By Tobias Thienel

The International Court of Justice has today given judgment on the merits of the Case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo). The judgment is available here; a press release with a short summary of the judgment is here.

The Court held some of the claims made against the Democratic Republic of the Congo inadmissible for having been filed too late in the course of the proceedings. On the merits, the Court found the DRC to have violated Mr Diallo’s right of physical liberty and the prohibition on unlawful and arbitrary expulsions. As to the substance of the human rights instruments at issue, the Court was happy to follow the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as that of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. This is, of course, fully consonant with its approach to the ICCPR and ICESCR in the Wall opinion (paras 109 et seq). Interestingly, the Court has now indicated its reasons for adhering to such practice, pointing to the role given to the Committee and the Commission by the relevant treaties as well as the need for clarity and consistency (paras 66, 67).

In substance, the Court was not particularly adventurous on the human rights issues. Judges Keith and Greenwood, however, dissent on the interpretation of the prohibition on arbitrary expulsions, arguing that this extended only to procedural, but not to substantive standards.

The Court did not find any violations of Mr Diallo’s rights in his capacity as associé (partner or shareholder) in several companies. (The rights of those companies themselves had been excluded from the case at the preliminary objections stage because those companies were not Guinean and Guinea therefore was without standing to exercise diplomatic protection with respect to them.) In the result, the Court found the DRC liable to make reparation in the form of financial compensation. In accordance with the traditional logic of diplomatic protection, such compensation will be paid to Guinea rather than Mr Diallo (cf. Barcelona Traction case, paras 78 et seq). The amount of compensation may yet be fixed by the Court if the parties fail to agree.