Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 411
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
412 eritrea/ethiopia
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
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 413
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 .
414 eritrea/ethiopia
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 .
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 415
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 .
416 eritrea/ethiopia
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 .
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 417
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) .
418 eritrea/ethiopia
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
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 419
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)
420 eritrea/ethiopia
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
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 421
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 .
422 eritrea/ethiopia
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 .
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 423
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
424 eritrea/ethiopia
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 .
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 425
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)
426 eritrea/ethiopia
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 .
PartXI—DiplomaticClaim ethiopia’sclaim8 427
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 .
428 eritrea/ethiopia
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