EEBC: Eritrea & Ethiopia's Claims & Awards

a. The claims for indirect displacement are inadmissible in this Claim to the extent that they relate to the previously adjudicated Western Front or Central Front.

b. The claims for indirect displacement that relate to the Eastern Front are admissible and within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

a. All claims for indirect displacement relating to the Eastern Front are dismissed for failure of proof of violation of international law.

b. The Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the unlawful displacement of all the residents of Awgaro in violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV.

c. All other claims presented in this Claim are dismissed for failure of proof.

A. Award in Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5 and 9–13: Western Front

1. Jurisdiction

All claims asserted in these Western Front Claims are within the jurisdiction of the

Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

The Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the following violations of international

law committed by its military personnel or by other officials of the State of Ethiopia:

a. For permitting looting and burning of buildings and destruction of livestock in

the town of Teseney during May and June 2000;

b. For permitting looting and burning of houses and destruction of livestock in the village of Alighidir and the burning and detonation of the nearby cotton factory and its stored cotton during May and June 2000;

c. For permitting looting and burning of structures and destruction of livestock in the town of Guluj during May and June 2000, Ethiopia is liable for 90% (ninety percent) of the total loss and damage to property in Guluj during that time;

d. For permitting looting in the village of Talbadia during June 2000;

e. For permitting looting in the village of Gergef during June 2000;

f. For permitting looting and stripping of buildings and destruction of livestock in Omhajer from May 16, 2000 until the departure of the last Ethiopian forces in September 2000, Ethiopia is liable for 75% (seventy-five percent) of the total property damage in Omhajer during that time;

g. For permitting breaking, entering and looting of houses, business establishments and government buildings in the town of Barentu during its occupation from May 18 to 26, 2000;

h. For the destruction of the police station, the courthouse, the Gash-Setit Hotel and Conference Center, and a bakery in the town of Barentu during its occupation;

i. For permitting looting of buildings and destruction of the police station in the town of Tokombia, and the destruction of the nearby Rothman tobacco plant, during its occupation in May 2000;

j. For permitting looting of buildings in Molki Sub-Zoba on May 15 to 16, 2000;

and

k. For failure to take effective measures to prevent the rape of women in the towns of Barentu and Teseney.

l. All other claims presented in the Western Front Claims are dismissed.

B. Award in Eritrea’s Claim 26: Unlawful Aerial Bombardment

1. Jurisdiction

a. Claims of unlawful aerial bombardment that were timely filed by the Claimant in other Claims submitted to the Commission that have not previously been decided by the Commission will be admitted in this Claim to the exclusion of the Claims in which they were filed.

b. This claim, as thus expanded and restated by the Claimant as a claim that the Respondent conducted an unlawful, indiscriminate and disproportionate bombing campaign, is within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

a. The provisions of Geneva Protocol I relevant to this Claim, which are found in

Articles 48, 51, 52, 57 and 58 of that Protocol, expressed customary international humanitarian law during the 1998–2000 armed conflict between the Parties.

b. The claim that Ethiopia conducted an indiscriminate and disproportionate bombing campaign in violation of the relevant provisions of customary international humanitarian law fails for lack of proof.

c. The provisions of Article 54 of Geneva Protocol I that prohibit attack against drinking water installations and supplies that are indispensable to the survival of the civilian population for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the adverse Party had become customary international humanitarian law by 1999.

d. The aerial bombing attacks by the Respondent in February 1999 and June 2000 against the Harsile water reservoir were in violation of customary international humanitarian law.

e. As no damage to the Harsile water reservoir has been shown, the finding of violation of law, by itself, shall represent satisfaction to the Claimant.

f. All other claims presented in this Claim are dismissed.

C. Award in Eritrea’s Claim 25: Aerial Bombardment of Hirgigo Power

Station

1. Jurisdiction

The Commission has jurisdiction over this Claim.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

The Claim is dismissed on the merits.

D. Award in Eritrea’s Claim 14: Preventing Displaced Persons from

Returning

1. Jurisdiction

All portions of this Claim based on events subsequent to December 12, 2000 and all

portions based on acts within the Temporary Security Zone are dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

To the extent any part of this Claim involves actions prior to December 12, 2000

outside of the Temporary Security Zone, it is dismissed for failure of proof.

E. Award in Eritrea’s Claim 21: Displacement of Civilians

1. Jurisdiction

a. The claims for indirect displacement are inadmissible in this Claim to the extent that they relate to the previously adjudicated Western Front or Central Front.

b. The claims for indirect displacement that relate to the Eastern Front are admissible and within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

a. All claims for indirect displacement relating to the Eastern Front are dismissed for failure of proof of violation of international law.

b. The Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the unlawful displacement of all the residents of Awgaro in violation of Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV.

c. All other claims presented in this Claim are dismissed for failure of proof.

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

FINAL AWARD

Pensions

Eritrea’s Claims 15, 19 & 23

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

The Hague, December 19, 2005

VII. AWARD

In view of the foregoing, Eritrea’s Claim 19, and the pension-related portions of

Eritrea’s Claims 15 and 23, are dismissed on the merits.

[Remainder of page purposely left blank.]

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Diplomatic Claim

Eritrea’s Claim 20

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

The Hague, December 19, 2005

IV. AWARD

In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines as follows:

A. Jurisdiction

1. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over claims that were not filed by December 12, 2001, and hence were extinguished. Consequently the Commission dismisses the following claims for lack of jurisdiction:

a. all claims relating to the Eritrean Consulates in Mekelle and Aysa’ita;

and

b. claims that the Respondent restricted Eritrean Embassy funds and enforced court judgments against Embassy accounts.

2. The Commission also dismisses as outside its temporal jurisdiction the claims

that the Eritean Chargé d’Affaires was detained briefly at Ethiopian intelligence headquarters in 2001 and his luggage was searched when he departed Ethiopia in 2003.

3. The Claimant’s requests for remedies other than monetary compensation were

not shown to meet the requirements of Commission Decision No. 3 and are denied.

4. All other claims asserted in this proceeding are within the jurisdiction of the

Commission.

B. Applicable Law

As agreed by the Parties, the primary applicable law is the Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which largely codifies customary law.

C. Evidentiary Issues

The Commission requires clear and convincing evidence to establish the liability of a

Party for violations of applicable international law.

D. Findings on Liability for Violation of International Law

1.The Respondent is liable for violating Articles 36 and 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in the course of the departure of Eritrean diplomatic personnel from the Addis Ababa airport in May 1998 by attempting to search the Ambassador’s person, searching his hand luggage, confiscating papers from his briefcase and interfering with his checked luggage, and also by searching other departing diplomats and their luggage, without regard to their diplomatic immunity.

2. The Respondent is liable for violating Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Relations by entering, ransacking, searching and seizing the Eritrean Embassy Residence, as well as official vehicles and other property, without Eritrea’s consent.

3. All other claims presented in this case are dismissed.

[Remainder of page purposely left blank.]

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Loss of Property in Ethiopia

Owned by Non-Residents

Eritrea’s Claim 24

between

The State of Eritrea

and

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

The Hague, December 19, 2005

V. AWARD

In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines as follows:

A. Jurisdiction

1. Eritrea’s claims based on injuries to non-nationals made for Eritrea’s own

account, and not on behalf of the affected individuals, are outside the Commission’s

jurisdiction.

2. The Commission has jurisdiction with respect to claims involving persons who are dual nationals with the nationality of Eritrea and of a third State. Where dual nationals

hold both Eritrean and Ethiopian nationality, the Commission will apply the test of dominant and effective nationality for purposes of determining its jurisdiction.

3. Eritrea’s request for a finding of liability concerning Eritrean drivers and their

assistants detained in Ethiopia has been addressed in the Partial Award in Eritrea’s Civilians Claims and is not admissible in this Claim.

4. Eritrea’s claims for damages relating to diversion of Eritrea-bound cargo were

not timely filed and are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.

B. Findings on Liability for Violations of International Law

The Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the following violations of international

law involving acts or omissions by its civilian officials, military personnel or others for

whose conduct it is responsible:

1. For failing to provide full compensation for trucks and buses owned by Eritreans that were requisitioned by Ethiopia during the conflict and were not returned to their owners.

2. For creating and facilitating a cumulative network of economic measures, some lawful and others not, that collectively resulted in the loss of all or most of the businesses and immovable property in Ethiopia of non-resident Eritreans, contrary to Ethiopia’s duty to ensure the protection of aliens’ assets.

3. All other claims presented in this case are dismissed.

[Remainder of page purposely left blank.]

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Western and Eastern Fronts

Ethiopia’s Claims 1 & 3

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

The Hague, December 19, 2005

F. Award

In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines as follows:

1. Jurisdiction

a. All claims asserted in this case are within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

b. Ethiopa’s claims for abduction, forced labor and conscription are admissible

and within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

The Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the following violations of international

law committed by its military personnel or by other officials of the State of Eritrea:

a. For permitting intentional and indiscriminate killings of civilians in Dalul and

Elidar Weredas from June 11, 1998 to December 12, 2000;

b. For failure to take effective measures to prevent the rape of women in Dalul

and Elidar Weredas;

c. For permitting beatings of civilians in Dalul and Elidar Weredas;

d. For permitting the looting and destruction of property in Dalul and Elidar

Weredas; and

e. For abduction, forced labor and conscription of civilians in Dalul Wereda.

f. All other claims presented in the Eastern Front Claim are dismissed.

VIII. COMBINED AWARD SECTIONS

A. Award in Ethiopia’s Claim 1: Western Front

1. Jurisdiction

All claims asserted in this case are within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

The Respondent is liable to the Claimant for the following violations of international

law committed by its military personnel or by other officials of the State of Eritrea:

a. For permitting frequent beatings of civilians in Tahtay Adiabo Wereda;

b. For permitting the frequent abduction of Ethiopian civilians from Tahtay

Adiabo Wereda to Eritrea and for unexplained disappearances;

c. For permitting the looting of property in areas in Tahtay Adiabo Wereda

occupied by Eritrean armed forces;

d. For permitting the frequent abduction of Ethiopian civilians from Laeley

Adiabo Wereda to Eritrea and for unexplained disappearances;

e. For permitting the looting of property, in particular livestock, in areas in

Laeley Adiabo Wereda occupied by Eritrean armed forces;

f. For permitting the frequent abduction of Ethiopian civilians from Kafta

Humera Wereda to Eritrea and for unexplained disappearances; and

g. For permitting the looting of property and livestock in areas in Kafta Humera

Adiabo Wereda where Eritrean armed forces were present.

h. All other claims presented in the Western Front Claim are dismissed.

B. Award in Ethiopia’s Claim 3: Eastern Front

1. Jurisdiction

a. All claims asserted in this case are within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

b. Ethiopia’s claims for abduction, forced labor and conscription are admissible

and within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

2. Findings of Liability for Violations of International Law

a. For permitting intentional and indiscriminate killings of civilians in Dalul and

Elidar Weredas from June 11, 1998 to December 12, 2000;

b. For failure to take effective measures to prevent the rape of women in Dalul

and Elidar Weredas;

c. For permitting beatings of civilians in Dalul and Elidar Weredas;

d. For permitting the looting and destruction of property in Dalul and Elidar

Weredas; and

e. For abduction, forced labor and conscription of civilians in Dalul Wereda.

f. All other claims presented in the Eastern Front Claim are dismissed.

[Remainder of page purposely left blank.]

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

FINAL AWARD

Ports

Ethiopia’s Claim 6

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

The Hague, December 19, 2005

V. AWARD

For the foregoing reasons, Ethiopia’s Claim 6 is dismissed.

[Remainder of page purposely left blank.]

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Economic Loss Throughout Ethiopia

Ethiopia’s Claim 7

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

The Hague, December 19, 2005

V. AWARD

In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines as follows:

1. The Commission has jurisdiction to decide alleged violations of international

law relating to a breach of the jus ad bellum.

2. Ethiopia’s claims for economic damages allegedly suffered as the legal

consequence of Eritrea’s violation of the jus ad bellum in May 1998 are not admissible at this stage of the Commission’s proceedings and will be considered at the next stage of the

proceedings. Accordingly, Ethiopia’s claims for the following types of damages are not now admissible:

a. for damage allegedly suffered by Ethiopian Airlines, except for claims involving alleged takings of property;

b. for damage allegedly associated with loss of tourism;

c. for declines in international development assistance;

d. for loss, damage and injury allegedly suffered by Ethiopia’s Road Authority;

e. for loss of tax revenues;

f. for decline in foreign and domestic investment; and

g. for reconstruction and rehabilitation expenses.

3. The claim for taking of office furniture and equipment contained in Ethiopian

Airlines’ offices in Asmara and Assab is dismissed for failure of proof.

4. The five agreements invoked by Ethiopia were at the least suspended because

of the war, and Ethiopia’s claims for economic losses because of alleged violations of those treaties are dismissed on the merits.

[Remainder of page purposely left blank.]

ERITREA ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Diplomatic Claim

Ethiopia’s Claim 8

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

The Hague, December 19, 2005

V. AWARD

In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines as follows:

A. Jurisdiction

a. claims that Eritrean security agents harassed and arrested Embassy visitors before March 1999;

b. the claim that four rocks were thrown into the Embassy compound on August 7, 1998;

c. claims that Eritrean security agents entered the Embassy compound without Ethiopian authorization in May or June 1998;

d. claims for Eritrea’s placement of a bus stop near the main gate of the Embassy;

e. claims that private merchants in Asmara refused to transact business with Embassy employees;

f. claims that Eritrea interfered with recruitment of local Embassy staff in March 2001; and

g. all claims relating to the Ethiopian Consulate in Assab, including allegations that Eritrea refused to facilitate the repatriation of consular staff, restricted the consular staff’s freedom of movement and communication, closed the Consulate, and seized consular property.

2. The Commission also dismisses the following claims because they concern events allegedly occurring after December 2000, which do not fall within its temporal