REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Partial Award, Prisoners of war—Ethiopia’s Claim 4, Decision of 1 July 2003 Sentence partielle, Prisonniers de guerre—Réclamation

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS

RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES

Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Prisoners of War - Ethiopia's Claim 4

1 July 2003

XXVI pp. 73-114VOLUME

NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009

ParT iii

Partial Award Prisoners of War—Ethiopia’s Claim 4

Decision of 1 July 2003

Sentence partielle Prisonniers de guerre—Réclamation de l’Éthiopie No 4

Décision du 1er juillet 2003

PartialAward,Prisonersofwar—Ethiopia’sClaim4,Decisionof1July2003

Sentencepartielle,Prisonniersdeguerre—Réclamationdel’ÉthiopieNo4,Décisiondu1erJuillet2003

Jurisdiction of the Commission—determination of the liability of States forbreachesofinternationalobligations—liabilityonlyforserious�iolationsofinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawaffectingse�eral�ictims—liabilityengagedonlyforsystem-atic,frequentandrecurring�iolations—nojurisdictiono�erindi�idualcrimes—nojurisdictiono�erclaimsextinguishedbytheexpirationoftheclaimsfilingdeadline .

Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—Eritreasubjecttocustomaryinterna-tionalhumanitarianrulesbeforebecomingapartytoGene�aCon�entions—custom-arystatusofinternationalhumanitarianrulesasexemplifiedbytheGene�aCon�en-tions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofaGene�aCon�ention .

Successiontotreaties—noautomaticsuccessiontoGene�aCon�entionsbyErit-reaafteritsseparationfromEthiopia—rebuttaloftheusualpresumptioninfa�ourofsuccessionin�iewofthestatementsofEritrea .

Customary international humanitarian law principles—training soldiers torespectrulesgo�erningtreatmentofPOWs—pre�enting�iolations—in�estigatingandprosecuting�iolationsthatoccurred .

TreatmentofPOWs—treatmentofPOWsashumanbeings—legalobligationtokeepPOWsali�eandingoodhealth—standardofmedicalcarecontingentonthecircumstancesandequipmenta�ailable—liabilityoccurringfromthelackofinquiryordisciplinaryactionregardingabuseofPOWs—absenceofliabilityoccurringfromharshconditionsofe�acuationofPOWsalsoenduredbytroops—obligingPOWstowalkbarefootduringe�acuationsconsideredasinhumanetreatment—liabilityarisingfrompermittingcoerci�einterrogations—requirementofconditionsofdetentionasfa�ourableasthoseforState’stroopsaccommodation—liabilityarisingfromsubstand-ardconditionsofdetentionseriouslyendangeringthehealthofprisoners—highdeathratecombinedwithseriousdeficienciesintheconditionsofdetentionconsideredase�idenceofalackofbasicmedicalcare—scarcityoffinancialresourcesandinfrastruc-turenotanacceptableexcuseforthelackofmedicalcare—liabilityarisingfromforcedlabourimposedonPOWs,moreo�erunderharshconditions—roadconstructionandcampfacilitiesbuildingnotconsideredofmilitarycharacter—customarystatusoftheobligationtopostthecampregulationsandtoconferarighttocomplaintoPOWs .

RightofaccessoftheInternationalComitteeoftheRedCrosstothecamps—necessitytopro�ideexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWs—rightofsuchscru-tinybasedoncustomaryinternational law—necessitytoguaranteelegalregimeofprotectiontoPOWs—rightofaccess�iewednotasaproceduralpro�isionbutasanessentialpartoftheregimeofprotection—denialofaccesswithoutanyotheralterna-ti�econsideredabreachofinternationallaw .

76 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

Questionofe�idence—requirementofclearandcon�incinge�idenceforcrimesofacertaingra�ity—burdenofproofontheclaimant—creditaccordedtocumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonies—uncertainprobati�e�alueofquestionnairesandformsforfilingclaims—exclusi�erelianceontheformalsigneddeclarationssubmittedbyeachParty,thereaftersupplementedbytestimonyatthehearingandotherdocu-ments—refusaltoacceptwrittene�idencenottranslatedintoEnglish,soleworkinglanguageoftheCommission—requirementoffirst-handtestimonies—requirementoforganised,completeandrele�antdocumentationinwrittenform .

Compétencede laCommission—déterminationdes responsabilitésétatiquespour�iolationsd’obligationsinternationales—responsabilitélimitéeaux�iolationsimportantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—respon-sabilitéuniquementengagéepourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécur-rentes—absencedecompétencequantauxcomportementscriminelsindi�iduels—absencedecompétencequantauxréclamationséteintesdufaitdeleursoumissionhors-délai .

Droiten�igueurpendantleconflitarmé—Érythréesoumiseauxrèglesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumiera�antmêmedede�enirPartieauxCon�entionsdeGenè�e—caractèrecoutumierderègleshumanitairesinternationalestelqu’illustréparlesCon�entionsdeGenè�e—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurl’Étatréfutantlecara-ctèrecoutumierd’unedispositionparticulièredel’unedesCon�entionsdeGenè�e .

Successionauxtraités—absencedesuccessionautomatiquedel’ÉrythréeauxCon�entionsdeGenè�eaprèssaséparationd’a�ecl’Éthiopie—réfutationdelaprésomp-tionhabituelleenfa�eurdelasuccessionrésultantdesdéclarationsdel’Érythrée .

Principesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumier—formationdessoldatsàrespecterlesrèglesrelati�esautraitementdesprisonniers—pré�entiondesinfrac-tions—in�estigationetpoursuitedes�iolationsayanteulieu .

Traitement des prisonniers—traitement des prisonniers comme des êtreshumains—qualitédessoinsmédicauxdépendantdescirconstancesetdel’équipementdisponible—responsabilitéengagéepourlemanqued’in�estigationoud’actiondis-ciplinairepourlessé�icesinfligésauxprisonniers—absencederesponsabilitépourdesconditionsrigoureusesd’é�acuationdesprisonnierségalementenduréesparlessoldats—assimilationdel’obligationpourlesprisonniersdemarcherpieds-nuslorsdesé�acuationsàuntraitementinhumain—responsabilitéengagéepourl’autorisationd’interrogatoires coercitifs—exigence de conditions de détention aussi fa�orablesquelesconditionsd’hébergementdessoldatsdel’État—responsabilitéengagéeparl’existence de mau�aises conditions de détention mettant sérieusement en dangerla santé des prisonniers—considération d’un fort taux de mortalité combiné à desérieuseslacunesauni�eaudesconditionsdedétentioncommeunepreu�edemanquedepriseenchargemédicale—réfutationdel’argumentselonlequell’insuffisancederessourcesfinancièresetd’infrastructuresseraituneexcuseacceptablepourlemanquedepriseenchargemédicale—responsabilitéengagéeparletra�ailforcéimposéauxprisonniers,quiplusestdansdesconditionstrèsdures—tra�auxdeconstructionderoutesetd’équipementspourlecampnonconsidéréscommeétantdenaturemili-taire—obligationdenaturecoutumièred’afficherlerèglementducampetd’accorderundroitdeplainteauxprisonniers .

PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 77

Droitd’accèsduComitéInternationaldelaCroix-Rougeauxcamps—néces-sitéd’assurerunexamenimpartialdutraitementdesprisonniers—droitàl’examenfondésurledroitcoutumier—nécessitédegarantirlerégimedeprotectionjuridiquedesprisonniers—droitd’accèsconsidérécommeunecomposanteessentielledusys-tèmedeprotectionetnoncommeunedispositiond’ordreprocédural—refusd’accèssansautrealternati�econsidérécommeune�iolationdudroitinternational .

Questiondespreu�es—nécessitédepreu�esclairesetcon�aincantespour lescrimesd’unecertainegra�ité—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurleplaignant—créditaccordéauxtémoignagescumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—�aleurprobanteincertainedesquestionnairesetdesformulairesdesoumissionderéclamations—créditexclusifaccordéauxdéclarationsformellesetsignéessoumisesparchaquePartie,parlasuitecomplétéesparuntémoignagelorsdesaudiencesainsiquepard’autresdocu-ments—exigencedetémoignagesdepremièremain—exigenced’unedocumentationorganisée,complèteetpertinente,sousformeécrite .

ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION

PARTIAL AWARD

Prisoners of War Ethiopia’s Claim 4

between

The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

and

The State of Eritrea

BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:

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

TheHague,July1,2003

78 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

ParTial aWard—Prisoners of War—ethiopia’s Claim 4 between the Claimant,

The federal democratic republic of ethiopia, represented by:

Government of EthiopiaHisExcellencyMr .SeyoumMesfin,MinisterofForeignAffairsofthe

FederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AgentHisExcellencyAmbassadorFissehaYimer,PermanentRepresentati�eof

theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,Gene�a,Co-Agent

Mr .SeifeselassieLemma,Minister,PermanentMissionof theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,NewYork

Mr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFed-eralDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbaba

Counsel and ConsultantsMr .B .Dono�anPicard,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,Member

of theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

Mr .W .DeVierPierson,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,Memberof theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

ProfessorSeanD .Murphy,GeorgeWashingtonUni�ersityLawSchool,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheStateBarofMaryland

Mr .KnoxBemis,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates

Ms .LynnM .VanBuren,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofWisconsin

Mr .MichaelMcDonald,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .and the respondent,

The state of eritrea, represented by:

Government of EritreaHisExcellency,AliSaidAbdela,MinisterofForeignAffairs,Agentfor

theGo�ernmentofEritreaProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-AgentfortheGo�ernmentofEritrea

Counsel and ConsultantsProfessorJamesCrawfordMr .PayamAkha�anMs .SemharAraiaMs .MeganMunzertMs .AmandaJones


Table of ConTenTs

I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80B . TheEritreanPOWCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80C . GeneralComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

II . Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

III . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

A . Jurisdictiono�erClaimsArisingSubsequenttoDecember12,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

B . Jurisdictiono�erClaimsNotFiledbyDecember12,2001 . . . . 83

IV . TheMerits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

A . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

1 . QuantumofProofRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 . ProofofFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 . E�idenceundertheControloftheICRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

C . ViolationsoftheLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901 . OrganizationalComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902 . Eritrea’sRefusaltoPermittheICRCtoVisitPOWs . . . . . . . 923 . MistreatmentofPOWsatCaptureanditsImmediateAf-

termath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944 . PhysicalandMentalAbuseinPOWCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 . UnhealthyConditionsinCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 . InadequateMedicalCareinCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047 . UnlawfulConditionsofLabor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 . ConditionsofTransferBetweenCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 . TreatmentoftheDead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11010 .FailuretoPostCampRulesandAllowComplaints . . . . . . . 111

V . Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113D . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . . 113E . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

80 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

i. introductiona. summary of the Positions of the Parties

1 . ThisClaim(“Ethiopia’sClaim4;”“ET04”)hasbeenbroughttotheCommissionbytheClaimant,theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .TheClaimseeksafindingoftheliabilityoftheRespondent,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”),forloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimantasaresultoftheRespond-ent’sallegedunlawfultreatmentofitsPrisonersofWar(“POWs”)whowerenationalsoftheClaimant .InitsStatementofClaim,theClaimantrequestedmonetarycompensation,andinitsMemorial,itproposedthatcompensationbedeterminedbyamassclaimsprocessbaseduponthefi�epermanentcampsinwhichthosePOWswereheld .

2 . TheRespondentassertsthatitfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitstreatmentofPOWs .

b. The eritrean PoW Camps

3 . Eritreainternedatotalofapproximately1,100EthiopianPOWs,�ir-tuallyallmale,betweenthestartoftheconflictinMay1998andAugust2002,whentheremainingEthiopianPOWsregisteredbytheInternationalCommit-teeoftheRedCross(“ICRC”)werereleased .

4 . Eritreautilizedfi�epermanentcamps,someonlybriefly:Barentu,Embakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfa(alsoknownasSahel) .Eritreautilizedthesecampsoneaftertheotherand,withtheexceptionofBarentu,closedeachcampupontransferofthePOWstothenextcamp .

5 . EritreausedfacilitiesatBadme,Asmara,TesseneyandBarentuastran-sitcampsduringe�acuationoftheEthiopianPOWsfromthe�ariousfronts .POWsweretypicallyheldinthetransitcampsforse�eraldaysorweeks .

6 . Inthefirstdaysoftheconflict,Eritreacapturedapproximately100EthiopianPOWsandheldthemforaboutthreedaysinabuildinginBadme .FromBadme,theyweretransferredtoBarentu .

7 . EritreausedBarentuasapermanentPOWcampforapproximate-lyfi�eweeksinMayandJune1998 .Barentuwaslocatedsomefortykilom-etersnorthwestofwheretheEritrea-EthiopiabordercoincideswiththeMaiAmbessaRi�er .BarenturemainedinuseasatransitcampuntilatleastMay16,2000 .

8 . Eritreaoperateditssecondpermanentcamp,Embakala, forthreemonths between June and September 1998 . Embakala was located someninetymilesnorthoftheborderandsixteenkilometersnortheastofAsmara .


Approximately140POWswereinternedatEmbakala,includingthosetrans-ferredfromBarentuandotherscapturedontheCentralFront .

9 . InSeptember1998,EritreatransferredthePOWsfromEmbakalatoitsthirdpermanentcamp,Digdigta .TheywereheldinDigdigtauntilJuly1999,sometenmonths .Digdigtawaslocatedapproximately120kilometersnorthoftheborderandthirty-fi�ekilometersnorthwestofAsmara .Eritreaalsotrans-ferredEthiopianPOWstoDigdigtafromatransitcampnearAsmara,whichwasopenfromJune1998throughJuly2000 .Atotalofapproximately600EthiopianPOWswereinternedatDigdigta .

10 . Eritreautilizeditsfourthpermanentcamp,Afabet,fromJuly1999toMay2000 .Afabetwaslocatedabout200kilometersnorthoftheborderand100kilometersnorthwestofAsmara .InadditiontothePOWsfromDigdigta,EritreatransferrednewPOWstoAfabetfromthetransitcampatBarentu .Inall,approximately800EthiopianPOWswereinternedatAfabet .

11 . FollowingEthiopia’sMay2000offensi�e,Eritreamo�edthePOWsfromAfabettothefifthandfinalpermanentPOWcampatNakfa .Nakfaisinamountainousregiono�er260kilometersnorthoftheborderand170kilom-etersnorthwestofAsmara,justoutsidethetownofNakfa .EritreatransferredadditionalprisonerstoNakfafromthetransitcampnearTesseney,approxi-matelytwenty-fi�ekilometersfromtheSudanborder .AccordingtotheICRCListofRegisteredEthiopianPOWs,Eritreainternedatotalof1,017POWsatNakfa .EritreausedNakfauntilAugust2002,whentheremainingprisonersregisteredwiththeICRCwerereleasedandrepatriated .

C. General Comment12 . AsthefindingsinthisAwardandintherelatedAwardinEritrea’s

Claim17describe,thereweresignificantdifficultiesinbothParties’perform-anceofimportantlegalobligationsfortheprotectionofprisonersofwar .Ne�-ertheless,theCommissionmustrecordanimportantpreliminarypointthatpro�idesessentialcontextforwhatfollows .Basedontheextensi�ee�idenceadducedduringtheseproceedings,theCommissionbelie�esthatbothPartieshadacommitmenttothemostfundamentalprinciplesbearingonprisonersofwar .Bothpartiesconductedorganized,officialtrainingprogramstoinstructtheirtroopsonprocedurestobefollowedwhenPOWsaretaken .Incontrasttomanyothercontemporaryarmedconflicts,bothEritreaandEthiopiaregu-larlyandconsistentlytookPOWs .Enemypersonnelwhowerehorsdecombatweremo�edawayfromthebattlefieldtoconditionsofgreatersafety .Further,althoughthesecasesin�ol�etwoofthepoorestcountriesintheworld,bothmadesignificanteffortstopro�ideforthesustenanceandcareofthePOWsintheircustody .

13 . Thereweredeficienciesofperformanceonbothsides,sometimessignificant, occasionally gra�e . Ne�ertheless, the e�idence in these casesshowsthatbothEritreaandEthiopiaendea�oredtoobser�etheirfundamen-

82 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

talhumanitarianobligationstocollectandprotectenemysoldiersunabletoresistonthebattlefield .TheAwardsinthesecases,andthedifficultiesthattheyidentify,mustbereadagainstthisbackground .

ii. Proceedings14 . TheCommissioninformedthePartiesonAugust29,2001thatit

intendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerning liability,andsecond, if liability is found,con-cerningdamages .ThisClaimwasfiledonDecember12,2001 .AStatementofDefensewasfiledonApril15,2002 .TheClaimant’sMemorialwasfiledonAugust1,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialwasfiledonNo�em-ber1,2002 .AhearingontheissueofliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceinDecember2002inconjunctionwithahearingintherelatedClaim17oftheStateofEritrea .

iii. Jurisdiction

a. Jurisdiction over Claims arising subsequent to december 12, 2000

15 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementdefinesthejurisdictionoftheCommission .Itpro�ides,inter alia,thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforallloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�-ernmentagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconflictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”

16 . InthisClaim,asinEritrea’sClaim17,eachPartycontendsthattheother’streatmentofPOWsfollowingtheoutbreakofhostilitiesinMay1998didnotmeetgo�erningstandardsofinternationallaw .BothClaimsproceedfromthepremise,whichtheCommissionfullyshares,thattheAgreementclearlyestablishestheCommission’sjurisdictiono�erclaimsregardingthetreatmentofPOWsintheperiodafterhostilitiesbeganinMay1998untiltheconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000 .ClaimsrelatingtothetreatmentofPOWsduringthatperiodclearlyrelatetotheconflict;areforloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�ernmentagainsttheother;andin�ol�ealleged�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .

17 . EthiopiamaintainedinthisClaimandinEritrea’srelatedClaim17thattheAgreementdoesnotgranttheCommissionjurisdictiono�erclaimsbaseduponthetreatmentofPOWsthatarosesubsequenttoDecember12,2000,includingclaimsfordelaysintheirrepatriation .Consequently,Ethiopiamadenoclaimsofthatsort .Howe�er,initsMemorialinthisClaimanddur-ingthehearing,Ethiopiaassertedthat,shouldtheCommissiondeterminethatithasjurisdictiono�er�iolationsoftherequirementofrepatriationof


POWswithoutdelayafterthecessationofacti�ehostilitiesfoundincustomaryinternationallawandinArticle118oftheGene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,August12,1949(“Gene�aCon�entionIII”),1“theCommissionshouldalsofindthatEritreafailedtorepatriateEthiopianPOWswithallduedispatchinaccordancewiththejus in bello.”2

18 . InitsPartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17oftoday’sdate,theCom-mission finds that it has jurisdiction o�er Eritrea’s claims concerning therepatriationofPOWs .Consequently,asamatteroftemporaljurisdiction,theCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erclaimsbyeitherPartybaseduponallegeddelaysinrepatriationofPOWs .

b. Jurisdiction over Claims not filed by december 12, 2001

19 . Itwillberecalledthat,inresponsetoEritrea’sClaim17,EthiopiachallengedthejurisdictionoftheCommissiono�erse�eralclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialwhich,Ethiopiaasserted,werenotincludedinErit-rea’sStatementofClaimonDecember12,2001,andconsequentlywereextin-guishedbythetermsofArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreement .ThePartiesagreethattheAgreementextinguishedanyclaimsnotfiledwiththeCommis-sionbythatdate .InitsPartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17oftoday’sdate,theCommissionholdsthatthreeclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialhadnotbeenfiledinitsStatementofDefenseandconsequentlywereextinguishedandcouldnotbeconsideredbytheCommission .

20 . ThesameholdingmustbemadewithrespecttoEthiopia’sclaimconcerningrepatriation,whichwasnotfiledbyDecember12,2001,andcon-sequentlyhasbeenextinguishedby�irtuebyArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreement .

21 . AllotherclaimsassertedbyEthiopiainthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission,includingtheclaimconcerningdelayedaccessbytheICRCtoEthiopianPOWsthatEritreaarguedwaslatefiled .

iV. The merits

a. applicable law22 . Article5,paragraph13,oftheAgreementpro�idesthat“inconsid-

eringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedureismodeledonthefamiliar

1 75U .N .T .S .p .135;6U .S .T .p .3316 .2 Ethiopia’sClaim4,PrisonersofWar,Memorial,filedbyEthiopiaonAugust1,

2000,p .283[hereinafterET04MEM] .

84 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

languageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice .ItdirectstheCommissiontolookto:

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

2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;

3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;

4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .

23 . Themostob�iouslyrele�antsourceoflawforthepresentAwardisGene�aCon�entionIII .BothPartiesreferextensi�elytothatCon�entionintheirpleadings,andthee�idencedemonstratesthatbothPartiesrelieduponitfortheinstructionoftheirarmedforcesandfortherulesofthecampsinwhichtheyheldPOWs .ThePartiesagreethattheCon�entionwasapplicablefromAugust14,2000,thedateofEritrea’saccession,buttheydisagreeastoitsapplicabilitypriortothatdate .

24 . EthiopiasignedthefourGene�aCon�entionsin1949andratifiedthemin1969 .Consequently,theywereinforceinEthiopiain1993whenErit-reabecameanindependentState .SuccessorStatesoftenseektomaintainsta-bilityoftreatyrelationshipsafteremergingfromwithinthebordersofanotherStatebyannouncingtheirsuccessiontosomeorallofthetreatiesapplicablepriortotheirindependence .Indeed,treatysuccessionmayhappenautomati-callyforcertaintypesoftreaties .3Howe�er, theCommissionhasnotbeenshowne�idencethatwouldpermitittofindthatsuchautomaticsuccessiontotheGene�aCon�entionsoccurredintheexceptionalcircumstanceshere,desirablethoughsuchsuccessionwouldbeasageneralmatter .FromthetimeofitsindependencefromEthiopiain1993,seniorEritreanofficialsmadeclearthatEritreadidnotconsideritselfboundbytheGene�aCon�entions .

25 . Duringtheperiodofthearmedconflictandpriortotheseproceed-ings,EthiopialikewiseconsistentlymaintainedthatEritreawasnotapartytotheGene�aCon�entions .4TheICRC,whichhasaspecialinterestandrespon-

3 CaseconcerningtheGabcíko�o-NagymarosProject(Hung ./Slo�k .),1997I .C .J .p .7para .123(Sept .25) .

4 BothpartiesreferredtotheStatementbyMr .MinelikAlemu,Obser�erforEthio-piaattheFiftiethSessionoftheU .N .Sub-CommissiononthePre�entionofDiscrimina-tionandProtectionofMinoritiesunderItem10on“FreedomofMo�ement”intheExer-ciseoftheRightofReply(Gene�a,August24,1998),available at<http://www .ethemb .se/s980824_2 .htm> .SeeET04MEMp .34note97,p .57note241,p .146note616;ProfessorBrilmayer,TranscriptoftheEritrea/EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofDecember3-14,2002,PeacePalace,TheHague,p .62[hereinafterTranscript] .


sibilityforpromotingcompliancewiththeGene�aCon�entions,likewisedidnotatthattimeregardEritreaasapartytotheCon�entions .5

26 . Thus,itise�identthatwhenEritreaseparatedfromEthiopiain1993ithadaclearopportunitytomakeastatementofitssuccessiontotheCon�en-tions,butthee�idenceshowsthatitrefusedtodoso .Itconsistentlyrefusedtodososubsequently,andin2000,whenitdecidedtobecomeapartytotheCon�entions,itdidsobyaccession,notbysuccession .Whileitmaybethatcontinuityoftreatyrelationshipsoftencanbepresumed,absentfactstothecontrary,nosuchpresumptioncouldproperlybemadeinthepresentcasein�iewofthesefacts .Theseunusualcircumstancesrenderthepresentsituation�erydifferentfromthataddressedintheJudgementbytheAppealsChamberoftheInternationalTribunalfortheFormerYugosla�iaintheČelebići Case.6ItisclearherethatneitherEritrea,EthiopianorthedepositoryoftheCon�en-tions,theSwissFederalCouncil,consideredEritreaapartytotheCon�entionsuntilitaccededtothemonAugust14,2000 .Thus,fromtheoutbreakoftheconflictinMay1998untilAugust14,2000,EritreawasnotapartytoGene�aCon�entionIII .Ethiopia’sargumenttothecontrary,inrelianceuponArticle34oftheViennaCon�entiononSuccessionofStatesinRespectofTreaties,7cannotpre�ailo�erthesefacts .

27 . AlthoughEritreawasnotapartytotheGene�aCon�entionspriortoitsaccessiontothem,theCon�entionsmightstillha�ebeenapplicabledur-ingthearmedconflictwithEthiopiapursuanttothefinalpro�isionofArticle2commontoallfourCon�entions,whichstates:

AlthoughoneofthePowersinconflictmaynotbeapartytothepresentCon�ention,thePowerswhoarepartiestheretoshallremainboundbyitintheirmutualrelations .TheyshallfurthermorebeboundbytheCon�entioninrelationtothesaidPower,ifthelatteracceptsandappliesthepro�isionsthereof .

28 . Howe�er,thee�idencereferredtoabo�eclearlydemonstratesthat,priortoitsaccession,EritreahadnotacceptedtheCon�entions .Thisnon-acceptancewasalsodemonstratedbyEritrea’srefusaltoallowtherepresenta-ti�esoftheICRCto�isitthePOWsithelduntilafteritsaccessiontotheCon-�entions .

29 . Consequently,theCommissionholdsthat,withrespecttomatterspriortoAugust14,2000,thelawapplicabletothearmedconflictbetweenEritreaandEthiopiaiscustomaryinternationallaw .Initspleadings,Eritrearecognizesthat,formostpurposes,“thedistinctionbetweencustomarylaw

5 ICRC,“Ethiopia-Eritrea:Aidformedicalfacilitiesandthedisplaced”,ICRC News98/23,June12,1998,inEritrea’sClaim17,PrisonersofWar,Memorial,filedbyEritreaonAugust1,2002,DocumentaryAnnexp .40[hereinafterER17MEM] .

6 ČelebićiCase(The Prosecutor v. Delalicetal .),2001ICTYAppealsChamberJudge-mentCaseNo .IT-96–21-A(Feb .20) .

7 1946U .N .T .S .p .3;17I .L .M .p .1488 .

86 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

regardingPOWsandtheGene�aCon�entionIIIisnotsignificant .”8Itdoes,howe�er,offerasexamplesofthemoretechnicalanddetailedpro�isionsoftheCon�entionthatitconsidersnotapplicableascustomarylawtherightoftheICRCto�isitPOWs,thepermissionoftheuseoftobaccoinArticle26,andtherequirementofcanteensinArticle28 .ItalsosuggeststhatpaymentofPOWsforlaborandcertainburialrequirementsfordeceasedPOWsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationallaw .9Eritreacitesthevon LeebdecisionoftheAlliedMilitaryTribunalin1948assupporti�eofitsposi-tiononthisquestion .10

30 . Gi�enthenearlyuni�ersalacceptanceofthefourGene�aCon�en-tionsof1949,thequestionoftheextenttowhichtheirpro�isionsha�ebecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawarisestodayonlyrarely .TheCommissionnotesthatthevon Leebcase(whichfoundthatnumerouspro�isionsatthecoreofthe1929Con�entionhadacquiredcustomarystatus)addressedtheextenttowhichthepro�isionsofacon�entionconcludedin1929hadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawduringtheSecondWorldWar,thatis,aconflictthatoccurredtentosixteenyearslater .Inthepresentcase,theCommissionfacesthequestionoftheextenttowhichthepro�isionsofacon�entioncon-cludedin1949andsinceadheredtobyalmostallStateshadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawduringaconflictthatoccurredfiftyyearslater .Moreo�er,treaties,liketheGene�aCon�entionsof1949,thatde�elopinterna-tionalhumanitarianlaware,bytheirnature,legaldocumentsthatbuilduponthefoundationlaidbyearliertreatiesandbycustomaryinternationallaw .11Thesetreatiesareconcludedforthepurposeofcreatingatreatylawforthepartiestothecon�entionandfortherelatedpurposeofcodifyingandde�elop-ingcustomaryinternationallawthatisapplicabletoallnations .TheGene�aCon�entionsof1949successfullyaccomplishedbothpurposes .

31 . Certainly,thereareimportant,modernauthoritiesfortheproposi-tionthattheGene�aCon�entionsof1949ha�elargelybecomeexpressionsofcustomaryinternationallaw,andbothPartiestothiscaseagree .12Themerefactthattheyha�eobtainednearlyuni�ersalacceptancesupportsthisconclu-

8 ER17MEMp .19 .9 Eritrea’sClaim17,PrisonersofWar,Counter-MemorialtoER17MEM,filedby

EthiopiaonNo�ember1,2002,pp .27–28[hereinafterER17CM] .10 U.S. v. Wilhelm von Leeb etal .,inTrials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg

Military Tribunals under Control Council Law, No. 10,VolumeXI,p .462(UnitedStatesGo�ernmentPrintingOffice,WashingtonD .C .1950) .

11 See RichardR .Baxter,Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary Interna-tional Law,41Brit .Y .B .Int’lL .pp .275,286(1965–66) .

12 See,e.g.,Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,1996I .C .J .p .226para .79(July8);ReportoftheSecretary-GeneralPursuanttoParagraph2ofSecurityCouncilResolution808(May3,1993),U .N .Doc .S/25704para .35;The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictsp .24(DieterFlecked .,OxfordUni�ersityPress,1995);andTheo-dorMeron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Lawp .45(ClarendonPress,1989) .


sion .13Therearealsosimilarauthorities for thepropositionthatrules thatcommendthemsel�estotheinternationalcommunityingeneral,suchasrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,canmorequicklybecomepartofcustom-aryinternationallawthanothertypesofrulesfoundintreaties .14TheCom-missionagrees .

32 . Consequently, the Commission holds that the law applicable tothisClaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon-�entionsof1949 .Thefrequentin�ocationofpro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIIIbybothPartiesinsupportoftheirclaimsanddefensesisfullyconsistentwiththisholding .Whene�ereitherPartyassertsthataparticularrele�antpro�isionoftheseCon�entionsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwilldecidethatques-tion,andtheburdenofproofwillbeontheassertingParty .

33 . ContrarytotheargumentofEthiopia,theCommissiondoesnotunderstandthereferencetotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949inArticle5,para-graph1,oftheAgreementasachoiceoflawpro�isionmeaningthattheCon-�entionsinalltheirdetailsbecamebindingastreatylawretroacti�elyuponEritreaonceitaccededtothem .ThatreferencetotheCon�entionswasappro-priatesimplybecause,priortotheconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000,bothnationshadbecomepartiestotheCon�entions .

b. evidentiary issues

1. Quantum of Proof Required

34 . The Commission’s brief Rules of Procedure regarding e�idencereflectcommoninternationalpractice .Articles14 .1and14 .2state:

14 .1 Eachpartyshallha�etheburdenofpro�ingthefactsitreliesontosupportitsclaimordefense .14 .2 TheCommissionshalldeterminetheadmissibility,rele�ance,mate-rialityandweightofthee�idenceoffered .35 . Alsoreflectingcommoninternationalpractice, theRulesdonot

articulatethequantumordegreeofproofthatapartymustpresenttomeetthisburdenofproof .

36 . At thehearing, counsel forbothPartiescarefullyaddressed thequantumorle�elofprooftoberequired,describingtheappropriatequan-tumin�erysimilarterms .CounselforEthiopiaindicatedthatinassessingitsrequestsforfindingsofsystematicandwidespread�iolationsofinterna-tionallawbyEritrea,“thebarshouldbeset�eryhigh,”particularlygi�enthe

13 See,e.g.,JonathanI .Charney,International Agreements and the Development of Customary International Law,61Wash .L .Re� .p .971(1986) .

14 SeeMeron,supranote12,atpp .56–58 .

88 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

seriousnessofthe�iolationsalleged .EthiopiaaccordinglyproposedthattheCommissionshouldrequiree�idencethatis“�erycompelling,�erycredible,�erycon�incing .”15CounselforEritrealargelyagreed,alsonotingthegra�ityofthe�iolationsallegedandurgingtheCommissiontorequire“clearandcon-�incing”e�idence .16Intheirwrittenororalpleadings,bothsidescitedjuris-prudenceoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeindicatingtheneedforahighdegreeofcertaintyinmattersin�ol�inggra�echargesagainstastate .17

37 . TheCommissionagreeswiththeessenceofthepositionad�ocat-edbybothParties .Particularlyinlightofthegra�ityofsomeoftheclaimsad�anced,theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon�incinge�idenceinsup-portofitsfindings .

38 . TheCommissiondoesnotacceptanysuggestionthat,becausesomeclaimsmayin�ol�eallegationsofpotentiallycriminalindi�idualconduct,itshouldapplyane�enhigherstandardofproofcorrespondingtothatinindi-�idual criminal proceedings . The Commission is not a criminal tribunalassessingindi�idualcriminalresponsibility .Itmustinsteaddecidewhetherthereha�ebeenbreachesofinternationallawbasedonnormalprinciplesofstateresponsibility .Thepossibilitythatparticularfindingsmayin�ol�e�eryseriousmattersdoesnotchangetheinternationallawrulestobeappliedorfundamentallytransformthequantumofe�idencerequired .

2. Proof of Facts

39 . Ethiopiapresentedalarge�olumeofdocumentationinsupportofitsclaims,includingdeclarationsofofficials,newsarticles,copiesoftrain-ingmaterials,campregulationsandmedicalrecords .Ethiopiaalsopresentedthreetypesofdocumentsrecordingindifferingwaysinformationregardingtheexperiencesofindi�idualprisoners .Itsubmittedthirtyformalwrittendec-larationsfromformerPOWssignedbythedeclarantsandcontainingaffirma-tionsoftheaccuracyofthetranslationandsolemnrepresentationsthatthedeclarationwastruthful .Duringthehearing,counselforEthiopiaindicatedthatitreliedprimarilyonthesedeclarations .18Similarsigneddeclarationsalsopro�idedtheheartofthee�idenceforEritrea’sclaims .

40 . Ethiopiaalsosubmittedmultiple�olumesofwhatwereinfactformsforcollectingclaims .ThesewerelengthydocumentsfilledinbyaformerPOWorapersonwritingforhim,respondingat�aryinglengthtodetailedquestionsregardingconditionsandexperiencesineachofEritrea’sPOWcamps .Ethio-piaalsofiledfour�olumescontainingtypewrittendistillationsofthe�erybrief

15 ProfessorMurphy,Transcriptp .185 .16 ProfessorCrawford,Transcriptpp .333–334 .17 See,e.g.,ET04MEMp .47;Transcriptpp .333–334 .18 Transcriptp .96 .


answerssomeformerprisonersga�etotheclaimsquestionnaires(generallyin�ol�ingpagescontainingonly“yes”or“no”answers) .

41 . Eritreaobjectedtothesecondandthirdtypesofdocuments,argu-ingthatthephrasingofthequestions,thecollectionmethodologyandotherfactorsine�itablyresultedininflated,inaccurateandunreliableresponses .TheCommissionagreesthatthesedocumentsareofuncertainprobati�e�alue .Ithasnotusedtheminarri�ingatthefactualjudgmentsthatfollow;insteadithasreliedontheformalsigneddeclarationssubmittedbyeachParty,assupplementedbythetestimonyatthehearingandotherdocumentsintherecord .

42 . Asnoted,Ethiopia’sdeclarationsincludethirtybyformerPOWs .The Commission is satisfied that Ethiopia selected these declarants in anobjecti�ewayand,hence,thatthedeclarationspro�idee�idencethatisasrea-sonablybalancedaspossibleunderthecircumstances .Fi�edeclarationsweredatedinNo�ember2001andweresubmittedwiththeStatementofClaim .Counsel forEthiopiaexplainedat thehearing thatEthiopiaalsocollecteddeclarations fromall twenty-fi�ePOWswhowererepatriatedonFebruary18,2002,whichwasthefirstrepatriationaftertheCommissionnotifiedthePartiesthatthePOWclaimswouldbeheardfirst(andthelastrepatriationbeforeAugust2002) .19Ethiopiapreparedthosedeclarationsapproximatelyonemonthaftertherepatriation .

43 . In e�aluating the probati�e strength of a declaration to portraya�iolation(orse�eral�iolations)ofinternationallaw,theCommissionhasconsideredtheclarityanddetailoftherele�anttestimony,andwhetherthise�idenceiscorroboratedbytestimonyinotherdeclarationsorbyothera�ail-ablee�idence .Theconsistentandcumulati�echaracterofmuchoftheParties’e�idencewasofsignificant�aluetotheCommissioninmaking its factualjudgements .20Whenthetotalityofthee�idenceofferedbytheClaimantpro-�idedclearandcon�incinge�idenceofa�iolation—i.e.,aprima faciecase—theCommissioncarefullyexaminedthee�idenceofferedbytheRespondent(usuallyintheformofadeclarationorcamprecords)todeterminewhetheriteffecti�elyrebuttedtheClaimant’sproof .

44 . At the hearing, Ethiopia presented as a fact witness one formerPOW,whohadbeeninternedatBarentu,Embakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfa .Eritreapresentednodefensewitnesses .

19 Transcriptp .105 .20 InthisconnectionseeSyl�ainVité,Les procédures internationales d’établissement

des faits dans la mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitairepp .345–346(Editionsdel’Uni�ersitédeBruxelles,1999) .

90 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

3. Evidence under the Control of the ICRC

45 . Throughouttheconflict,representati�esoftheICRC�isitedEthi-opia’scamps .BeginninglateinAugust2000,theICRCalsobegan�isitingEritrea’sNakfacamp .BothPartiesindicatedthattheypossessICRCreportsregardingthesecamp�isits,aswellasotherrele�antICRCcommunications .

46 . TheCommissionhopedtobenefitfromtheICRC’sexperiencedandobjecti�eassessmentofconditionsinbothParties’camps .ItaskedthePartiestoincludetheICRCreportsoncamp�isitsintheirwrittensubmissionsortoexplaintheirinabilitytodoso .BothrespondedthattheywishedtodosobutthattheICRCopposedallowingtheCommissionaccesstothesematerials .TheICRCmaintainedthattheycouldnotbepro�idedwithoutICRCconsent,whichwouldnotbegi�en .

47 . WiththeendorsementoftheParties,theCommission’sPresidentmetwithseniorICRCofficialsinGene�ainAugust2002tore�iewthesitua-tionandtoseekICRCconsenttoCommissionaccess,onarestrictedorcon-fidentialbasisifrequired .

48 . TheICRCmadea�ailabletotheCommissionandthePartiescop-iesofallrele�antpublicdocuments,butitconcludedthatitcouldnotpermitaccesstootherinformation .ThatdecisionreflectedtheICRC’sdeeplyheldbeliefthatitsabilitytoperformitsmissionrequiresstrongassurancesofcon-fidentiality .21TheCommissionhasgreatrespectfortheICRCandunderstandstheconcernsunderlyingitsgeneralpoliciesofconfidentialityandnon-disclo-sure .Ne�ertheless,theCommissionbelie�esthat,intheuniquesituationhere,wherebothpartiestothearmedconflictagreedthatthesedocumentsshouldbepro�idedtotheCommission,theICRCshouldnotha�eforbiddenthemfromdoingso .BoththeCommissionandtheICRCshareaninterestintheproperandinformedapplicationofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Accord-ingly,theCommissionmustrecorditsdisappointmentthattheICRCwasnotpreparedtoallowitaccesstothesematerials .

C. Violations of the law1. Organizational Comment

49 . Ethiopiaallegedextensi�e�iolationsofapplicablelegalobligationsinEritrea’sPOWcamps .Itslegalclaimswerearrangedinele�enseparatecat-egories,se�eralwithmultiplesubsidiaryelements .Ethiopiaalleged�iolationsofalloralmostallofthefollowingele�encategorieswithrespecttoeachofEritrea’sfi�ecamps:–CaptureofPOWsandtheire�acuationtothecamps;–Physicalandmentalabuseinthecamps;

21 SeeGaborRona,“TheICRCPri�ilegenottotestify:Confidentialityinaction”,84Int’l Rev. Red Crossp .207(2002) .


–Lackofadequatemedicalcare;–Unhealthycampconditions;–FailuretomaintainPOWswellbeing;–Impermissibleforcedlabor;–Improperhandlingofdeaths;–Lackofcomplaintprocedures;–Prohibitingcommunicationwiththeexterior;–Failuretopostcampregulations;and–Inhumaneconditionsduringtransferfromthecamps .

50 . Initswrittenandoralpresentations,Ethiopiaclearlyexplainedthefactorsleadingittostructureitsclaimsthisway .Howe�er,theresultisamatrixofo�erfiftyissues,manywithse�eralsubsidiaryelements,forassessmentanddecision .Ofgreaterconcern,theCommissionfoundthatthiscomplexandfragmentedstructureser�edtoconflate�eryseriousmatterswithothersofmuchlessgra�ity .Moreo�er,gi�enthe le�elofe�idencepresentedandthelimitedtimea�ailablefortheCommissiontocompleteitsworkonallclaims,itisclearthattheCommissionmustfocusitsattentiononthesubstanti�ecoreoftheclaims .

51 . Accordingly, the Commission has grouped se�eral of Ethiopia’sclaimstogetherorhasotherwisere-alignedtheirelementsinordertogi�egreaterweighttoandclearerfocusonthosemattersitseesasbeingofgreatestconcern .

52 . Ascommentatorsfrequentlyha�eobser�ed,Gene�aCon�entionIII,withits143Articlesandfi�eAnnexes,isanextremelydetailedandcompre-hensi�ecodeforthetreatmentofPOWs .22Gi�enitslengthandcomplexity,theCon�entionmixestogether,sometimesinasingleparagraph,obligationsof�erydifferentcharacterandimportance .Someobligations,suchasArticle13’srequirementofhumanetreatment,areabsolutelyfundamentaltotheprotec-tionofPOWs’lifeandhealth .Otherpro�isionsaddressmattersofprocedureordetailthatmayhelpeasetheirburdens,butarenotnecessarytoensuretheirlifeandhealth .

53 . Undercustomaryinternationallaw,asreflectedinGene�aCon�en-tionIII,therequirementoftreatmentofPOWsashumanbeingsisthebedrockuponwhichallotherobligationsoftheDetainingPowerrest .AtthecoreoftheCon�entionregimearethelegalobligationstokeepPOWsali�eandingoodhealth .23Theholdingsmadeinthissectionareorganizedtoemphasizethesecorelegalobligations .

54 . ItshouldalsobestatedattheoutsetthattheCommissiondoesnotseeitstasktobethedeterminationofliabilityofaPartyforeachindi�idual

22 See,e.g.,GeoffreyBest,War and Law since 1945p .135(ClarendonPress,1994) .23 SeeYoramDinstein,Prisoners of War, inEncyclopedia of Public International

Law,Volume4,pp .146,148(RudolfBernhardted .,North-HollandPublishingCom-pany,1982) .

92 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

incidentofillegalitysuggestedbythee�idence .Rather,itistodetermineliabil-ityforserious�iolationsofthelawbytheParties,whichareusuallyillegalactsoromissionsthatwerefrequentorper�asi�eandconsequentlyaffectedsignificantnumbersof�ictims .TheseparametersaredictatedbythelimitofwhatisfeasibleforthetwoPartiestobriefandargueandfortheCommissiontodetermineinlightofthetimeandresourcesmadea�ailablebytheParties .

2. Eritrea’s Refusal to Permit the ICRC to Visit POWs

55 . Fromtheoutsetofthearmedconflictin1998,theICRCwasper-mittedbyEthiopiato�isittheEritreanPOWsandthecampsinwhichtheywereheld .Itwasalsopermittedtopro�iderelieftothemandtoassistthemincorrespondingwiththeirfamiliesinEritrea,althoughthereise�idencethatEritrearefusedtopermitcommunicationsfromthosePOWstobepassedontotheirfamilies .24InEritrea,theICRChadalimitedroleinthe1998repatria-tionofse�entysickorwoundedPOWs,butalleffortsbytheICRCto�isittheEthiopianPOWsheldbyEritreawererefusedbyEritreauntilAugust2000,justafterEritreaaccededtothe1949Gene�aCon�entions .TheCommissionmustdecidewhether,asallegedbyEthiopia,suchrefusalbyEritreaconstituteda�iolationofitslegalobligationsundertheapplicablelaw .

56 . EritreaarguesthattherightofaccessbytheICRCtoPOWsisatreaty-basedrightandthatthepro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIIIgrant-ingsuchaccesstotheICRCshouldnotbeconsideredpro�isionsthatexpresscustomaryinternationallaw .Whilerecognizingthatmostofthepro�isionsoftheCon�entionha�ebecomecustomarylaw,Eritreaassertsthatthepro�i-sionsdealingwiththeaccessoftheICRCareamongthedetailedorproceduralpro�isionsthatha�enotattainedsuchstatus .

57 . ThattheICRCdidnotagreewithEritreaisdemonstratedbyapressstatementitissuedonMay7,1999,inwhichitrecountedits�isitstoPOWsandinternedci�iliansheldbyEthiopiaandsaid:“InEritrea,meanwhile,theICRCispursuingitseffortstogainaccess,asrequiredbytheThirdGene�aCon�en-tion,toEthiopianPOWscapturedsincetheconflicteruptedlastyear .”25

58 . TheICRCisassignedsignificantresponsibilitiesinanumberofarti-clesoftheCon�ention .26Thesepro�isionsmakeclearthattheICRCmayfunc-tioninatleasttwodifferentcapacities asahumanitarianorganizationpro�id-ingreliefandasanorganizationpro�idingnecessaryand�italexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWs,eithersupplementarytoaProtectingPowerorasasubstitutewhenthereisnoProtectingPower .Thereisnoe�idencebeforethe

24 SeeEthiopia’sClaim4,PrisonersofWar,Counter-MemorialtoET04,filedbyEritreaonNo�ember1,2002,p .140andnote856 .

25 ICRC,“Ethiopia/Eritrea:ICRCVisitsNewlyCapturedPrisoners”,ICRC NEWS,May7,1999,inET04MEM,AnnexXV,Tab94 .

26 SeeArticles9,10,73,81and126 .


CommissionthatProtectingPowerswereproposedbyeitherEthiopiaorEritrea,anditseemse�identthatnonewasappointed .Ne�ertheless,theCon�entionclearlyrequiresexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWs27and,inArticle10,wherethereisnoProtectingPowerorotherfunctioningo�ersightbody,itrequiresDetainingPowersto“accept . . .theofferoftheser�icesofahumani-tarianorganization,suchastheInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross,toassumethehumanitarianfunctionsperformedbyProtectingPowersunderthepresentCon�ention .”Inthate�ent,Article10alsopro�idesthatallmentionofProtectingPowersintheCon�entionappliestosuchsubstituteorganizations .

59 . TherightoftheICRCtoha�eaccesstoPOWsisnotlimitedtoasitu-ationco�eredbyArticle10inwhichitser�esasasubstituteforaProtectingPower .Article126specifiesclearandcriticalrightsofProtectingPowerswithrespecttoaccesstocampsandtoPOWs,includingtherighttointer�iewPOWswithoutwitnesses,anditstatesthatthedelegatesoftheICRC“shallenjoythesameprerogati�es .”EthiopiareliesprimarilyonArticle126initsallegationthatEritrea�iolateditslegalobligationsbyrefusingtheICRCaccesstoitsPOWs .

60 . ProfessorLe�iepointsoutinhismonumentalstudyofthetreat-mentofPOWsin internationalarmedconflicts that theICRC“hasplayedanindispensablehumanitarianroleine�eryarmedconflictformorethanacentury .”28Healsonotesthat,inadditiontotheworkbythemanyProtectingPowers,theICRCplayeda�italroleinprotectingPOWsduringtheSecondWorldWar,whenitmadeatotalof11,175�isitstoinstallationswherePOWsandci�ilianinterneeswereconfined .29Le�iealsoliststheplaceswheretheICRCandprotectingpowersha�ebeenexcludedinrecenttimes theSo�ietUnion(1940–45),NorthKoreaandthePeoplesRepublicofChina(1950–53),andNorthVietnam(1965–73) .30ItiscommonknowledgethatthetreatmentofPOWsbythenamedPartiesinthosefourplaceswheretheICRCwasunlaw-fullyexcludedwasfarworsethanthatrequiredbythestandardsofapplicablelaw .Thelongtermresultoftheseexclusionshasbeenareinforcementofthegeneralunderstandingofthecrucialroleplayedbyoutsideobser�ersintheeffecti�efunctioningofthelegalregimefortheprotectionofPOWs .

61 . TheCommissioncannotagreewithEritrea’sargumentthatpro�i-sionsoftheCon�entionrequiringexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWsandaccesstoPOWsbytheICRCaremeredetailsorsimplyimplementingproceduralpro�isionsthatha�enot,inhalfacentury,becomepartofcustom-aryinternationallaw .Thesepro�isionsareanessentialpartoftheregimeforprotectingPOWsthathasde�elopedininternationalpractice,asreflectedinGene�aCon�entionIII .Theserequirementsare,indeed,“treaty-based”inthe

27 SeeArticles8and10 .28 HowardS .Le�ie,“PrisonersofWarinInternationalArmedConflict”,inInterna-

tional Law Studies,Volume59,p .312(UnitedStatesNa�alWarCollegePress,1978) .29 Id .atp .310 .30 Id .atp .312 .

94 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

sensethattheyarearticulatedintheCon�ention;but,assuch,theyincorpo-ratepastpracticesthathadstandingoftheirownincustomarylaw,andtheyareofsuchimportancefortheprospectsofcompliancewiththelawthatitwouldbeirresponsiblefortheCommissiontoconsidertheminapplicableascustomaryinternationallaw .AstheInternationalCourtofJusticesaidinitsAd�isoryOpinionontheLegalityoftheThreatorUseofNuclearWeapons:

79 . It is undoubtedly because a great many rules of humanitarian lawapplicableinarmedconflictaresofundamentaltotherespectofthehumanpersonand“elementaryconsiderationsofhumanity”astheCourtput itinitsJudgmentof9April1949intheCorfu ChannelCase(I.C.J. Reports1949,p .22),thattheHagueandGene�aCon�entionsha�eenjoyedabroadaccession .Furtherthesefundamentalrulesaretobeobser�edbyallStateswhetherornottheyha�eratifiedthecon�entionsthatcontainthem,becausetheyconstituteintransgressibleprinciplesofinternationalcustomarylaw .31

62 . Fortheabo�ereasons,theCommissionholdsthatEritrea�iolatedcustomaryinternationallawfromMay1998untilAugust2000byrefusingtopermittheICRCtosenditsdelegatesto�isitallplaceswhereEthiopianPOWsweredetained,toregisterthosePOWs,tointer�iewthemwithoutwitnesses,andtopro�idethemwiththecustomaryreliefandser�ices .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforthesufferingcausedbythatrefusal .

3. Mistreatment of POWs at Capture and its Immediate Aftermath

63 . OfthethirtyEthiopianPOWdeclarants,atleasttwentywerealreadywoundedatcaptureandnearlyalltestifiedtotreatmentofthesickorwoundedbyEritreanforcesuponcaptureatthefrontandduringe�acuation .Conse-quently,inadditiontothecustomaryinternationallawstandardsreflectedinGene�aCon�entionIII,theCommissionalsoappliesthestandardsreflectedintheGene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickinArmedForcesintheFieldonAugust12,1949(“Gene�aCon�en-tionI”) .32ForawoundedorsickPOW,thepro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIapplyalongwithGene�aCon�entionIII .Amongotherpro�isions,Article12ofGene�aCon�entionIdemandsrespectandprotectionofwoundedorsickmembersofthearmedforcesin“allcircumstances .”

64 . AState’sobligationtoensurehumanetreatmentofenemysoldierscanbese�erelytestedintheheatedandconfusedmomentsimmediatelyfol-lowingcaptureorsurrenderandduringe�acuationfromthebattlefronttothe rear .Ne�ertheless, customary international lawas reflected inGene�aCon�entionsIandIIIabsolutelyprohibitsthekillingofPOWs,requiresthe

31 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,supranote12,atpara .79 .32 75U .N .T .S .p .31;6U .S .T .p .3114 .


woundedandsicktobecollectedandcaredfor,thedeadtobecollected,anddemandspromptandhumanee�acuationofPOWs .33

a. Abusive Treatment

65 . EthiopiaallegedthatEritreantroopsregularlybeatandfrequentlykilledEthiopiansuponcaptureanditsimmediateaftermath .Ethiopiapre-sentedaprima faciecase,throughclearandcon�incinge�idence,tosupportthisallegation .

66 . One-thirdoftheEthiopianPOWdeclarationscontainaccountsofEritreansoldiersdeliberatelykillingEthiopianPOWs,mostwounded,atcap-tureore�acuation .ParticularlytroublingareaccountsinthreedeclarationsofEritreanofficersorderingtroopstokillEthiopianPOWsorbeatingthemfornotdoingso .MorethanhalfoftheEthiopianPOWdeclarantsdescribedrepeatedandbrutalbeatings,bothatthefrontandduringe�acuation,includ-ingblowspurposefullyinflictedonwounds .Fortunately,theseaccountswerecounteredtoadegreebyse�eralotheraccountsfromEthiopiandeclarantsofEritreanofficersandsoldiersinter�eningtocurtailphysicalabuseandpre�entkillings .

67 . Inrebuttal,Eritreaoffereddetailedandpersuasi�ee�idencethatEritreantroopsandofficershadrecei�edextensi�einstructionduringtheirbasictraining,bothonthebasicrequirementsoftheGene�aCon�entionsonthetakingofPOWsandonthepoliciesandpracticesoftheEritreanPeople’sLiberationFront(“EPLF”)inthewaragainstthepriorEthiopiango�ernment,theDerg,forindependence,whichhademphasizedtheimportanceofhumanetreatmentofprisoners .Whatislackingintherecord,howe�er,ise�idenceofwhatstepsEritreatook,ifany,toensurethatitsforcesactuallyputthisexten-si�etrainingtouseinthefield .Thereisnoe�idencethatEritreaconductedinquiriesintoincidentsofphysicalabuseorpursueddisciplinarymeasuresunderArticle121ofGene�aCon�entionIII .

68 . TheCommissionconcludesthatEritreahasnotrebuttedtheprima faciecasepresentedbyEthiopiaand,consequently,holdsthatEritreafailedtocomplywiththefundamentalobligationofcustomaryinternationallawthatPOWs,e�enwhenwounded,mustbeprotectedandmaynot,underanycircumstances,bekilled .Consequently,EritreaisliableforfailingtoprotectEthiopianPOWsfrombeingkilledatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath,andforpermittingbeatingsandotherphysicalabuseofEthiopianPOWsatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath .

33 CommonArticle3(1)(a),(2);Gene�aCon�entionI,Articles12,15;Gene�aCon-�entionIII,Articles13,20,130 .

96 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

b. Medical Care Immediately Following Capture

69 . Ethiopiaalleges thatEritrea failed topro�idenecessarymedicalattentiontoEthiopianPOWsaftercaptureandduringe�acuation,asrequiredundercustomaryinternationallawreflectedinGene�aCon�entionsI(Article12)andIII(Articles20and15) .ManyEthiopiandeclarantstestifiedthattheirwoundswerenotcleanedandbandagedatorshortlyaftercapture,leadingtoinfectionandothercomplications .Eritreapresentedrebuttale�idencethatitstroopspro�idedrudimentaryfirstaidassoonaspossible,includingintransitcamps .

70 . TheCommissionbelie�esthattherequirementtopro�idePOWswithmedicalcareduringtheinitialperiodaftercapturemustbeassessedinlightoftheharshconditionsonthebattlefieldandthelimitedextentofmedi-cal trainingandequipmenta�ailabletofront linetroops .Onbalance,andrecognizingthelogisticalandresourcelimitationsfacedbybothPartiestotheconflict,theCommissionfindsthatEritreaisnotliableforfailingtopro�idemedicalcaretoEthiopianPOWsatthefrontandduringe�acuation .

c. Evacuation Conditions

71 . Ethiopiaalsoallegesthat,inadditiontopoormedicalcare,Erit-reafailedtoensurehumanee�acuationconditions .AsreflectedinArticles19and20ofGene�aCon�entionIII,theDetainingPowerisobligedtoe�acuateprisonershumanely,safelyandassoonaspossiblefromcombatzones;onlyifthereisagreaterriskine�acuationmaythewoundedorsickbetemporar-ilykeptinthecombatzone,andtheymustnotbeunnecessarilyexposedtodanger .Themeasureofahumanee�acuationisthat,assetoutinArticle20,POWsshouldbee�acuated“inconditionssimilartothosefortheforcesoftheDetainingPower .”

72 . Turningfirsttothetimingofe�acuation,Eritreasubmittedclearandcon�incinge�idencethat,gi�entherealityofbattle,thegreatmajorityofEthiopiansPOWsweree�acuatedfromthe�ariousfrontsinatimelymanner .DespiteonedisquietingincidentinwhichawoundedEthiopianPOWalleg-edlywasforcedtospendanightontopofatrenchwhileartilleryexchangesoccurredandhisEritreancaptorstookrefugeinthetrench,theCommissionconcludesthatEritreagenerallytookthenecessarymeasurestoe�acuateitsprisonerspromptly .

73 . Timingaside,theEthiopianPOWdeclarantsdescribedextremelyonerousconditionsofe�acuation .ThePOWswereforcedtowalkfromthefront for hours or days o�er rough terrain, often in pain from their ownwounds,oftencarryingwoundedcomradesandEritreansupplies,ofteninharshweather,andoftenwithlittleornofoodandwater .Eritreaofferedrebut-tale�idencethatitssoldiersfacednearlythesameuna�oidablydifficultcondi-tions,particularlygi�enthelackofpa�edroadsinEritrea .


74 . Subjecttotheholdingabo�econcerningunlawfulphysicalabuseduringe�acuationandwithoneexception,theCommissionfindsthatEri-trean troopssatisfied the legal requirements fore�acuations fromthebat-tlefieldunder theharshgeographic,militaryand logisticalcircumstances .TheexceptionistheEritreanpracticeofseizingthefootwearofallEthiopianPOWs,testifiedtobymanydeclarants .Althoughtheharshnessof theter-rainandweatheronthemarchestothecampsmayha�ebeenoutofEritrea’scontrol,toforcethePOWstowalkbarefootinsuchconditionsunnecessarilycompoundedtheirmisery .TheCommissionfindsEritrealiableforinhumanetreatmentduringe�acuationsfromthebattlefieldasaresultofitsforcingEthi-opianPOWstogowithoutfootwearduringe�acuationmarches .

d. Coercive Interrogation

75 . EthiopiaallegesfrequentabuseinEritrea’sinterrogationofPOWs,commencingatcaptureande�acuation .InternationallawdoesnotprohibittheinterrogationofPOWs,butitdoesrestricttheinformationtheyareobligedtore�ealandprohibitstortureorothermeasuresofcoercion,includingthreatsand“unpleasantordisad�antageoustreatmentofanykind .”34

76 . Ethiopiapresentedclearandcon�incinge�idence,unrebuttedbyErit-rea,thatEritreaninterrogatorsfrequentlythreatenedorbeatPOWsduringinter-rogation,particularlywhentheyweredissatisfiedwiththeprisoner’sanswers .TheCommissionmustconcludethatEritreaeitherfailedtotrainitsinterrogatorsintherele�antlegalrestraintsortomakeitclearthattheyareimperati�e .Conse-quently,Eritreaisliableforpermittingsuchcoerci�einterrogation .

e. Confiscation of Personal Property

77 . EthiopiaallegeswidespreadandsystematicconfiscationbyEritreansoldiersofthepersonalpropertyofEthiopianPOWs .ThedeclarationsofEthi-opianPOWssubmittedintoe�idenceclearlyandcon�incinglysupportthisclaim .NotonlywereallcapturedEthiopiansoldiersdepri�edoftheirshoes(presumably,tomakeescapemoredifficult),butalmostalldeclarantsassertthattheyweresearcheduponcaptureandthatalloftheirpersonalpossessionsweretakenbytheircaptors .Theitemsallegedlytakenincludedcash,watches,familyphotos,radios,ringsandcigarettes,aswellasthePOWs’identitycardsand,occasionally,itemsofclothing .Thedeclarantsalsoassertthatnoreceiptsweregi�enandthatnoneoftheconfiscatedpropertywasreturned .

78 . Article18ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequiresthatPOWsbeallowedtoretaintheirpersonalproperty .Cashand�aluablesmaybeimpoundedonorderofanofficer,subjecttodetailedregistrationandothersafeguards .Ifpris-oners’propertyistaken,itmustbereceiptedandsafelyheldforlaterreturn .

34 Gene�aCon�entionIII,Article17 .

98 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

UnderArticle17,identitydocumentscanbeconsultedbytheDetainingPowerbutmustbereturnedtotheprisoner .TheCommissionbelie�esthattheseobli-gationsreflectcustomaryinternationallaw .

79 . Norebuttale�idencewassubmittedbyEritreawithrespecttothisclaim,andtheCommissionnotesthatEritrea’scampproceduresforPOWsstatethat“e�eryPOWhasthedutytohando�erpropertywhichhehadwithhimwhenhewascapturedtotheconcernedauthority .”35TheCommissionconcludesthatEritreafailedtotakethenecessarymeasurestopre�enttheconfiscationofprisoners’personalproperty .Consequently,gi�entheunrebuttede�idenceofwidespreadtakingsofpropertyandEritrea’scampprocedures,EritreafailedtocomplywiththeobligationsofArticles17and18ofGene�aCon�entionIIIandisliabletoEthiopiafortheconsequentlossessufferedbyEthiopianPOWs .

80 . Takingofprisoners’�aluablesandotherpropertyisaregrettablebutrecurringfeatureoftheir�ulnerablestate .Thelossofphotographsandothersimilarpersonalitemsisanindignitythatweighsonprisoners’morale,butthelossofpropertyotherwiseseemstoha�erarelyaffectedthebasicrequirementsforprisoners’sur�i�alandwellbeing .Accordingly,whiletheCommissiondoesnotwishtominimizetheimportanceofthese�iolations,theyloomlesslargethanothermattersconsideredelsewhereinthisAward .

4. Physical and Mental Abuse in POW Camps

81 . Ethiopia’se�idenceofphysicalandmentalabuseofEthiopianPOWsinEritreanPOWcampstakesse�eralforms .First,therewasthetestimonybeforetheCommissionofaformerPOW;second,EthiopiafiledwithitsMemo-rialfortysigneddeclarations,includingthirtybyformerPOWsinwhichtheydescribedtheirtreatmentwhilecapti�e;third,EthiopiafiledmanyunsignedstatementsandclaimsformsofformerPOWs;andfourth,EthiopiafileddataithaddrawnfromtheclaimsformsofotherformerPOWs .TheCommissionhasreliedhea�ilyonthefirsttwooftheseformsofe�idence,asitconsiderstheothersofuncertainprobati�e�aluefortheproofofliability .

82 . ThetestimonyatthehearingofaformerPOWandthedeclarationsoftheotherPOWsareconsistentandpersuasi�ethattheEritreanguardsatthe�ariousPOWcampsreliedoftenuponbrutalforcefortheenforcementofrulesandasmeansofpunishment .AllthirtyPOWdeclarationsdescribedfrequentbeatingsofPOWsbycampguards .Se�eralguardsaccusedofregularlyabusingPOWswereidentifiedbynameinnumerousdeclarations .Thee�idenceindicatesthatmanyofthesameguardsremainedinchargeasthenumbersofPOWsincreasedandastheyweremo�edfromonecamptoanother,andtheconclusionisuna�oidablethatguardswhoregularlybeatPOWswerenotreplacedasaresult .Beatingswithwoodenstickswerecommonand,onoccasion,resultedinbrokenbonesandlackofconsciousness .Thereweremultiple,consistentaccountsthat,

35 SeeER17MEM,DocumentaryAnnexpp .100–101 .


atDigdigta,se�eralPOWswhohadattemptedtoescapewerebeatensenseless,withonelosinganeye,priortotheirdisappearance .Beingforcedtoholdhea�yobjectso�erone’sheadforlongperiodsoftime,beingpunchedorkicked,beingrequiredtorollonstonyorthornyground,tolookatthesun,andtoundergoperiodsofconfinementinhotmetalcontainerswerenotableamongtheotherabuses,allofwhich�iolatedcustomaryinternationallaw,asexemplifiedbyArti-cles13,42,87and89ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Regrettably,thee�idencealsoindicatesthatthecampcommandersdidlittletorestraintheseabusesand,insomecases,e�enthreatenedPOWsbytellingthemthat,astherewas(priortothefirstICRC�isitsinAugust2000)nolistofprisoners,theycoulddoanythingtheywantedtothePOWsandcouldnotbeheldaccountable .

83 . Inadditiontothefearandmentalanguishthataccompaniedthesephysicalabuses,thereiscleare�idencethatsomePOWs,particularlyTigrayans,weretreatedworsethanothersandthatse�eralPOWsweretreatedasdesertersandgi�enfa�oredtreatment .(Thosegi�enfa�oredtreatmentwerenotamongthosewhosignedthethirtydeclarationsreliedonbyEthiopiaonthisissue .)Suchdiscriminationis,ofcourse,prohibitedbyArticle16ofGene�aCon�entionIII .

84 . Thee�idenceispersuasi�ethatbeatingswerecommonatallcamps:Barentu,Embakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfa .SolitaryconfinementofthreemonthsormoreoccurredatleastatDigdigtaandAfabet .AtNakfa,muchofthee�idenceofbeatingsandotherbrutalpunishmentsrelatestoPOWsawayfromcampworkingonlaborprojectsandoccurredwhenfatigueslowedtheirwork .AfterICRC�isitsbegan,thereissomee�idencethatPOWswerethreat-enedwithphysicalpunishmentiftheyreportedabusestotheICRC .

85 . Eritreaintroducedlittle,ifany,e�idencetocounterEthiopia’se�i-denceofphysicalandmentalabuseofPOWs .EritreasoughttounderminethecredibilityofEthiopia’switnessesbypointingtosomediscrepanciesintheirdeclarationsortestimonyonmedicalandfoodissues .Eritreaalsoassertedthattheallegationsofphysicalabusewerenotsufficientlyspecifictomakeitpossibletoin�estigateorrebutthem .Howe�er,Eritreachosenottointroduceanywitnessesfromamongitscampcommanders,anditdidnotunequi�o-callydenythatspecificabuses,suchasthebeatingoftheattemptedescapeesatDigdigta,hadoccurred .

86 . Inconclusion,theCommissionholdsthatEritrea�iolatedinter-nationallawfromMay1998untilthelastEthiopianPOWswerereleasedandrepatriatedinAugust2002bypermittingtheper�asi�eandcontinuousphysi-calandmentalabuseofEthiopianPOWsinEritreanPOWcamps .Conse-quently,Eritreaisliableforsuchabuse .

100 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA

5. Unhealthy Conditions in Camps

a. The Issue

87 . AfundamentalprincipleofGene�aCon�entionIIIisthatdetentionofPOWsmustnotseriouslyendangerthehealthofthosePOWs .36Thisprin-ciple,whichisalsoaprincipleofcustomaryinternationallaw,isimplementedbyrulesthatmandatecamplocationswheretheclimateisnotinjurious;shel-ter that isadequate,withconditionsas fa�orableas those for the forcesoftheDetainingPowerwhoarebilletedinthearea,includingprotectionfromdampnessandadequateheatandlight,beddingandblankets;andsanitaryfacilitieswhicharehygienicandareproperlymaintained .Foodmustbepro-�idedinaquantityandqualityadequatetokeepPOWsingoodhealth,andsafedrinkingwatermustbeadequate .SoapandwatermustalsobesufficientforthepersonaltoiletandlaundryofthePOWs .

88 . Gene�aCon�entionIIIdeclarestheprinciplethatany“unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power . . . seriously endangering the health of a prisoner . . . will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention .”37TheCommissionbelie�esthisprincipleshouldguideitsdeterminationoftheliabilityofthePartiesforalleged�iolationsofanyoftheobligationsnotedabo�e .Ratherthansimplydecidingwhethertherewere�iolations,howe�erminoror transitory, theCommission’s task in thisproceeding is todeter-minewhethertherewere�iolationswhichwarranttheimpositionofdamagesbecausetheyclearlyendangeredtheli�esorhealthofPOWsincontra�entionofthebasicpolicyoftheCon�entionandcustomaryinternationallaw .

89 . Indeed,theclaimsofbothPartiesareimplicitly,ifnotexplicitly,castintermsofserious�iolationsofthestandardssetoutabo�e .NeitherPartyhassoughttoa�oidliabilitybyarguingthatitslimitedresourcesandthedif-ficulten�ironmentalandlogisticalconditionsconfrontingthosechargedwithestablishingandadministeringPOWcampscouldjustifyanyconditionwith-inthemthatdidinfactendangerthehealthofprisoners .Rather,indefenseagainstclaimsofserious�iolations,eachPartyhasreliedprimarilyonthedec-larationsofofficerschargedwiththeadministrationofeachofitscamps .Alloftheseofficersha�eindicatedtheirfullawarenessofthebasicstandardsforcampconditionsofGene�aCon�entionIII,ha�edescribedthestepstakentomeetthem,andha�edeniedthatanyconditionsexistedthatseriouslyendan-geredthehealthofthePOWs .

90 . Facedwiththisconflictinge�idence,theCommissionhasexaminedalloftheclaimsofeachPartyrelatingtoeachcampthatappeartoallegeaserious�iolation(asdefinedabo�e)ofeachofthestandardssetoutabo�eateachcamp .Ithassoughttodeterminewhetherthereexistsintherecordclearandcon�incinge�idencetosupportthoseclaims .Tosustainthisburdenin

36 SeeArticles13and21–29 .37 Article13(emphasisadded) .


thecontextofcampconditions,theCommissionfindsthattheClaimantmustproducecrediblee�idencethat:

(a) portraysaserious�iolation;(b) iscumulati�eandisreinforcedbythesimilarityofthecriticalallegations;(c) isdetailedenoughtoportraythespecificnatureofthe�iolation;and(d) shows that the �iolation existed o�er a period of time longenough to justify the conclusion that it seriously endangered thehealthofatleastsomeofthePOWsinthecamp .

b. Analysis of Health-Related Conditions at Each of Eritrea’s POW Camps

91 . EthiopiaallegedthateachofEritrea’sPOWcampsfailedtopro�idehealthyconditionsofcapti�ity .

92 . Whiletherecertainlyise�idencethatthecampatBarentuwasin�iolationofstandardsprescribedbyGene�aCon�entionIII,itisinsufficienttopro�ethatthehealthofprisonerstherewasseriouslyendangered .Thiscampwasinoperationfornomorethansixweeks,andtheperiodofinternmentofmostoftherelati�elyfewprisonerstherewasforlesserperiods .

93 . Only threeof the thirtyPOWdeclarants speak toconditionsatEmbakala .Thisapparentpaucityoftestimonymaybeexplainedbythefactthatnomorethan150Ethiopianprisoners(outofatotalofapproximately1,100)wereinternedthereandfornolongerthanthreetofourmonthseach .Ne�ertheless, these threedeclarationspresentcumulati�e, reinforcinganddetailedtestimonyconstitutingastrongindictmentoftheconditionsatthecamp .Fromthee�idence,itappearsthatalltheprisonersatEmbakalawerehousedinonesmallbuildingcomposedofcorrugatedmetalsheetswhichwasdi�idedintotworoomsandbecamedangerouslyo�ercrowdedsoonafterthecampwentintooperation .Thefloorofthesequartersconsistedofdirt,whichwaso�ertimecon�ertedtofilthydustasaresultofthecrowdedli�ingcondi-tionsandproblemsofhygiene .Theroofwassolowthattheinmatescouldnotstanderect .Theprisonerswereoftenconfinedinthesequartersduringthedaywithlittleopportunitytogooutside,exceptwhenallowedtorelie�ethem-sel�esinanadjacentfield(onlyonceeachday)andtobathe(nomorethanonceaweek) .Confinedin�eryclosequarters,enduringstiflingheat,oftenstrippedtotheirunderwear,theprisonerswerealsooftenenjoinedtokeepsilentforlongperiodsoftime .Throughouttheirstay,theywerepro�idedwithameagerdietconsistingofbreadandlentilstew .Therewerenolatrinesinthefieldusedfortoileting(onceaday) .Prisonerswhosufferedfromdiarrheawereforcedtorelie�ethemsel�esintheo�ercrowdedquarters .TheCommissionfindsthisdetailede�idencetobeclearandcon�incingandtoconstituteaprima facie


caseofserious�iolationsatEmbakalaofrequiredhealth-relatedconditions,i.e.,thepro�isionofhealthyaccommodation,whichseriouslyendangeredthehealthofprisoners .

94 . There is more abundant e�idence to justify similar conclusionsregardingconditionsatDigdigta(nineteenPOWdeclarations),Afabet(twentyPOWdeclarations),andNakfa(thirtyPOWdeclarations) .Astoeachofthesecamps,thereis,prima facie,clearandcon�incinge�idencethatEritreafailedtopro�ideadequatehousing,foodandwater,andthatthesefailuresconstitut-edserious�iolationsofGene�aCon�entionIII .Cumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonyshowthat,atallofthesecamps,thequarters(consistingofcorrugatedsteelstructures)wereseriouslyo�ercrowded,dirty,lackinginwindowsand�entilation,extremelyhotduringtheday(when,again,prisonerssometimesstrippeddowntotheirunderwear),andcoldatnightbecauseofalackofadequatepro�isionforbeddingandblankets .Manyprisonerstestifiedtothehighincidenceofdiarrheaandtuberculosis,andtodeathsresultingfromthesediseases,andtothefactthatthoseafflictedwiththesediseaseswerenothousedinseparatequarters .

95 . Effortstopro�idesanitarytoiletingfacilitiesatthesecampswere,atbest,limited .Ateachcamp,prisonersusedadjacentfields,twiceadayatpre-scribedandlimitedperiodsoftime .Thosewhoweresick(e.g.,withdiarrhea)orotherwiseinneedduringotherperiodsofthedayornightwereforcedtousecontainersorholesduginthegroundoftheirsleepingquarters .Thesmellsandtheabsenceofwatertowashaftertoiletingexacerbatedthead�ersecondi-tionsofhygiene .

96 . Indeed,pro�isionofadequatewaterforbothdrinkingandbathingwasaseriousproblematallthreecamps .Ineach,waterwasbroughtinbytankertrucks .AtDigdigta,thedrinkingwaterpro�idedduringtheday(whenhous-ingconditionswerestifling)wasoftentoohottodrinkinamountsadequatetorelie�ethirst,aswellasinsufficientinquantity .AtAfabet,drinkingwaterwasinshortsupplyandsometimesquite“salty .”AtNakfa,therewereoftenseriouswatershortagesbecausethetankertrucksfailedtoappearasscheduledorfailedtosupplyenoughtomeettheneedsofthecamp .Thereisalsotestimonythatthewatersecuredfromothersources(rainbarrelsandnearby“streams”)wasdirtyandinsect-ridden .Waterforbathingwasalsoinshortsupply;prisonerswereallowed,atbest,tobatheandlaunderonlyonceaweek .

97 . Virtuallyallofthedeclarantsallegethat,atallofthesecamps,thefoodpro�idedconsistedofinedible(e.g.,“dirty,”“worm-ridden”)breadandlentilstew .ThetestimonyaboutfoodatNakfaindicatesthatthedietwasfre-quently insufficient inquantityandqualityandthattherewasoftenwide-spreadhunger .

98 . Indeed,Nakfapresentsadisturbingpictureofinadequateeffortstoprepareinad�anceforthehealthconditionsofprisoners .Atanearliertime,thissitehadser�edasanhistoric,keybaseforEPLFforcesduringtheirlongwarforindependenceagainstthearmiesoftheDerg .Theisolated,ruggedterrainthere


includesundergroundca�es .LongabandonedaftertheDergcollapsedin1991,NakfawaschoseninMay2000asthesiteforanewcamptowhichallprisonersshouldberemo�ed .Thepreparationsforreceptionofprisonersappeartoha�ebeeninadequate .Thereisconsiderabletestimonythatthefirstgroupofprisonerstoarri�eatNakfawasputinunderground,windowless,dark,dankanddirtyquarters,whichwerelitteredwithhumantrashandthedungofdonkeysandgoats,andthereafterthesepremiseswerene�erproperlycleaned .Thise�idence,coupledwiththatportrayingtheproblemsencounteredinpro�idingenoughwaterfortheprisoners,suggestsaseriousfailuretomeetthebasicobligationofGene�aCon�entionIIItopro�ideattheoutset“premises . . .affordinge�eryguaranteeofhygieneandhealthfulness .”38

99 . Theconditionsdescribedabo�eexistedinacontextwhere,asdis-cussedelsewhere,thereisalsoclearandcon�incinge�idenceofphysicalmis-treatmentofprisoners(includingbeatingsorthreatsof�iolenceforthosewhoaskedtobeallowedtorelie�ethemsel�esoutsideoftheirsleepingquartersattimesotherthantheperiodprescribedfortoiletinginthefield)andclearandcon�incinge�idenceofarduousforcedlaboratallofthecamps .Theseharshregimesofdisciplineandlaborexacerbatedthedangerstothehealthofprisonerscreatedbythesub-standardconditionsofhousing,sanitation,food,waterandbathing .

100 . Eritreahasfailedtorebuttheprima faciecaseestablishedbyEthio-pia .Eritrea’srebuttaldependedprimarilyonthedeclarationsoftwoseniorofficerswhowerein�ol�edintheadministrationofthePOWcamps,whodidnottestifyatthehearing .

101 . Eritreapro�idedthedeclarationofanArmycolonel,whichtellstheCommissionthathewasbasedattheEritreanMinistryofDefenseinAsmarawherehecommandedtheDepartmentofMilitaryPolice .Thisofficerstatedthathewasresponsible for“allaspectsofo�ersight”o�erallof theprisoncamps,includingprocuringthenecessarysuppliesfortheiroperation .Hetes-tifiedthatheorderedsufficientsuppliesforeachcamptopro�ideadequatebedding,blankets, clothing, soapandrazors foreachprisoner; topro�ideeachcampwithenoughpastaand�egetablestosupplement,twiceaweek,thedailydietofbreadandlentils;andtosupplymeatforcelebrationsofreligiousholidays .Insupportofthistestimony,Eritreasubmittedamassi�enumberofreceipts,�irtuallyallwritteninTigrinya,which,theCommissionistold,reflectthepurchasesduringathree-yearperiodoftheabo�e“specialtyitems”fortheprisoncamps .Sincethesedocumentsha�enotbeentranslatedintoEnglish,asrequiredbyArticle12oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedure,theCommissionisunabletoanalyzetheimplicationsofthissubmission .Moreo-�er,sincethecolonelhadbeenbasedinAsmara,hedidnottestifydirectlyaboutthefoodoranyotherhealthconditionsatanyofthecamps .

38 Gene�aCon�entionIII,Article22 .


102 . ThedeclarationofanEritreanArmylieutenantcolonelwhohelpedwiththeactualadministrationofDigdigta,AfabetandNakfacontains�irtu-allynotestimonyaboutthefoodpro�idedatthesecamps .Thus,theCommis-sionisunabletoknowwithanycertaintywhether,andtowhatextent,thesesuppliesofsupplementalfoodactuallyreachedtheintendedbeneficiariesatanyofthesecamps .ThisdeclarationistheonlyonetheCommissionhasfromanofficerwhohaddirectresponsibilityfortheadministrationofcampsandwhowasinapositiontowitness,firsthand,thehealthconditionsthere .Thebulkofthisdeclarationdealswiththisofficer’seffortstoad�iseprisonersoftheirdutiesandofproceduresforraisingquestionsaboutthem .Nowheredoesthisdeclarationgi�eadescriptionofthehousing,sanitaryfacilities,water,bathingopportunitiesand foodpro�ided forprisonersat the threecampswhichheadministered .NordoesEritrea’sCounter-Memorialpro�ideaguidetootherdirecte�idencewhichmightrebutEthiopia’se�idence .

103 . Inconclusion,theCommissionfindsthattheconditionsofhous-ing,sanitation,drinkingwater,bathingopportunitiesandfoodattheprisoncampsatEmbakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfaweresuchastoconstituteaserious�iolationbyEritreaofitsbasicdutiestoprotectthehealthofprison-ersinitscustody,andthesefailuresseriouslyendangeredthehealthoftheseprisonersandthusconstituteda�iolationbyEritreaofapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Consequently,EritreaisliableforthisendangermentofthehealthofEthiopianPOWs .

6. Inadequate Medical Care in Camps

104 . ADetainingPowerhastheobligationtopro�ideinitsPOWcampsthemedicalassistanceonwhichthePOWsdependtohealtheirbattlewoundsandtopre�entfurtherdamagetotheirhealth .Thisdutyisparticularlycrucialincampswithalargepopulationandagreaterriskoftransmissionofconta-giousdiseases .

105 . Theprotectionspro�idedbyArticles15,20,29,30,31,109and110ofGene�aCon�entionIIIareunconditional .Theserules,whicharebasedonsimilarrulesinArticles4,13,14,15and68oftheGene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWarofJuly27,1929,39arepartofcustomaryinternationallaw .

106 . ManyoftheserulesarebroadlyphrasedanddonotcharacterizepreciselythequalityorextentofmedicalcarenecessaryforPOWs .Article15speaksofthe“medicalattentionrequiredbytheirstateofhealth;”Article30requiresinfirmariestopro�ideprisoners“theattentiontheyrequire”(emphasisadded) .Thelackofdefinitionregardingthequalityorextentofcare“required”ledtodifficultiesinassessingthisclaim .Indeed,standardsofmedicalpractice�aryaroundtheworld,andtheremayberoomfor�aryingassessmentsofwhat

39 118L .N .T .S .pp .343–411 .


isrequiredinaspecificsituation .Moreo�er,theCommissionismindfulthatitisdealingherewithtwocountrieswith�erylimitedresources .

107 . Ne�ertheless,theCommissionbelie�escertainprinciplescanbeappliedinassessingthemedicalcarepro�idedtoPOWs .TheCommissionbeganbyconsideringArticle15’sconceptofthemaintenanceofPOWs,whichitunderstandstomeanthataDetainingPowermustdothosethingsrequiredtopre�entsignificantdeteriorationofaprisoner’shealth .Next,theCommis-sionpaidparticularattentiontomeasuresthatarespecificallyrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIII,suchastherequirementsforsegregationofprisonerswithinfectiousdiseasesandforregularphysicalexaminations .

a. Ethiopia’s Claims and Evidence

108 . AlargeproportionofEthiopianPOWdeclarationscontaindetailedallegationsthatthea�ailablemedicalcarewasinadequateinallEritreanPOWcamps .Thespecificallegations,howe�er,�aryconsiderablyandaresometimesmutually inconsistent . While some declarants recount, for example, thatmedicalcarewassimplyuna�ailableataspecificcamp,othersstatethattheyrecei�edtreatmentinthesamecampbutthatitfailedtohealtheirwoundsorillnesses .Consequently,whiletheCommissionissatisfiedthatmedicalcarewasa�ailableateachpermanentcamp,itisdifficulttoassessitsadequacy .

109 . Asnotedabo�e,internationallawrequireseffecti�emeasurestomaintainprisoners’health .Gi�entheoftenconflictinge�idenceregardingthedetailsofmedicalcarepro�idedtotheEthiopianPOWs,theCommis-sionconsidered�ariouspossiblemeasurestoassesscompliancewiththisbasicobligation .Whilesomewritersha�eidentifiedweightlossduringcapti�ityasapossiblemeasureoftheo�erallstandardofhealth,40 thismeasurewasnota�ailablehere .EthiopiadidnotarguethatPOWslostsubstantialweightduringtheircapti�ity .TheoneformerEthiopianPOWwitnessatthehearingtestifiedthathehadlostperhapsfi�ekilogramsduringhisnearlyfouryearsofdetention,andthathishealthwasnotunderminedwhenhereturnedtoEthiopia;41therewasnoallegationthathisweightlossper se indicatedinad-equatemedicalcare .

110 . TheCommissionwas,howe�er,sadlyimpressedbythehighnumberofEthiopianPOWswhodiedintheEritreancamps .Asignificantmortalityrateamongagroupofpredominantlyyoungpersonsisobjecti�elycauseforconcern .Thee�idence,althoughnotwhollyconsistent,clearlyindicatedanabnormallyhighrateofdeathsamongtheprisoners inEritreancamps .InresponsetoquestioningfromtheCommission,theEthiopianPOWwitnesstestifiedatthehearingthat,withinhisgroupoffifty-fi�ePOWs(withwhomhe

40 See,e.g .,Le�ie,supranote28,atp .133 .41 Transcriptp .169 .


mo�edfromcamptocamp),fourhaddied .42Se�eraldeclarationsstatethat,ofthetotalpopulationofsome1,100EthiopianPOWs,forty-eightdied .Ethiopiaga�ealistoffifty-onePOWswhodidnotsur�i�ethecamps .(Eritreaestimatedthatthirty-ninePOWsdiedincapti�ity .)Significantly,therewassubstantialandreinforcinge�idencethatmanyofthesedeathsresultedfromdiarrhea,tuberculosisandotherillnessesthatcouldha�ebeena�oided,alle�iatedorcuredbypropermedicalcare .

111 . IntheCommission’s�iew,thishighdeathtoll,combinedwiththeotherspecificseriousdeficienciesdiscussedbelow, isclearandcon�incinge�idencethatEritreadidnotgi�ethetotalityofPOWsthebasicmedicalcarerequiredtokeepthemingoodhealthasrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIII,andconsequentlyconstitutesaprima faciecase .

112 . The Ethiopian POW declarations contain frequent complaintsthattreatmentwasinadequate .Manyindicatethatclinicpersonneloftenga�eprisonersonlypainkillers,andnotantibioticsorothercriticaldrugs .Manyindicatethattreatmentwasoftendelayed,therebyad�erselyaffectingreco�eryfromwoundsorillness .Thee�idencesuggeststhatdelaysofonetose�eraldayswerecommon,particularlyjustafterthearri�alofnewPOWsatacamp .Se�eralrecountedinstancesinwhichpatientswerenottransferredtohospitalsuntilitwastoolateforsur�i�al .Somecontainallegationsthatmedicalperson-nelwereinadequate,althoughthee�idenceconflictedinthisregard .

113 . TheEthiopianPOWdeclarantsalsotestifytothelackofbasicpre-�enti�ecare .Numerousstatementsindicatethatnoregularmedicalexamina-tionstookplace,exceptperhapsatNakfa .Thedeclarationsalsoindicatethattuberculosissufferersli�edtogetherwithotherPOWs .

b. Eritrea’s Defense

114 . Eritreasoughttopro�ethatithadpro�idedsubstantialmedicalcarebysubmittingdeclarationsfromse�eralmedicalpersonnelandamassi�eamountofmedicalrecords .Howe�er,muchofthemedicalrecorde�idencewasillegible,disorganized,outofchronologicalorder,sometimeso�erlap-pingandapparentlyincomplete .TheCommissioncouldnot,therefore,relyonmuchofthise�idence .

115 . Eritrea’s e�idence did demonstrate that many Ethiopian POWswerepro�idedwithmedicalattention,primarilyatthecampclinicswiththeser�icesofparamedicalpersonnel .SomePOWswithseriousdiseasesorwhorequiredspecialtreatmentwerereferredonoccasiontoamorespecializedhospital(e.g.,Keren,Afabet,Ghindu,Nakfa) .Therewase�idencethatEritreapro�idedfordentalcareeitherinhospitalsorinthecampclinicbyha�ingdentists�isit .Likewise,therewase�idencethatEritreaga�eafewPOWsexten-si�emedicaltreatment,includingmultiplesurgicalinter�entions .Itoccasion-

42 Transcriptpp .170–171 .


allypro�ideddrugsand�itaminsbeyondsuchfewdrugsandpainrelie�ersaswerea�ailableattheclinics .

c. The Commission’s Conclusions

116 . O�erall,whiletheCommissionissatisfiedfromthee�idencethatEritreamadeeffortstopro�idemedicalcareandthatsomecarewasa�ailableateachpermanentcamp,Eritrea’se�idenceisinadequatetoallowtheCom-missiontoformjudgementsregardingtheextentorqualityofhealthcaresuf-ficienttoo�ercomeEthiopia’sprima faciecase .

117 . The camp clinic logs (where readable) do show that numerousPOWswenttotheclinics,buttheycannotestablishthatcarewasappropriateorthatallPOWsinneedofmedicalattentionweretreatedinatimelymannero�erthefullcourseoftheircapti�ity .Forexample,fromtherecordsitappearsthattheclinicsdidnotregisterpatientsonadailybasis .Underinternationalhumanitarianlaw,aPOWhastherighttoseekmedicalattentiononhisorherowninitiati�eandtorecei�ethecontinuousmedicalattentionrequiredbyhisorherstateofhealth whichrequiresdailyaccesstoaclinic .

118 . InternationalhumanitarianlawalsorequiresthatPOWsbetreat-edataspecializedhospitalorfacilitywhenrequiredmedicalcarecannotbegi�eninacampclinic .ThehospitalrecordssubmittedbyEritrea,howe�er,arenotsufficienttoestablishthatallPOWsinneedofspecializedtreatmentwerereferredtohospitals .Moreo�er,aquantitati�eanalysisofthoserecordsshowsthat,whileafewrelatetotreatmentinthefirsthalfof1999atDigdigta,nearlyonehalfrelatetotheperiodfromAugusttoDecember2000andonequarterto2001and2002,i.e.,thetimeperiodafterEritreaaccededtotheGene�aCon-�entionsandICRCcamp�isitsstarted .OnlyafewrecordsrelatetotreatmentbetweenJuly1999andMay2000,whenthePOWsweredetainedatAfabet,andnonerelatestothetimewhenBarentuandEmbakalawereopen .

119 . Likewise,themedicinesupplyreportssubmittedbyEritreaindi-catethatEritreadistributedsomedrugsand�itaminstothePOWs,buttheydonotpro�ethatEritreapro�idedadequatedrugstoallPOWsinthecamps .Itisstrikingthat,accordingtothee�idencesubmitted,Eritreaapparentlydis-tributedsubstantiallymoreVitaminA,BandCandmulti-�itaminstoPOWsafterAugust2000thanbefore .

120 . Pre�enti�ecareisamatterofparticularconcerntotheCommission .Ase�idencedbytheirprominenceinGene�aCon�entionIII,regularmedicalexaminationsofallPOWsare�italtomaintaininggoodhealthinacloseden�i-ronmentwherediseasesareeasilyspread .TheCommissionconsidersmonthlyexaminationsofthecamppopulationtobeapre�enti�emeasureformingpartoftheDetainingPower’sobligationsunderinternationalcustomarylaw .

121 . TheCommissionmustconcludethatEritreafailedtotakese�eralimportantpre�entati�ecaremeasuresspecificallymandatedbyinternational


law .Inassessingthisissue,theCommissionlookednotjusttoEthiopiabutalsotoEritrea,whichadministeredthecampsandhadthebestknowledgeofitsownpractices .

122 . Asnoted,Ethiopiasubmittedse�eraldeclarationsindicatingthatnoregularmedicalexaminationstookplace .EritreafailedtosubmitrecordsinrebuttaldemonstratingthatpersonalPOWmedicaldata,includingweightrecords,weremaintainedonaregularbasis .Itappearsthathealthinspectionswereperformedonlyinthelastmonthsofcapti�ity .

123 . Thee�idencealsoreflectsthatEritreafailedtosegregatecertaininfectedprisoners .POWsareparticularlysusceptibletocontagiousdiseasessuchastuberculosis,andcustomaryinternationallaw(reflectingproperbasichealthcare)requiresthatinfectedPOWsbeisolatedfromthegeneralPOWpopulation . Se�eral Ethiopian POW declarants describe how tuberculosispatientswerelodgedwiththeotherPOWs,e�idencewhichwasnoteffecti�elyrebuttedbyEritrea .Thecampauthoritiesshouldha�edetectedcontagiousdiseasesasearlyaspossibleandorganizedspecialwards .

124 . Accordingly,theCommissionholdsthatEritrea�iolatedinterna-tionallawfromMay1998untilthelastEthiopianPOWswerereleasedandrepatriatedinAugust2002,byfailingtopro�ideEthiopianPOWswiththerequiredminimumstandardofmedicalcare .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforthis�iolationofcustomaryinternationallaw .

125 . Inclosing,theCommissionnotesitsrecognitionthatEritreaandEthiopiacannot,atleastatpresent,berequiredtoha�ethesamestandardsformedicaltreatmentasde�elopedcountries .Howe�er,scarcityoffinancesandinfrastructurecannotexcuseafailuretogranttheminimumstandardofmedicalcarerequiredbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thecostofsuchcareisnot,inanye�ent,substantialincomparisonwiththeothercostsimposedbythearmedconflict .

7. Unlawful Conditions of Labor

126 . EthiopiaclaimsthatEritreaforcedPOWstoworkinconditionsthat�iolatedrequirementsofArticles13,14,26,27,49–55,62,65and66ofGene�aCon�entionIII .

127 . Article49ofGene�aCon�entionIIIdoesnotforbidaDetainingPowertocompelPOWswhoarephysicallyfittowork,butitdoesforbidcom-pellingofficerstowork .ThedeclarationsbyformerEthiopianPOWsmakeclearthat,whilethemostseriouslydisabledweregenerallyexcusedfromwork,othersickorwoundedPOWswhowerenotphysicallyfitwerenotexcusedandweregenerallyforcedtoworkandthatofficerswereforcedtowork .

128 . Thee�idencealsoindicatesthatEthiopianPOWs,whileatworkatAfabet,DigdigtaandNakfa,werefrequentlybeatenbytheEritreanguardswhentheytriedtotakerestsorfoundthemsel�esunabletocarryhea�yloads .


SuchtreatmentofPOWsisnotonlya�iolationofArticle13ofGene�aCon-�entionIII,whichrequireshumanetreatmentofPOWsandtheirprotectionfromactsof�iolence,butalsoofArticle51,whichforbidsmakinglabormorearduousthroughdisciplinarymeasures,a fortioriincludingbeatingsandotherphysicalpunishments .

129 . Thee�idencealsocompelsthefindingthatEritreafailedtopro-�idePOWsatAfabet,DigdigtaandNakfawithsuitableworkingconditions,asrequiredbyArticles27and51ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Examplesincludethedepri�ationoffootwearwhilethePOWswereforcedtoworkonroadcon-struction,stonequarryingorcarrying,orfirewoodcollection,andtherefusalofaccesstodrinkingwaterexceptduringlunch .

130 . Thereisalsoe�idence,whichwasnotrebutted,thatPOWsatAfa-bet,DigdigtaandNakfawereoftenrequiredtoworkexcessi�ehours,withoutsufficientbreaks,inbreachofArticle53ofGene�aCon�entionIII .

131 . TheCommissionfindsthatthee�idence,whichwasnotrebutted,establishesthatnoneofthePOWswaspaidforhiswork,asrequiredbyArti-cles54and62ofGene�aCon�entionIII .

132 . EthiopiaalsohasarguedthatforthePOWstobeforcedtoworkinweakhealth,hungryandthirsty,withoutappropriatefootwear,andunderthethreatofbeatings,washumiliatingandthereforeinbreachofArticle52ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Howe�er,theCommissionbelie�esthatisnotthepurportofthatArticle .

133 . Finally,EthiopiaassertedthatEritrearequireditsPOWstoper-formworkofamilitarycharacterinbreachofArticle50ofGene�aCon�en-tionIII .Howe�er,nosufficiente�idencehasbeensubmittedforthisallegation .Tobuildresidencehousesandotherfacilitiesforthecampandtheguardsisnotworkofamilitarycharacter,butconcernstheinstallationofthecamp,andisallowedunderArticle50 .Similarly,underArticle50,roadsareconsideredworksofpublicutilityandthereforeworkonthemispermissible,unlessitispro�enthattheyha�eamilitarycharacterorpurpose .Ethiopiadidnotsub-mitsuche�idence .Consequently,theCommissiondoesnotfindthatEritreabreachedArticle50ofGene�aCon�entionIII .

134 . Inconclusion,theCommissionholdsthatEritreahassubjectedEthiopianPOWstoconditionsoflaborthat�iolatedArticles13,27,49,51,53,54and62ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Consequently,Eritreaisliablefortheseunlawfullaborconditions .

8. Conditions of Transfer Between Camps

135 . TheCommissionturnsnexttoEthiopia’sallegationsthatEritreatreatedPOWsinhumanelyinthecourseoftransferbetweencamps .AsrecitedbyEthiopia,Articles46and47ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequiretheDetainingPowertoconducttransfershumanely .Ataminimum,aswithe�acuationfrom


thefront,theDetainingPowershouldnotsubjectPOWstotransferconditionslessfa�orablethanthosetowhichitsownforcesaresubjected .Inallcircum-stances,theDetainingPowermustconsidertheinterestsoftheprisonerssoasnottomakerepatriationmoredifficultthannecessary,andshouldpro�idefood,water,shelterandmedicalattention .Thesickandwoundedshouldnotbetransferredifitendangerstheirreco�ery,unlessmandatedbysafetyreasons .

136 . TheEthiopianPOWdeclarationsconsistentlyrecounthoursanddaysoftra�elono�ercrowdedmilitarytrucksorbuses,o�erroughroads,inextremesofheatandcold,withfewifanytoiletbreaksandlittleifanyfoodandwater .Inrebuttal,Eritreapresentede�idencethatitsownforces,atleasttosomeextent,enduredthesesamedifficulttransportationconditions,particularlygi�-enthelackofpa�edroadsinEritrea .TheCommissionedrecognizesthatdrasti-callylimitedEritreanresourcesandinfrastructuremadetransferofprisonersinthisconflictuna�oidablymiserable,but,again,onlytosomeextent .

137 . Howe�er,thee�idencealsoreflectsthat,toacertainandcriticalextent,EritreadidnotdoallwithinitsabilitytomaketransferofthePOWsashumaneaspossible .Thee�idenceindicatesthattransferswereoftenaccom-paniedbydeliberatephysicalabusebyguards,andthatEritreapro�idednoeffecti�emeasurestopre�entsuchmisconduct .TheCommissionistroubledbyaccounts,fortunatelyfew,ofpurposefullycrueltreatment;onedeclarationdescribesEritreansoldierspouringfuelonthebedoftransporttruckbeforeatwel�e-hourtripinopensun .Ofe�engreaterconcernistheclearandcon-�incinge�idencepresentedbyEthiopiathatEritreansoldiersfrequentlybeatPOWsduringtransfer .Particularlyseriousisrepetiti�ee�idenceofEritreansoldiersbeatingthesickandwounded .Inonecase,twodeclarationsrecountedthedeathofonesickEthiopianprisonerwhowasthrownfromatruckonthetransferfromAfabettoNakfaandlefttodie .

138 . In theabsenceofeffecti�erebuttalbyEritrea, theCommissionfinds Eritrea liable for permitting unnecessary suffering of POWs duringtransferbetweencamps .

9. Treatment of the Dead

139 . Ethiopia,unlikeEritrea,brought separate clams foralleged�io-lationsofcustomaryinternationallawrequirementsfollowingthedeathofaPOW .SpecificallycitingArticles120and121ofGene�aCon�entionIII,Ethio-piaallegedthatEritreafailedtopro�idemedicalexaminationanddeathcertifi-catesforPOWswhodiedincapti�ity,toin�estigatepotentialnon-naturalcausesofdeath,ortoensurehonorableburialwithreligiousritesinmarkedgra�es .

140 . Thereislittlee�idenceintherecordconcerningtreatmentofthedead .OnlyasmallnumberoftheEthiopianPOWdeclarationsaddressthisissue,andtheydosoinaninconsistentfashion .Forexample,althoughallofthedeclarantswereinternedatNakfa,onlythreerecountthatprisonerswerenotallowedtoburytheirdead(forsomeperiodoftime)atNakfa .


141 . Intheabsenceofclearandcon�incinge�idencefromEthiopia,theCommissiondoesnotfindEritrealiablefor�iolatinginternationallawobliga-tionsconcerningtreatmentofEthiopiaPOWswhodiedincapti�ity .

10. Failure to Post Camp Rules and Allow Complaints

142 . As noted pre�iously, Gene�a Con�ention III establishes anextremelydetailedregime .EarliersectionsofthisAwardaddressEthiopia’sclaimsalleging�iolationsofcoreelementsofthisregimein�ol�ingkillings,physicalormentalabuseofPOWs,ormatters�italtoPOWs’sur�i�al,suchasfood,housingandmedicalcare .

143 . ThisfinalsectionaddressesEthiopia’sclaimsin�ol�ingtwosetsofobligationsofasomewhatdifferentcharacter .Ethiopiaclaims�iolationsofrequirementsto(a)postcampregulationsand(b)ha�ecomplaintprocedures .Thesepro�isionsestablishadministrati�eorproceduralrequirementspartlyaimedatprotectingPOWs’rightsoratremedyingdeficiencies .TheCommis-siondoesnotmeantominimizetheirroleinthetotalschemeofprotectionundertheCon�ention .Ne�ertheless,theseclaimsloomlesslargethanmanyothersconsideredpre�iously .

a. Camp Regulations

144 . Article41ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequirese�eryPOWcamptopostboththeCon�entionand“regulations,orders,noticesandpublicationsofe�erykind,”whereprisonersmayreadthemintheprisoners’language .PriortoAugust14,2000,theGene�aCon�entionwasnotinforcebetweentheParties;theCommissionseesnobasistoholdthatcustomarylawrequiresthepostingoftheCon�entionbeforethatdate .Howe�er,theCommissionfindsthatthereisacustomaryobligationtopostcampregulationsinaclearandaccessiblelocationandotherwisetoensurethatPOWsareawareoftheirrightsandobligations .

145 . Ethiopia adduced little e�idence to support this claim . It citedresponsesonafewofitsclaimsformsregardingtheallegedlackofpostedreg-ulationsatEritrea’sthreeinitialcamps,buttheCommissionheldearlierthatitisunabletorelyontheclaimsformsgi�enthecircumstancesoftheircollec-tionandtheuncertainreliabilityoftheinformationtheycontain .Accordingly,theclaimastothesethreecampsmustfailforlackofproof .EthiopiacitesonegenerallyphrasedwitnessdeclarationconcerningAfabet,andcitesaseconddeclarationtoshowthelackofpostedregulationsatNakfa .Eritreapresentedunrebuttede�idencethattherewerecamprulesande�idencesuggestingthatthoseruleswerereadouttoprisoners .Howe�er,itdidnotdirectlyrepresenttotheCommissionthattheruleswereposted .146 . Gi�enthesparsee�idencesupportingEthiopia’sclaimsregardingthesituationsatallfi�ecampsandtheCommission’srequirementthatclaimsmustbeestablishedbyclearandcon�incinge�idence,thisclaimmustberejectedforfailureofproof .


b. Complaint Procedures147 . EthiopiaalsoclaimedthatEritreadidnotpro�ideeffecti�ecom-

plaintprocedures .Article78ofGene�aCon�entionIIIassuresPOWstherightto“makeknown”tothemilitaryauthoritiesholdingthem“requests”regard-ingtheirconditions .Requestsandcomplaintscannotbelimited,cannotbepunished,andmustbetransmittedimmediately .

148 . Takingaccount,forinstance,ofthepracticeduringWorldWarIcitedbyEthiopia43andtheinclusionofthisconceptinthe1929Con�ention,theCommissionfindsthatbothcustomarylawandtheCon�entionguaranteePOWsarighttocomplainabouttheirconditionsofdetentionfreefromretri-bution .Ethiopia’se�idence,althoughnotasextensi�easonsomeothermorefundamentalissues,establishesthatthisrightfrequentlywasnotallowedandthatcomplainingprisonersweresubjectedtose�erepunishments .

149 . Here,asinthepre�iousclaim,Ethiopiacitesse�eralclaimsformsdiscussingtheallegedlackofcomplaintprocedures .Asnotedabo�e,theCom-missionisnotpreparedtorelyontheseformsbecauseoftheiruncertainrelia-bility .Howe�er,Ethiopiaalsocitedanumberofconsistentwitnessdeclarationspro�idingcumulati�esupportforitsclaim .Ethiopia’se�idencesuggestedthatprisonerssometimescomplainedtoseniorcampofficers,althoughwithouteffect .Howe�er,accountsofcomplainingprisonersbeingbeatenorharassedbylower-rankingpersonnelweremuchmorecommon .TheseincludedtwoformerPOWswhocomplainedofbeingbeatenatBarentu;allegationsthatcomplaintstothecampcommanderandtomedicalpersonnelatEmbakalawereineffecti�e;andaccountsofthelackofcomplaintproceduresandofbeat-ingofcomplainingprisonersatDigdigtaandatAfabet .Conditionsappeartoha�ebeenparticularlyharshforcomplainingprisonersatNakfa .

150 . Basedonclearandcon�incinge�idence,theCommissionfindsthatEritrea,in�iolationofitsobligationsunderinternationallaw,didnotallowEthi-opianPOWsheldatanyofitscampstocomplainabouttheirconditionsandtoseekredress .Further,thee�idenceshowsthatinallofthecamps,butparticularlyinNakfa,prisonerswhoattemptedtocomplainwereoftensubjectedtohea�yandunlawfulsanctions,includingsegregationfromtherestofthecamppopula-tionandbeatingsbyguards .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforthese�iolations .

V. awardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:

a. Jurisdiction1 . TheCommissionlacksjurisdictiono�erclaimsthatwerenotfiledby

December12,2001 .TheclaimassertedbytheClaimantforthefirsttimein

43 Transcriptp .103 .


itsMemorialconcerningdelayedrepatriationofPOWsbytheRespondentisdismissedforlackofjurisdiction .

2 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .

b. applicable law

1 . WithrespecttomatterspriortoEritrea’saccessiontotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949,effecti�eAugust14,2000,theinternationallawappli-cabletothisclaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinter-nationalhumanitarian lawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsof thefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .

2 . Whene�ereitherPartyassertsthataparticularrele�antpro�isionofthoseCon�entionswasnotpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwillbeontheassertingParty .

3 . WithrespecttomatterssubsequenttoAugust14,2000,theinter-nationallawapplicabletothisclaimistherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,aswellascustomaryinternationallaw .

C. evidentiary issues

TheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishtheliabilityofaPartyfora�iolationofapplicableinternationallaw .

d. findings of liability for Violation of international law

TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsofinternationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelandbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEritrea:

1 . Forrefusingpermission,fromMay1998untilAugust2000,fortheICRCtosenddelegatesto�isitallplaceswhereEthiopianPOWsweredetained,toregisterthosePOWs,tointer�iewthemwithoutwitnesses,andtopro�idethemwithreliefandser�icescustomarilypro�ided;

2 . ForfailingtoprotectEthiopianPOWsfrombeingkilledatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;

3 . ForpermittingbeatingsorotherphysicalabuseofEthiopianPOWs,whichoccurredfrequentlyatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;

4 . Fordepri�ingallEthiopianPOWsof footwearduring longwalksfromtheplaceofcapturetothefirstplaceofdetention;


5 . ForpermittingitspersonneltothreatenandbeatEthiopianPOWsduringinterrogations,whichoccurredfrequentlyatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;

6 . ForthegeneralconfiscationofthepersonalpropertyofEthiopianPOWs;

7 . Forpermittingper�asi�eandcontinuousphysicalandmentalabuseofEthiopianPOWsinitscampsfromMay1998untilAugust2002;

8 . For seriously endangering the health of Ethiopian POWs at theEmbakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfacampsbyfailingtopro�ideadequatehousing,sanitation,drinkingwater,bathingopportunitiesandfood;

9 . Forfailingtopro�idethestandardofmedicalcarerequiredforEthi-opianPOWs,andforfailingtopro�iderequiredpre�enti�ecarebysegregatingprisonerswithinfectiousdiseasesandconductingregularphysicalexamina-tions,fromMay1998untilAugust2002;

10 . ForsubjectingEthiopianPOWstounlawfulconditionsoflabor;11 . For permitting unnecessary suffering of POWs during transfer

betweencamps;and12 . ForfailingtoallowtheEthiopianPOWsinitscampstocomplain

abouttheirconditionsandtoseekredress,andfrequentlypunishingPOWswhoattemptedtocomplain .

e. other findings1 . ClaimsbasedonallegedbreachesbytheRespondentofthejus ad

bellumaredeferredfordecisioninasubsequentproceeding .2 . Allotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .

DoneatTheHague,this1stdayofJuly2003,

[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte

[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich

[Signed]JohnR .Crook

[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul

[Signed]LucyReed

Documents

REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Partial Award, Prisoners of war—Ethiopia’s Claim 4, Decision of 1 July 2003 Sentence partielle, Prisonniers de guerre—Réclamation