent expulsion resulted in a 22 6 CIJ1032 indb 41 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 343 decline in the value of the two companies and the dispersal of their assets Guinea also asserts that Mr  Diallo was unable to assign his holdings parts sociales in these companies to third parties and that his loss of potential earnings can be valued at 50 per cent of the “exchange value of the holdings” a sum that according to Guinea totals US$4 360 000 52   The DRC points out that Guinea’s calculation of the alleged loss to Mr  Diallo is based on assets belonging to the two companies and not assets that belong to Mr  Diallo in his individual capacity Furthermore the DRC contends that Guinea provides no proof that the companies’ assets have in fact been lost or that specific assets of Africom‑Zaire or Africontainers‑Zaire to which Guinea refers could not be sold on the open market 53  The Court considers that Guinea’s claim concerning “potential earnings” amounts to a claim for a loss in the value of the companies allegedly resulting from Mr  Diallo’s detentions and expulsion Such a claim is beyond the scope of these proceedings given this Court’s prior decision that Guinea’s claims relating to the injuries alleged to have been caused to the companies are inadmissible I C J  Reports 2007  II p  617 para  98 subpara   1   b of the operative part 54   For these reasons the Court awards no compensation to Guinea in respect of its claim relating to the “potential earnings” of Mr  Diallo 55   Having analysed the components of Guinea’s claim in respect of material injury caused to Mr  Diallo as a result of the DRC’s unlawful conduct the Court awards compensation to Guinea in the amount of US$10 000 III   Total Sum Awarded and Post‑Judgment Interest 56  The total sum awarded to Guinea is US$95 000 to be paid by 31 August 2012 The Court expects timely payment and has no reason to assume that the DRC will not act accordingly Nevertheless considering that the award of post‑judgment interest is consistent with the practice of other international courts and tribunals see for example The M V “Saiga” No  2 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea judgment of 1 July 1999 ITLOS para  175  Bámaca-Velásquez v Guatemala judgment of 22 February 2002 reparations and costs IACHR Series C No  91 para  103  Papamichalopoulos and Others v Greece Article 50 23 6 CIJ1032 indb 43 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 344 application No  33808 02 judgment of 31 October 1995 ECHR Series A No  330‑B para  39  Lordos and Others v Turkey application No  15973 90 judgment of 10 January 2012 just satisfaction ECHR para  76 and dispositif para  1  b the Court decides that should payment be delayed post‑judgment interest on the principal sum due will accrue as from 1 September 2012 at an annual rate of 6 per cent This rate has been fixed taking into account the prevailing interest rates on the international market and the importance of prompt compliance 57   The Court recalls that the sum awarded to Guinea in the exercise of diplomatic protection of Mr  Diallo is intended to provide reparation for the latter’s injury IV   Procedural Costs 58  Guinea requests the Court to award costs in its favour in the amount of US$500 000 because “as a result of having been forced to institute the present proceedings the Guinean State has incurred unrecoverable costs which it should not in equity be required to bear” 59   The DRC asks the Court “to dismiss the request for the reimbursement of costs submitted by Guinea and to leave each State to bear its own costs of the proceedings including the costs of its counsel advocates and others” The DRC contends that Guinea lost the major part of the case and that moreover the amount claimed “represents an arbitrary lump‑sum determination unsupported by any serious and credible evidence” 60  The Court recalls that Article 64 of the Statute provides that “ u nless otherwise decided by the Court each party shall bear its own costs” While the general rule has so far always been followed by the Court Article 64 implies that there may be circumstances which would make it appropriate for the Court to allocate costs in favour of one of the parties However the Court does not consider that any such circumstances exist in the present case Accordingly each Party shall bear its own costs     61   For these reasons The Court 1   By fifteen votes to one 24 6 CIJ1032 indb 45 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 345 Fixes the amount of compensation due from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea for the non‑material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo at US$85 000  in favour  President  Tomka  Vice-President Sepúlveda‑Amor  Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde  Judge ad hoc Mahiou  against  Judge ad hoc Mampuya  2   By fifteen votes to one Fixes the amount of compensation due from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea for the material injury suffered by Mr  Diallo in relation to his personal property at US$10 000  in favour  President  Tomka  Vice-President Sepúlveda‑Amor  Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde  Judge ad hoc Mahiou  against  Judge ad hoc Mampuya  3   By fourteen votes to two Finds that no compensation is due from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea with regard to the claim concerning material injury allegedly suffered by Mr  Diallo as a result of a loss of professional remuneration during his unlawful detentions and following his unlawful expulsion  in favour  President  Tomka  Vice-President Sepúlveda‑Amor  Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Green­wood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde  Judge ad hoc Mampuya  against  Judge Yusuf  Judge ad hoc Mahiou  4  Unanimously Finds that no compensation is due from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea with regard to the claim concerning material injury allegedly suffered by Mr  Diallo as a result of a deprivation of potential earnings  5  Unanimously Decides that the total amount of compensation due under points 1 and 2 above shall be paid by 31 August 2012 and that in case it has not been paid by this date interest on the principal sum due from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea will accrue as from 1 September 2012 at an annual rate of 6 per cent  6   By fifteen votes to one Rejects the claim of the Republic of Guinea concerning the costs incurred in the proceedings 25 6 CIJ1032 indb 47 26 11 13 09 37 ahmadou sadio diallo judgment 346 in favour  President  Tomka  Vice-President Sepúlveda‑Amor  Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde  Judge ad hoc ­Mampuya  against  Judge ad hoc Mahiou Done in French and in English the French text being authoritative at the Peace Palace The Hague this nineteenth day of June two thousand and twelve in three copies one of which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Republic of Guinea and the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo respectively Signed  Peter Tomka President Signed  Philippe Couvreur Registrar Judge Cançado Trindade appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court  Judges Yusuf and Greenwood append declarations to the Judgment of the Court  Judges ad hoc Mahiou and Mampuya append separate opinions to the Judgment of the Court Initialled   P T Initialled  Ph C 26 6 CIJ1032 indb 49 26 11 13 09 37