4

Since 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been pursuing a case in the International Court of Justice against Uganda for "acts of armed aggression committed ... in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity". The DRC also sought reparations for "acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of national property and resources".

In response, Uganda brought three counter-claims against the DRC relating to the conduct of its armed forces, two of which were found to be admissible. The Court found in 2005 that there was evidence to support one of these counter-claims, regarding attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa.

In the case document, it states that

In relation to the counter-claims presented by Uganda, the Court found that the DRC had violated certain obligations incumbent on it and that it was under an obligation to make reparation to Uganda for the injury caused.

However, it goes on to say

Finally, the Court observes that, at the end of the hearings, the Agent of Uganda informed it that his Government “officially waive[d] its counter-claim for reparation for the injury caused by the conduct of the DRC’s armed forces, including attacks on the Ugandan diplomatic premises in Kinshasa and the maltreatment of Ugandan diplomats”.

Why did Uganda do this?

Improve this question
1
  • Welcome on P.SE ! Can you edit some context into the body of the question : some dates, a brief summary of what happened in Kinshasa, which Court issued the document, and expliciting the acronym DRC=Democratic Republic of Congo ? We would like any visitor to be able to understand quickly what a question is broadly about, without having to follow a link.
    – Evargalo
    Feb 10, 2022 at 8:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

According to the submissions to the court (pg. 70) by then Attorney General of Uganda William Byaruhanga, this claim was waived as a gesture of good faith and an attempt to help bring an amicable end to the proceedings. This gesture was made after Byaruhanga proposed to the Court that the DRC had not succeeded in proving losses directly attributable to Uganda, encouraged it to find that the DRC had not fulfilled its obligations in law, and by ending the proceedings, allow the two countries to forge a closer relationship in the future.

  1. Uganda believes in international justice. That is why we are here today. But justice must be based ⎯ and can only be based ⎯ on sound legal principles, established facts, rules and standards.
  2. Madam President, Members of the Court, to be sure — and other counsel have already said this — no amount of money can replace a human life. But the task of this Court is to determine what losses were actually attributable to Uganda. The Court made clear that it falls to the DRC to prove the nature, extent and valuation of the harm caused by Uganda. In the absence of an agreement authorizing you to depart from the strict law and to rule ex aequo et bono, we therefore ask you, honourable Members of this Court, to decide, in accordance with your mission, on the basis of the applicable law and of that law alone. In particular, we hope the Court will follow well-established precedents on evidence and causality and find that, unfortunately, the DRC has not fulfilled its obligations in that regard. We are convinced that by relying on the correct application of international law, your two Judgments will allow the Parties to turn this dark page in their history and allow our two peoples to renew their brotherly relationship.
  3. In further demonstration of Uganda’s good faith, Uganda agrees to, and hereby does officially, waive its counter-claim for reparation for the injury caused by the conduct of the DRC’s armed forces, including attacks on the Ugandan diplomatic premises in Kinshasa and the maltreatment of Ugandan diplomats.
Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.