reports of international arbitral awards recueil des...
TRANSCRIPT
REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Civilian Claims - Eritrea's Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27-32
17 December 2004
XXVI pp. 195-247VOLUME
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009
ParT Vi
Partial Award Civilian Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27-32
Decision of 17 December 2004
Sentence partielle Mauvais traitements des populations civiles—
Réclamations de l’Érythrée Nos 15, 16, 23 & 27-32
Décision du 17 décembre 2004
PartialAward,CiviliansClaims—Eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27-32,Decisionof17December2004
Sentencepartielle,Mauvaistraitementsdespopulationsciviles—Réclamationsdel’ÉrythréeNos15,16,23&27-32,
Décisiondu17décembre2004,
Jurisdiction of the Commission—determination of the liability of States forbreachesofinternationalobligations—liabilityonlyforserious�iolationsofinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawaffectingse�eral�ictims—liabilityengagedonlyforsystem-atic,frequentandrecurring�iolations—nojurisdictiono�erindi�idualcrimes—juris-dictionlimitedtoe�entsarisingduringthearmedconflictandsubsequenttoitasaresultofitsending—jurisdictiontohearclaimspresentedbyStatepartiesonbehalfofcertainnon-nationals—absenceofjurisdictiono�erclaimspresentedonbehalfoftheStatefordamagessufferedbynon-nationals—absenceofjurisdictiono�er�iolationsofnationallaw .
Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—Eritreasubjecttocustomaryhumanitar-ianrulesbeforebecomingapartytoGene�aCon�entions—customarystatusofinter-nationalhumanitarianrulesasexemplifiedbytheGene�aCon�entions—ProtocolI�iewedbythePartiesasreflectingbindingcustomaryrulesdespitethedoubtfulstatusofsomeofitsportions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofaGene�aCon�entionorProtocol—protectionofinternationalhumanitarian law maintained throughout the complex process of disengagementandtheimmediateaftermathofthearmedconflict—situationshapedbyse�erallegalregimes—ci�ilianaliensprotectedunderinternationalhumanitarianlaw—ci�iliannationalsprotectedbyhumanrightslaw .
Customary internationalhumanitarian lawprinciples—treatmentof ci�ilianaliensduringwartime—internationalhumanitarianlawconsideredasguarantyingrespectofbasichumanrightsduringwartime—liabilityarisingfrompermittingorproceedingtounlawfulexpulsion—austereanduncomfortableconditionsofdeten-tionofci�ilians forshortperiodwithoutpatternofphysicalabusenotconsideredas�iolationofinternationallaw—detentionofci�iliansforlongperiodinharshandunsanitaryconditionswithfrequentphysicalabusesconsideredascontrarytointer-nationallaw—detentionofalienci�iliansunderappropriatesafeguardsinordertopre�entthemtojointheenemyarmyconsideredasreasonableandlawfulmeasure—unlawfultodetainaliensci�ilianswithprisonersofwar .
Nationality—issuanceofpassportsconsideredase�idenceofacontinuednation-ality—competencyofaStatenotyetrecognisedde jurebytheinternationalcommu-nitytoconferitsnationality—noautomaticlossofapre�iousnationalityimpliedbytheacquisitionofasecondnationality—noper seterminationofdualnationalityduetotheoccurrenceofawar—questionofdualnationalandlossofnationalityinwar-timenotaddressedbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw—limitationoftheState’sdis-cretiontodepri�eitsnationalsha�ingacquiredasecondnationalityofitsnationalitybytherightforeachindi�idualnottobedepri�edarbitrarilyofone’snationalityand
198 Eritrea/Ethiopia
tobecomestateless—obligationtogi�eadequateinformationtotheindi�idualsubjecttoaprocedureofdepri�ationofnationality—lawfuldepri�ationofnationalitytodualnationalsha�ingfreelydecidedtolea�ethecountryduringthewarfortheenemyStateoralreadyli�ingthere—unlawfuldepri�ationofnationalitytoremainingdualnation-alsnotidentifiedasathreattonationalsecurityorwhowereli�inginathirdState .
Expulsionofaliensordualnationalsduringwartime—non-arbitraryexpulsionsconsideredaslawful—lawfulexpulsionofcertainidentifieddualnationalsthoughttoposeathreattosecurity—broadpowerforabelligerenttorequirenationalsofenemyStatetoreturnthere—notreasonabletoproceedtomassexpulsionofallnationalsofanenemyStateatthebeginningofawar—reasonabletoexpelselectedandidentifiedindi�idualsonsecuritygroundsafterin�estigationandaprocessofdeliberation—noStateliabilityarisingfromdecisionsmadebyfamiliesofanexpulsedalientolea�eatthesametimeorlateron—liabilityarisingformthecoerci�eexpulsionoffamilymem-bersofanexpulsedalienwhoarethemsel�esnationalsoftheexpellingState .
Treatmentofaliens—noprohibitionunderinternationallawtoforbidrealprop-ertyownershipbyaliens—liabilityforarbitraryanddiscriminatoryorganisationofsuchsaleofdeportees’assets—impositionofadiscriminatoryandconfiscatorytaxa-tionmeasureconsideredas�iolationofinternationallaw—foreclosureoffundstrans-fersabroadconsideredasreasonableand lawfulmeasure—generalduty toprotectalien’sassets .
Interpretationofaninternationalagreement—consistencywiththemostnaturalmeaningofthewordsofthetext .
Questionofe�idence—requirementofclearandcon�incinge�idenceforcrimesofacertaingra�ity—burdenofproofontheclaimant—creditaccordedtocumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonies—difficultytorelyinmaterialnotpreparedase�idenceinlegalproceedings .
Remedy—requestfordifferenttypesofremedysuchasreinstatementofnational-ity,regainofci�ilrights,restorationofproperty,�oidingofeconomictransactionandfreedomofdetainees,notconsideredasreasonableandappropriate .
Claimsfilingproceedings—furtherreferencestoadditionalinternationallegalauthoritiesorlegalinstrumentstosupportclaimsnotconsideredasanewseparateclaim .
CompétencedelaCommission—déterminationdelaresponsabilitédesEtatspourles�iolationsd’obligationsinternationales—responsabilitélimitéeàdes�iola-tionsimportantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—responsabilitéuniquementengagéepourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécurrentes—absencedecompétencerelati�eauxcrimes indi�iduels—compétencelimitéeauxé�énementsayanteulieupendantleconflitarméainsiqu’auxé�énementspostérieursàcelui-cirésultantdesonachè�ement—compétencepourconnaîtredesréclamationsprésentéespar lesÉtatspartiesaunomdecertainsnon-nationaux—absencedecompétencepourconnaîtredesréclamationsprésentéesaunomdesÉtatspartiespourlesdommagessubispardesnon-nationaux—absencedecompétencerela-ti�eaux�iolationsdudroitnational .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 199
Droiten�igueurpendantleconflitarmé—Érythréesoumiseauxrèglesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumiera�antmêmedede�enirPartieauxCon�entionsdeGenè�e—caractèrecoutumierderèglesinternationaleshumanitaires,telqu’illustrépar les Con�entions de Genè�e—Protocole I considéré par les Parties commereflétantlesrèglescoutumièrescontraignantesmalgrélestatutincertaindecertainspassages—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurl’Étatréfutantlestatutcoutumierd’unedispositionparticulièredel’unedesCon�entionsdeGenè�eouProtocole—maintiendelaprotectiondudroitinternationalhumanitairetoutaulongduprocédécomplexededésengagementetdelapériodesui�antimmédiatementleconflit—situationrégiepardifférentsrégimesjuridiques—protectiondesci�ilsétrangersen�ertududroitinternational humanitaire—protection des ci�ils nationaux en �ertu du régimenationaldesdroitsdel’homme .
Principesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumier—traitementdesci�ilsétrangers en temps de guerre—droit international humanitaire considéré commegarantissantlerespectdesdroitsdel’hommelesplusfondamentauxdurantunconflitarmé—responsabilitéengagéeparlefaitdepermettreoudeprocéderàdesexpulsionsillégales—ladétentiondeci�ilspourunecourteduréedansdesconditionsaustèreset inconfortables, sans abus physique, n’est pas considérée comme une �iolationdu droit international—la détention de ci�ils pour une longue période dans desconditionsrigoureusesetinsalubresaccompagnéedemau�aistraitementsphysiquesestconsidéréecommecontraireaudroitinternational—ladétention,souscertainesgaranties,deci�ilsétrangersafindelesempêcherderejoindrel’ennemiestconsidéréecommeunemesureraisonnableetlégale—illégalitédeladétentiondeci�ilsétrangersa�ecdesprisonniersdeguerre .
Nationalité—l’émissiondespasseportsest�uecommeunepreu�edelaconti-nuitédelanationalité—compétenced’unÉtatpasencorereconnude jureparlaCom-munautéinternationaledeconférersanationalité—pasdeperteautomatiquedelanationalitésuiteàl’acquisitiond’unedeuxièmenationalité—pasd’extinctionper sede ladoublenationalitédufaitde lasur�enanced’uneguerreentre lesdeuxÉtatsd’allégeance—questiondeladoublenationalitéetdelapertedenationalitéentempsdeguerrenonrégléeparledroitinternationalhumanitaire—compétencediscrétion-nairedel’Étatdepri�erundesesressortissantsdesanationalitélorsdel’acquisitiond’unedeuxièmenationalitélimitéeparledroitdechaqueindi�idudenepasêtrearbi-trairementpri�édesanationalitéetdenepasde�enirapatride—obligationdedonnerdesinformationsadéquatesàl’indi�idusoumisàuneprocédurededestitutiondelanationalité—destitutionlégaledelanationalitéderessortissantsbinationauxayantlibrementchoisidepartirpourlepaysennemiouyrésidantdéjàdurantlaguerre—destitutionillégaledelanationalitéderessortissantsbinationauxrestantsnonidenti-fiéscommeunemenaceàlasécuriténationaleouquirésidaientdansunÉtattiers .
Expulsiond’étrangersouderessortissantsbinationauxentempsdeguerre—lesexpulsionsnonarbitrairessontconsidéréeslégales—légalitédesexpulsionsdecer-tainsressortissantsbinationauxidentifiéscommereprésentantunemenacepourlasécuriténationale—largepou�oirdubelligérantd’exigerleretourdansleurpaysdesressortissantsdel’Étatennemi—l’expulsionmassi�edetouslesnationauxd’unÉtatennemiaudébutduconflitestconsidéréecommeirraisonnable—l’expulsionsélec-ti�ed’indi�idusidentifiéspourdesraisonssécuritaires,aprèsenquêteetprocéduredélibérati�e,estconsidéréecommeraisonnable—responsabilitéétatiquenonengagée
200 Eritrea/Ethiopia
parladécisiondesmembresd’unefamilled’unexpulsédepartirenmêmetempsouplustard—responsabilitéengagéeparl’expulsionforcéedesmembresdelafamilled’unétrangerexpulsé,quisonteux-mêmesdesressortissantsdel’Étatprocédantàl’expulsion .
Traitementdesétrangers—pasd’interdictionen�ertududroitinternationaldedéfendre aux étrangers de posséder des biens immobiliers—responsabilité engagéepourl’organisationde�entesarbitrairesetdiscriminatoiresdepropriétésd’étrangers—l’impositiondetaxesdiscriminatoiresetconfiscatoiresestconsidéréecommeune�iola-tiondudroitinternational—l’interdictiondetransfertsdefondsàl’étrangerestconsid-éréecommeunemesureraisonnableetlégale—de�oirgénéraldeprotégerlesbiensdesétrangers .
Interprétationd’unaccordinternational—cohérencea�eclesensleplusnatureldesmotsdutexte .
Questiondespreu�es—nécessitédepreu�esclairesetcon�aincantespour lescrimesd’unecertainegra�ité—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurleplaignant—créditaccordéauxtémoignagescumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—difficultédesefierauxdocumentsquin’ontpasétépréparésdanslebutdeser�irdepreu�edanslesprocéduresjuridiques .
Réparation—l’exigencededifférentstypesderéparationtelsquelerétablisse-mentdelanationalité,desdroitsci�ilsetdelapropriété,l’annulationdestransactionséconomiquesainsiquelalibérationdesdétenus,n’estpasconsidéréecommeraison-nableetadéquate .
Procéduredesoumissiondesréclamations—l’ajoutderéférencesàladoctrineinternationaleouàdesinstrumentsjuridiquessupplémentairespourappuyerlesrécla-mations,n’estpasassimiléàlasoumissiond’unenou�elleréclamation .
ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION
PARTIAL AWARD
Civilians Claims Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27-32
between
The State of Eritrea
and
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 201
BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:
Hans�anHoutte,PresidentGeorgeH .AldrichJohnR .CrookJamesC .N .PaulLucyReed
TheHague,December17,2004
PARTIAL AWARD—Civilians Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27–32 between the Claimant,
The State of Eritrea, represented by:
Government of Eritrea
H .E .Mr .MohammedSuliemanAhmed,AmbassadoroftheStateofEri-treatoTheNetherlands
ProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-Agent,LegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresidentofEritrea;HowardM .HoltzmannProfessorofInternationalLaw,YaleLawSchool
Ms .LorraineCharlton,DeputyLegalAd�isortotheOfficeofthePresi-dentofEritrea
Counsel and Advocates
ProfessorJamesR .Crawford,SC,FBA,WhewellProfessorofInterna-tionalLaw,Uni�ersityofCambridge;MemberoftheAustralianandEnglishBars;MemberoftheInstituteofInternationalLaw
Dr .PayamAkha�an,Esq .
Counsel and Consultants
Ms .GeorgiaAlbert
Ms .SemharAraia
Ms .AmandaCostikyanJones
Mr .YosiefSolomon
Ms .DanielleTully
202 Eritrea/Ethiopia
and the Respondent, The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, represented by:
Government of EthiopiaMr .HabtomAbraha,ConsulGeneral,EthiopianMissioninTheNeth-
erlandsMr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFed-
eralDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMr .HenokMengistu,ThirdSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsofthe
FederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMs .FirdosaAbdulkadir,ThirdSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsof
theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbabaMr .TsegayeDemeke,ConsulateofEthiopiatoTheNetherlands
Counsel and ConsultantsMr .B .Dono�anPicard,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Member
of theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
ProfessorSeanD .Murphy,GeorgeWashingtonUni�ersityLawSchool,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheStateBarofMaryland
Mr .KnoxBemis,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
Mr .EdwardB .Rowe,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofColorado
Ms .VirginiaC .Dailey;PiperRudnick,LLP,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbiaandStateBarofFlorida;MemberoftheLawSocietyofEnglandandWales
Mr .ThomasR .Snider,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofMassachusetts
Mr .WonKidane,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofIllinois
Ms .ChristinaE�ans,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .;Consultant
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 203
Table of ConTenTs
I . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204B . Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
II . FACTUALBACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
III . JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
IV . APPLICABLELAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
V . EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
VI . ERITREA’SCLAIMS:INTRODUCTORYOBSERVATIONS . . . 214
VII . ERITREA’SCLAIMFORDEPRIVATIONOFNATIONALITY 219
VIII . ERITREA’SCLAIMFOREXPULSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
IX . DETENTIONWITHOUTDUEPROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
X . DEPRIVATIONOFPROPERTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
XI . FAMILYSEPARATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
XII . CLAIMSONBEHALFOFSPECIFICINDIVIDUALS . . . . . . . . 243
XIII . AWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245D . FindingonDualNationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245E . FindingsonLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . 246F . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
204 Eritrea/Ethiopia
i. inTroduCTion
a. summary of the Positions of the Parties
1 . TheseClaims(“Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23and27–32,”“Eritrea’sCi�il-iansClaims”)co�eringexpellees,ci�iliandetaineesand“personsofEritreanextractionli�inginEthiopia,”1ha�ebeenbroughttotheCommissionbytheClaimant,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”)againsttheFederalDemocraticRepub-licofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaandtheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemo-craticRepublicofEthiopiaofDecember12,2000(“theDecember2000Agree-ment”) .TheClaimantaskstheCommissiontofindtheRespondent,Ethiopia,liableforloss,damageandinjuryitsuffered,includingloss,damageandinjurysufferedbyEritreannationalsandalargenumberofotherpersons,resultingfromallegedinfractionsofinternationallawinthetreatmentofci�ilianEri-treannationalsandotherpersonsbyEthiopiainconnectionwiththe1998–2000internationalarmedconflictbetweenthetwoParties .
2 . Ethiopiacontendsthatithasfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitstreatmentofsuchci�ilians .
3 . ThisPartialAwardandthecompanionPartialAwardrenderedtodayinEthiopia’sClaim5(“Ethiopia’sCi�iliansClaims”)arethethirdinaseriesofPartialAwardsbytheCommissiononthemeritsoftheParties’claims .Pre�i-ousPartialAwardsha�eaddressedtheParties’claimsrelatingtothetreatmentofprisonersofwar2andtotheconductofmilitaryoperationsontheCentralFront .3
4 . ThisclaimdoesnotincludeanyclaimssetforthinseparateclaimsbytheClaimant,suchasthoseformistreatmentofprisonersofwar(Eritrea’sClaim17)or formistreatmentofotherEthiopiannationals in theCentralFront(Eritrea’sClaims2,4,5,6,8and22) .
1 Eritrea’sClaims15,16,23&27–32,Memorial,filedbyEritreaonNo� .15,2002,para .1 .01 .
2 PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Eritrea’sClaim17BetweentheStateofEritreaandTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia46(July1,2003)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims],PartialAward,PrisonersofWar,Ethiopia’sClaim4BetweenTheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandTheStateofEritrea(July1,2003)[here-inafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaims] .
3 PartialAward,CentralFront,Eritrea’sClaims2,4,6,7,8&22BetweentheStateofEritreaandtheFederalDemocraticGo�ernmentofEthiopia(April28,2004)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims];PartialAward,CentralFront,Ethiopia’sClaim2BetweentheFederalDemocraticGo�ernmentofEthiopiaandtheStateofEritrea(April28,2004)[hereinafterPartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims] .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 205
b. Proceedings5 . TheCommission informedthePartiesonAugust29,2001 that it
wouldconductproceedings inGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaims in twostages,firstconcerningliabilityand,second,if liabilityisestablished,con-cerningdamages .PursuanttoArticle5oftheDecember2000Agreement,thisclaimwasfiledonDecember12,2001 .AStatementofDefensewasfiledonJune15,2002,theClaimant’sMemorialonNo�ember15,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialonJanuary15,2004 .BothPartiesfiledaddi-tionale�idenceonFebruary13,2004 .AhearingwasheldatthePeacePalaceinTheHague inMarch2004, inconjunctionwithahearingonEthiopia’srelatedClaim5 .
ii. faCTual baCKGround6 . Eritrea’smainclaimsandEthiopia’sdefensesha�etheiroriginsinthe
unusualcircumstancesleadingtotheemergenceofEritreaasaseparateStateduringtheearly1990s .EritreawasanItaliancolonyfrom1889untiltheBrit-ishdefeatedtheItalianforcestherein1941,earlyintheSecondWorldWar .ItthenremainedunderBritishadministrationuntil1952,whenitenteredintoafederationwiththeEmpireofEthiopia .Thefederationlasteduntil1962,whenthelast�estigesofEritrea’spoliticalautonomyendedandEritreabecameapartofEthiopia .In1991,followingthesuccessoftheirlongandbitterstruggleagainsttheMengisturegimeinEthiopia,thesuccessfulre�olutionarymo�e-mentsthathadassumedpowerinAddisAbabaandAsmaraagreedthat“thepeopleofEritreaha�etherighttodeterminetheirownfuturebythemsel�esand . . . . .thatthefuturestatusofEritreashouldbedecidedbytheEritreanpeopleinareferendum . . . .”4
7 . OrganizingtheReferendumwasalargeandcomplextaskundertakenbytheReferendumCommissionofEritrea(“RCE”)appointedinApril1992 .AReferendumProclamationissuedonApril7,1992establisheddetailedpro-ceduresandlimitedparticipationtopersonso�er18“ha�ingEritreancitizen-ship .”(TheReferendumProclamationandtheassociatedCitizenshipProc-lamationarediscussedbelow .)TheRCEandthePro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritreaemphasizedregistrationofpotential�otersoutsideofEritrea,whereo�er a million Eritreans li�ed . According to a report by the InternationalOrganizationforMigration,66,022personsinEthiopiaregisteredto�oteintheReferendum .TheReferendumwassuccessfullyheldon23–25April1993,withextremelyhighparticipationandalmost99%of�oters�otingforEritrea’sindependence .OnMay4,1993,Ethiopia’sMinistryofForeignAffairsrecog-nizedEritrea’sso�ereigntyandindependence .EritreabecameamemberoftheUnitedNationsonMay28,1993 .
4 LetterfromH .E .MelesZenawitoUNSecretary-GeneralBoutrosBoutros-Ghali,Dec .13,1991,UNDoc .A/C .3/47/5(1992) .
206 Eritrea/Ethiopia
8 . DuringthedecadeswhenEritreadidnotexistasaseparatepoliticalentity,therewasextensi�emo�ementofpopulationbothintoandoutoftheareaofpresent-dayEritrea .Thesepopulationmo�ementswerecompoundedbytumultanddisplacementfromdecadesofbitterinternalconflictwithinEthio-pia .ManyEthiopiansofEritreanancestryknewonlyEthiopiaastheirhome .Manythousandsofpersonswhowerebornorwhoseparentswerebornwithinthepresent-dayboundariesofEritreacametoresideasEthiopiancitizensinAddisAbabaandelsewhereinEthiopia .TheCommissionrecei�ed�aryingestimatesofthenumbersin�ol�ed,butbothPartiesagreedthepopulationwaslarge .AJune12,1998EthiopianMinistryofForeignAffairsstatementconcerning“PrecautionaryMeasuresTakenRegardingEritreansResidinginEthiopia”referredto550,000suchpersons .BothPartiescitedthisfiguredur-ingtheproceedings,althoughEritreaalsoreferredtootherlowerestimates .
9 . Thee�idence indicatedthatmanypersonswithEritreananteced-entsweresuccessfuleconomically,owningpropertyandoperatingbusinessesinEthiopia .Thee�idencealsoindicatedthattherewereacti�epoliticalandsocialorganizationsin�ol�ingpersonsofEritreannationalorigin .ThePartiesdisagreedsharplyregardingthecharacteroftheseorganizationsandoftheiracti�ities .
10 . TheheartofEritrea’scaseisitscontentionthatbeginningsoonaftertheoutbreakofwarinMay1998,Ethiopiawrongfullydenationalized,expelled,mistreatedanddepri�edofpropertytensofthousandsofEthiopiancitizensofEritreanoriginin�iolationofmultipleinternationallegalobligations .Eritreacitede�idenceitbelie�edestablishedthatatleast75,000personsweresoexpelledfromEthiopia,butcontendedthattheactualnumberswerelarger,becausesomegroups,particularlydisplacedruralEritreans,weredifficulttocount .Eritreaalsoallegedmistreatmentofothergroups,includingci�iliansallegedtoha�ebeenwrongfullydetainedasprisonersofwarandotherwise .
11 . Ethiopiaacknowledgedthatitexpelledthousandsofpersonsduringthisperiod,althoughitmaintainedthattherewerefarfewerthanclaimedbyEritrea .Ethiopiacontendedthat,pursuanttoitslaw,theEthiopiannationalityofallEthiopianswhohadobtainedEritreannationalityhadbeenterminatedandthatthoseexpelledwereEritreannationals,andhencenationalsofanenemyStateinatimeofinternationalarmedconflict .ItcontendedthatallofthoseexpelledhadacquiredEritreannationality,mostbyqualifyingtopar-ticipateinthe1993Referendum .Ethiopiafurthercontendedthatitssecurityser�icesidentifiedeachexpelleeasha�ingbelongedtocertainorganizationsorengagedincertaintypesofacti�itiesthatjustifiedregardingthepersonasathreattoEthiopia’ssecurity .Ethiopiadistinguishedbetweentheapproxi-mately15,475personswhoitclaimedwereexpelledasthreatstosecurity,andanadditionalnumberoffamilymemberssaid�oluntarilytoha�eelectedtoaccompanyorfollowthem .Ethiopiacontendedthat21,905familymembersleftwiththeexpelleesontransportpro�idedbyEthiopiaandthatanunknownnumberofothersleftEthiopiabyothermeans .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 207
iii. JurisdiCTion
12 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheDecember2000AgreementestablishestheCommission’sjurisdiction .Itpro�ides,inter alia, thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforall loss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�ernmentoritsnationalsagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconflictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”
13 . SubjectMatterJurisdiction:RelationtotheConflict .EritreaallegesthatEthiopia’streatmentofci�iliansduringtheconflictanditsaftermathwasrelatedtotheconflictand�iolatednumerousrulesofinternationallaw .Erit-reaseeksreliefonaccountofinjuriessufferedbothbyEritreannationalsandbyothersitregardsasEthiopiannationals .(Thejurisdictionalaspectsofthislattergroupwillbediscussedinfra inlightoftheunusualtermsofArticle5oftheDecember2000Agreement .)TheCommissionagreesthatoneParty’streatmentofci�iliansduringandinthewakeoftheinternationalarmedcon-flictbetweentheminthecircumstancesin�ol�edhereclearlyrelatestothatconflict .Claimsthatsuchtreatment�iolatesinternationallawfallwithintheCommission’ssubjectmatterjurisdictionunderArticle5oftheAgreement .
14 . TemporalJurisdiction .UnderArticle5oftheDecember2000Agree-ment,theCommission’sjurisdictionextendstoclaims“relatedtotheconflictthatwasthesubject”ofcertainagreementsbetweentheParties .TheCommis-sionheldinDecisionNo .15thatthecentralreferencepointfordeterminingitsjurisdictionisthearmedconflictbetweentheParties .Howe�er,jurisdictionalsoextendstoclaimsin�ol�ingsubsequente�entsarisingasaresultofthearmedconflictoroccurringinthecourseofmeasurestodisengagecontendingforcesorotherwiseendthemilitaryconfrontation .
15 . This is in harmony with important international humanitarianlawprinciples,whichcontinue topro�ideprotectionthroughout thecom-plexprocessofdisengagingforcesandaddressingtheimmediateaftermathofarmedconflict .Inthisrespect,underArticle6,paragraph2,ofGene�aCon�entionIV,6applicationoftheCon�entionintheterritoryofaPartytotheconflict“shallceaseonthegeneralcloseofmilitaryoperations .”Howe�er,underArticle6,paragraph4,“[p]rotectedpersonswhoserelease,repatriationorreestablishmentmaytakeplaceafter[thisdate] . . .shallmeanwhilecon-tinuetobenefitbythepresentCon�ention .”Further,Article3oftheProtocol
5 CommissionDecisionNo .1:TheCommission’sMandate/TemporalScopeofJuris-diction,issuedJuly24,2001 .
6 Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheProtectionofCi�ilianPersonsinTimeofWar,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3516,75U .N .T .S .p .287[hereinafterGene�aCon�entionIV] .
208 Eritrea/Ethiopia
AdditionaltotheGene�aCon�entionsofAug .12,19497(“ProtocolI”)pro-�idesinpartthat:
theapplicationoftheCon�entionsandofthisProtocolshallcease,intheterritoryofPartiestotheconflict,onthegeneralcloseofmilitaryoperationsand,inthecaseofoccupiedterritories,ontheterminationoftheoccupa-tion,except,ineithercircumstance,forthosepersonswhosefinalrelease,repatriationorre-establishmenttakesplacethereafter .Thesepersonsshallcontinuetobenefitfromtherele�antpro�isionsoftheCon�entionsandofthisProtocoluntiltheirfinalrelease,repatriationorre-establishment .
16 . Eritreamadeclaimsregardinge�entsthatoccurredaftertheconflictformallyendedinDecember2000,inparticularregardingtheallegedforci-bleexpulsionfromEthiopiaof722personsinJuly2001 .Howe�er,therecorddidnotestablishthatthise�entwasrelatedtothedisengagementofforcesorotherwisefellwithinthescopeoftheCommission’sjurisdictionpursuanttoDecisionNo .1 .Accordingly,claimsregardingthedepartureofthesepersonsfromEthiopiaareoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .
17 . The Commission’s Jurisdiction to Hear Claims of Persons NotNationalsoftheClaimingState .Article5,paragraph9,oftheDecember2000Agreementsignificantlydiffersfromgeneralinternationalpractice,whichtyp-icallylimitsclaimsprocedurestoclaimsin�ol�ingtheclaimingparty’snation-als .Article5,paragraph9,pro�idesthat“inappropriatecases,eachpartymayfileclaimson behalf of persons ofEritreanorEthiopianoriginwhomaynotbeitsnationals .SuchclaimsshallbeconsideredbytheCommissiononthesamebasisasclaimssubmittedonbehalfofthatparty’snationals”(emphasisadded) .Thus,theDecember2000Agreementcreatesalex specialis authorizingthePartiestopresentclaimsonbehalfofcertainnon-nationals,andgi�ingtheCommissionjurisdictiontoconsiderthoseclaims .
18 . EthiopiaobjectedtocertainEritreanclaimsin�ol�ingpersonswhowerenotEritreannationals,contendingthattheydidnotfallwithinthisunu-sualgrantofjurisdiction .TheStatementsofClaiminEritrea’sClaims15,16and23allstatethattheclaim“ismadebytheStateofEritreaon behalf of itself, by�irtueofinjuriesandlossessufferedbytheStateofEritreaanditsnation-als(andindi�idualsofEritreanoriginasdesignatedinArticle5,Paragraph9) . . . .” (emphasisadded) .Bycontrast,Eritrea’sClaims27 to32, six sepa-rateindi�idualclaimsfiledbyEritreabeingconsideredbytheCommissionintheseproceedings,areexplicitlyandconsistentlyphrasedasbeingbrought“onbehalfof”thenamedclaimant .8
7 ProtocolAdditionaltotheGene�aCon�entionsofAug .12,1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictimsofInternationalArmedConflicts,June8,1977,1125U .N .T .S .p .3[hereinafterProtocolI] .
8 See Eritrea’sStatementsofClaim,Claim27(HiwotNemariam);Claim28(BelayRedda);Claim29(SertzuGebreMeskel);Claim30(FekaduAndemeskal);Claim31(Meb-rahtuGebremedhim)andClaim32(MebratGebreamlak),filedbyEritreaonDecember12,2001 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 209
19 . Thus,EritreadidnotfileClaims15,16and23“onbehalfof”affect-edindi�idualswhowerenotitsnationals .Itinsteadchosetoregardclaimsforthosepersons’injuriesastheStateofEritrea’sownclaims .ThisisnotthestructurecreatedbyArticle5,paragraph9 .Thedifferenceisnotamerematterofform .Article5,paragraph9,createsanexceptionalprocedureempoweringtheCommissiontodecideclaimsforthebenefitofpersonsofEritreanoriginwhoarenotEritreannationals .Thewording“onbehalfof”indicatesthattheclaimremainsthepropertyoftheindi�idualandthatanye�entualreco�eryofdamagesshouldaccruetothatperson .Howe�er,Eritrea’sStatementsofClaiminitsClaims15,16and23presenttheclaimsforinjuriesandlossessufferedbyitsnationalsandbyEthiopiansofEritreanoriginasitsown .Suchclaimsbasedoninjuriestonon-nationalsmadeforEritrea’sownaccount,andnotonbehalfoftheaffectedindi�iduals,areoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .
20 . Consequently,atthesubsequentdamagesportionoftheCommis-sion’sclaimsprocess, theremaybesituationswhere thescopeofpotentialreco�eriesfordamageswillbelimitedbecausetheunderlyingclaimsincludeonlytheclaimsoftheGo�ernmentofEritreaforitsowndirectinjuriesresult-ingfromthetreatmentofEthiopiansofEritreanorigin,forexamplethecostsofresettlement,anddonotincludeclaimsonbehalfoftheaffectedindi�idualsthemsel�es .
21 . Ethiopia disputes Eritrea’s right to claim monetary damages forpersonsremaininginEthiopia .ClaimswithrespecttoEthiopiannationalsremaininginEthiopiaareaddressedintheprecedingparagraphs .Eritrea’sclaimsregardingpossiblefutureinjuriestodualnationalsarediscussedbelow .Thea�ailabilityofamonetaryremedyforEritreaforanypastdamagestoEri-treannationalsremaininginEthiopiaisreser�edforthesubsequentdamagesphaseof theseproceedings .EthiopiaalsocontendedthatsomeofEritrea’sclaimsamountedtoclaimsfor�iolationsofEthiopianlaw .Claimsfor�iola-tionsofnationallawwouldindeedbeoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction,buttheCommissiondoesnotunderstandEritreatoha�epresentedanysuchclaims .Eritreaalsoad�ancedcertainclaimsrelatedtopensions .TheCommis-sionwilladdressallclaimsrelatedtopensionsinconnectionwithitshearingsofallremainingclaimsinApril2005 .Accordingly,pensionclaimsarenotadmissibleinthisproceeding .
22 . Ethiopiaalsourgedthatse�eralotherclaimsreflectedinEritrea’sMemorialwerenotcontainedinitsStatementsofClaim .Theseincludeclaimsforbreachesof�ariousinstrumentsnotcitedintheStatementsofClaim .Ethi-opiaalsochallengedreferencestonewlegaltheoriesnotpresentthere,par-ticularlyassertionsthattheexpulsions�iolatedinternationallawbecausetheywerediscriminatory .Howe�er,theCommissiondoesnotregardreferencestoadditionalinternationallegalauthoritiesorlegalargumentstosupportaclaimpresentedintheStatementsofClaimasconstitutingimpermissiblenewclaims .TheCommissionalsofindsthatEritrea’sargumentsofwrongfuldis-criminationwerepresentedintheStatementsofClaiminsufficientspecificity
210 Eritrea/Ethiopia
anddetailtoputEthiopiaonnoticethattheywerematterstowhichitshouldrespond .
23 . Eritrea’sRequestforAdditionalRemedies .EritreaaskedtheCom-missiontoordera�arietyofremedies .Inter alia, EritrearequestedthattheCommissionorderthereinstatementoftheEthiopiannationalityoftensofthousandsofpeople,thatmanythousandsofpersonsofEritreanheritagebeallowedtoexerciseci�ilrightsinEthiopia,thatdetainedEritreansbefreedfromprison,thatpersonsberestoredtotheirproperty,andthatnumerouseconomictransactionsbe�oided .
24 . InitsDecisionNo .3ofJuly24,2001,theCommissiondecidedthat“inprinciple,theappropriateremedyfor�alidclaims . . .shouldbemonetarycompensation .”9TheCommissiondidnotforeclosethepossibilityofpro�id-ingothertypesofremediesinappropriatecases,“iftheparticularremedycanbeshowntobeinaccordancewithinternationalpractice,andiftheTribunaldeterminesthataparticularremedywouldbereasonableandappropriateinthecircumstances .”Howe�er,therewasnoshowingthattheadditionalrem-ediesrequestedmettherequirementsofDecisionNo .3,andtheCommissionisnotpreparedtograntthem .
25 . EritreaalsoaskedthattheCommissionpro�idereliefforagroupof“hundredsofthousands”ofpersonsofEritrean“descent,bloodoraffiliation”whoha�enotyetexperiencedinjuries .CounselforEritreadescribedtheseaspersons“towhichEthiopiahasnottakenhostileaction,butmay�erywell .”EritreaaskedthattheCommissionrender“adeclarationthattheyareEthio-piancitizens .”Sucharemedyrelatingtospeculati�efutureharmisoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction,whichislimitedtoclaimsrelatedtothe1998–2000conflictandembracese�entsafterDecember2000onlytothelimitedextentindicatedinCommissionDecisionNo .1 .
iV. aPPliCable laW26 . UnderArticle5,paragraph13,oftheDecember2000Agreement,
“inconsideringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinterna-tionallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProceduredefinestherel-e�antrulesinthefamiliarlanguageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheInterna-tionalCourtofJustice’sStatute .TheRuledirectstheCommissiontolookto:
1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,establish-ingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties;
2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;
3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;
9 CommissionDecisionNo .3:Remedies,issuedJuly24,2001 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 211
4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .
27 . Eritrea’sanalysisoftheapplicableinternationallawreflectedthefactthatsomeofitsclaimsin�ol�edinjuriessufferedbypersonsEritrea�iewedasEthiopiannationalsattherele�anttime .Withrespecttothese,Eritreain�okednumeroushumanrightsinstrumentsregulatingrelationsbetweenStatesandtheirnationals .Howe�er,manyof thecited instrumentswerenot in forcebetweenEritreaandEthiopiaattherele�anttimes,andEthiopiadeniedtheirapplicability .Thecontentsofpotentiallyrele�antcustomarynormswerenotaddressedindetailduringtheproceedings .Eritreadidcitetwoinstrumentsthatwereinforceatsomerele�anttimes:theCon�entionontheRightsoftheChild,10whichenteredintoforcebetweenthePartiesin1994,andtheAfricanCharteronHumanandPeople’sRights(“theAfricanCharter”),whichbecamebindingbetweenEritreaandEthiopiaonApril14,1999 .11TheCommissionhastakentheseintoaccountasappropriate .
28 . IntheCommission’s�iew,customaryinternationalhumanitarianlawwasthemostsignificantlegalcomponentintheParties’relationshipwhenmanyofthesee�entstookplace .InitsPartialAwardsonPrisonersofWarandtheCentralFront,theCommissionheldthatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimsbeforeAugust14,2000(whenEritreaaccededtothefourGene�aCon�en-tionsof194912)wascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .13TheCom-missionheldfurtherthatthoseCon�entionsha�elargelybecomeexpressionsofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw,andconsequentlythatthelawapplicabletothoseclaimswascustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entions .Thosehold-ingsapplyaswellhereand,indeed,toalltheclaimsbeforetheCommission .Hence,Ethiopia’streatmentofEritreannationalswassubjecttotherele�ant
10 Con�entionon theRightsof theChild,No� .20,1989,DOCA/RES/44/25,28I .L .M .p .1448(1994) .
11 AfricanCharterofHuman&People’sRights, June27,1981,OAUDoc .CAB/LEG/67/3re� .5;21I .L .M .p .58(1982) .EthiopiasignedtheAfricanCharteronJune15,1998andratifieditonJune22,1998 .EritreasignedonJanuary14,1999andratifiedonMarch15,1999 .
12 Gene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickinArmedForcesintheField,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3114,75U .N .T .S .p .31;Gene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWounded,SickandShipwreckedMembersofArmedForcesatSea,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3217,75U .N .T .S .p .85;Gene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,Aug .12,1949,6U .S .T .p .3316,75U .N .T .S .p .135;Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6 .
13 See PartialAward inEritrea’sPOWClaims, supra note2, atpara .38;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atpara .29;PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .21;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .15 .
212 Eritrea/Ethiopia
principlesarticulatedinGene�aCon�entionIVinadditiontootherpoten-tiallyrele�antnorms .
29 . AspectsofProtocolIarealsorele�ant .WhileportionsofProtocolIreflectprogressi�ede�elopmentofthelaw,throughouttheseproceedings,bothPartiestreatedcoreProtocolIpro�isionsgo�erningtheprotectionofci�iliansasreflectingbindingcustomaryrules .TheCommissionagrees,andrecallsitsearlierholdingthat,duringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,mostofthepro�isionsofProtocolIexpressedcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .14
30 . TheCommission�iewsArticle75ofProtocolIasreflectingpar-ticularlyimportantcustomaryprinciples .Article75articulatesfundamentalguaranteesapplicabletoall“personswhoareinthepowerofaPartytotheconflictwhodonotbenefitfrommorefa�orabletreatmentundertheCon�en-tionsorunderthisProtocol .”Itthusappliese�entoaParty’streatmentofitsownnationals .Theseguaranteesdistillbasichumanrightsmostimportantinwartime .15Gi�entheirfundamentalhumanitariannatureandtheircorre-spondencewithgenerallyacceptedhumanrightsprinciples,theCommission�iewstheserulesaspartofcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlaw .
31 . Article75ofProtocolI“actsasa‘legalsafetynet’guaranteeingaminimumstandardofhumanrightsforallpersonswhodonotha�eprotec-tiononothergrounds .”16Itconfirmstheirrighttobe“treatedhumanelyinallcircumstances . . .withoutanyad�ersedistinctionbasedupon . . .national . . .origin . . .oronanyothersimilarcriteria .”TheArticlefurtheraffirmsimpor-tantproceduralrightsofpersonssubjectedtoarrest,detainmentorintern-ment .Theymustbepromptlyinformedwhythesemeasuresha�ebeentaken;theymustthenbereleased“withtheminimumdelaypossibleandinanye�entassoonasthecircumstancesjustifyingthearrest,detentionorinternmentha�eceasedtoexist .”
V. eVidenCe
32 . AsintheParties’priorcases,therearedeepandwide-rangingcon-flictsinthee�idence .ThehundredsofsworndeclarationssubmittedbythetwoPartiescontaineddisagreementsonmanykeyfacts .Therearesharpcon-flictsregardingmattersasfundamentalasthenumbersofpersonswholeftEthiopia(Eritrea’se�idenceindicatingatleasttwicethenumbersindicatedbyEthiopia’s);thetreatmentofexpellees’familymembers;theroleoftheInter-nationalCommitteeoftheRedCross(“ICRC”);thetreatmentofexpellees’
14 See PartialAwardinEritrea’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .23;PartialAwardinEthiopia’sCentralFrontClaims,supra note3,atpara .17 .
15 The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictsp .233(DieterFlecked .,1995)[hereinafterHandbook of Humanitarian Law] .
16 Id. p .281 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 213
property;andotherbasicissues .Thesemassi�econflictsinthee�idenceagainshowthedifficultyofdeterminingthetruthintheaftermathofabitterarmedconflict .Insuchcircumstances,astheCommissionhasnotedbefore,therecanindeedbe“nationalizationofthetruth .”17Howe�er,thissituationposedsignificantdifficultiesfortheCommission .
33 . BothPartiesweremindfuloftheextensi�econflictsinthee�idenceandofthefrequentdisputesaboutwitnesses’accuracyandcredibility .BothaccordinglydrewtotheCommission’sattentioninsupportoftheirpositionsthereportsofoutsideobser�erssuchastheICRC,UnitedNationsbodies,theBritishHomeOffice,theUnitedStatesDepartmentofStateandinternationalhumanrightsnon-go�ernmentalorganizations .
34 . Howe�er,thePartiesalsonotedthepotentialpitfallsandlimitationsofuncriticalrelianceonsuchmaterials,whichwerenotpreparedase�idenceinlegalproceedings .TheCommissionismindfuloftheseconcerns .Third-partyreportsmayindeedbebasedonincompleteorinaccurateinformationthatthereportingentitycannottestor�erify,includinginformationpro�idedbyoneortheotheroftheParties .Suchreportsmayreflecttheinterestsoragendasofthereportersorthosewhopro�idedthemwithinformation .How-e�er,gi�entheextensi�econflictsintheParties’e�idence,andbothParties’referencetomaterialsfrom�ariousoutsideobser�ers,theCommissionhasalsodrawnuponsuchmaterialsinseekingtoresol�econflicts,althoughithasbeenmindfulofsuchmaterials’potentiallimitations .
35 . AsintheParties’priorcases,theCommissionhasrequiredproofofliabilitybyclearandcon�incinge�idence .Thus,conflicting,yetcredible,e�idencehasperhapsresultedinfewerfindingsofunlawfulactsthaneitherPartymightha�eexpected .TheCommissionagainhastakenitsfundamentalresponsibilitytobetoconcentrateonpersistentandwidespreadpatternsofmisconduct,ratherthanindi�idualacts .
36 . At the hearing, the Commission heard the following witnesses:ForEritrea:
Ms .AidaMohammedHagos
Mr .SeyoumWoldu
Mr .AbrahaYohannesHaile
ForEthiopia:
Mr .WoldeselassieWoldemichael
Mr .GirmayKebede
17 JuliusStone,Legal Controls of International Conflictpp .321–323(1954) .
214 Eritrea/Ethiopia
Vi. eriTrea’s Claims: inTroduCTory obserVaTions
37 . Eritrea’s Memorial and presentations at the hearing alleged fi�emajor substanti�e breaches of international law, and the Commission hasstructureditsanalysiscorrespondingly:
(A) MassExpulsion;
(B) Denationalization;
(C) DetentionWithoutDueProcess;
(D) Depri�ationofProperty;and
(F) ForcibleFamilySeparation .
EritreaalsocontendedthatEthiopianactionsoftenreflectedlegallyprohib-iteddiscrimination,notablydiscriminationagainstthoseofEritreanheritage .Howe�er,theCommissionunderstandsthoseargumentstoha�ebeenofferedasanadditionalgroundfortheillegalityofchallengedconduct,notasasepa-rateheadofclaim .
38 . IntersectingLegalRegimes .Attheoutset,theCommissionnotesthechallenges in�ol�edindeterminingwhetherorhowse�eralpotentiallyrele�antbodiesofinternationallawmightapplyinthe�eryunusual—indeed,perhapsunique—wartimefactualcircumstancespresentedhere .BothPartiesreferredtorulesofinternationallawgenerallyregulatingtheacquisitionandlossofnationalityandtheexpulsionofpersonsbyaState,buttheserulesdidnotstandinisolation .Othersignificantfactorsalsoshapedthelegalsituation .First,thePartieswerein�ol�edinafar-reachinglegalandpoliticaltransfor-mation .ThenewStateofEritreahademergedfromtheterritoryofEthiopiaafewyearsbeforethewarbegan,andimportantquestionsofindi�idualstatusandothermatterswerenotyetsettledbetweenthetwo .Moreimportantly,theParties’bitter internationalarmedconflict fundamentallychangedthenatureoftheirrelationshipandbroughtinternationalhumanitarianlawintooperation .TheCommission’schallengewastoassessasituationinfluencedbyse�eralbodiesofinternationallawrules .
39 . The1993ReferendumanditsLegalConsequences .KeyissuesinthisclaimarerootedintheemergenceofthenewStateofEritrea,particularlytheApril1993ReferendumonEritreanindependence .Inbrief,Eritreaclaimedthat,afterthewarbegan,Ethiopiawronglydepri�edthousandsofEthiopiancitizensofEritreanoriginoftheirEthiopiancitizenshipandexpelledthem,allcontrarytointernationallaw .Ethiopiarespondedthattheexpelleeshad�oluntarilyacquiredEritreannationality,mostbyqualifyingtoparticipateinthe1993Referendum,andindoingsohadforegonetheirEthiopiannational-ityunderEthiopianlaw .Ethiopiafurthermaintainedthatallthoseexpelled
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 215
hadalsocommittedotheractsjustifying�iewingthemasthreatstoEthiopia’ssecurity .
40 . BecauseoftheimportanceoftheReferendumandrelatede�entstoEritrea’sclaims,theyaredescribedhereinsomedetail .OnApril6,1992,thePro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritreaissuedProclamationNo .21/1992,spellingout�ariousrequirementsforacquiringEritreancitizenship .PersonsborntoeitheramotherorafatherwhoresidedinEritreain1933acquirednationalitybybirth(Article2);�ariousothergroupsofpersons,includingthosemarriedtoEritreans,couldacquireEritreannationalitythroughanaturalizationproc-ess(Articles4and6) .18Thee�idenceindicatedthatProclamationNo .21/1992remainsthebasiclegalinstrumentregulatingtheacquisitionofEritreanciti-zenship .
41 . Thenextday,Eritrea’sPro�isionalGo�ernmentissuedProclamationNo .22/1992,establishingdetailedproceduresforparticipatingintheReferen-dum .Itexpresslylimitedparticipationtopersonsha�ingEritreancitizenship .Article24stated:
Anypersonhaving Eritrean citizenship pursuant to Proclamation No. 21/1992 onthedateofhisapplicationforregistrationandwhowasof theageof18yearsorolderorwouldattainsuchageatanytimeduringtheregistra-tionperiod,andwhofurtherpossessedanIdentificationCardissuedbytheDepartmentofInternalAffairs,shallbequalifiedforregistration .19
42 . ThefirststepinregisteringfortheReferendumwastoobtainan“EritreanNationality IdentityCard”(emphasisadded)documentingthattheapplicantmetthenationalityrequirementsofProclamationNo .22/1992 .(Thiswasdifferentfromandinadditiontoa�oteridentificationcardusedonlytotakepartintheReferendum .)TheEritreanDepartmentofInternalAffairsdeli�ered theNationality IdentityCardafteracheckingprocess, inwhichexternal�oterswereheldtothesamenationalitystandardsasinternal�oters .Althoughthenationalitycardswereissuedbythe“Pro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritrea,”theywerenot“pro�isional”orlimitedindurationoreffecti�eness .TheCommissionheardtestimonythatbearersofthecardscouldusethemas
18 Acquisitionofnationalitybymarriagewassubjecttosubstantialrestrictions .Thespousehadtoli�einEritreawiththeEritreanspouseforatleastthreeyears;renounceforeignnationality;andsignanoathofallegiance .TheEritreanNationalityProclamationNo .21/1992,Apr .6,1992,art .6 .
19 The Eritrean Referendum Proclamation No . 22/1992, Apr . 7, 1992 (emphasisadded) .
216 Eritrea/Ethiopia
tra�eldocumentstomakebordercrossingsbetweenEthiopiaandEritreaintheyearsbeforethewar .20
43 . TheParties’Contentions .Ethiopia�iewedregistrationasanEritreancitizentoparticipateintheReferendumasamatteroffreechoice,andsawtheEritreannationalitysoacquiredanddocumentedasgenuineandeffecti�e .Inits�iew,thosewhoacquiredEritreannationalitytherebylosttheirEthio-piannationalitybyoperationofArticle11ofthe1930Ethiopiannationalitylaw,whichpro�idesthatEthiopiannationalityislostwhenapersonacquiresanothernationality .
44 . Eritreaattackedtheseargumentsas post-hoc lawyer’srationaliza-tions,contendingthatacquiringanEritreannationalitycarddidnotha�elegalsignificancebecauseEritreawasnotyetaStatecapableofconferringnational-ity .Therewasonlya“pro�isional”EritreanGo�ernment;theStateofEritreaonlycameintobeingafterconfirmationbytheReferendum .Eritreaaddedthatmanyexpellees(particularlythosefromruralareas)didnotparticipateintheReferendumprocess,andsocouldnotha�eacquiredEritreannationalityunderEthiopia’stheory .ItpointedoutthatunderArticle33oftheEthiopianConstitution,noEthiopiancitizencouldbedepri�edofcitizenshipwithoutconsent .
45 . EthiopiarespondedthatEritreahadde facto emergedasaStatepriortotheReferendum,andwascapableofconferringnationalitythatwaseffecti�easamatterofinternationallaw,e�enbeforeEritreawasgenerallyrecognizedbyotherStatesandbecameamemberoftheUnitedNations .InEthiopia’s�iew,thePro�isionalGo�ernmentofEritreaexercisedeffecti�eauthorityo�erterritoryandapopulationandwascarryingonimportantinternationalrela-tions,includingsubstantialnegotiationswithEthiopiaandwithinternationalorganizations .EritreaconcludedmultipleagreementswithEthiopia,includingagreementsdeclaringAssabandMassawafreeportsopentoEthiopia,con-cerningacommoncurrencyandestablishingthefreemo�ementofcitizensandtrade .Moreo�er,Eritreacarriedoutcomplexandlegallysophisticatedadministrati�eactionsase�idencedbythe1992NationalityandReferendumProclamations .
46 . EritreaalsourgedthatEthiopiaaffirmati�elyencouraged�otingintheReferendumwithoutgi�inganyindicationthatthosewho�oted,manyofwhomknewonlyEthiopiaasahome,wouldlosetheirEthiopiannationalitybyoperationofthe1930law .Indeed,Eritreapresentedsubstantiale�idencethatEthiopiadidnothingbeforeMay1998suggestingthatitsawpersonswho
20 TranscriptoftheEritrea-EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofMarch2004,PeacePalace,TheHague,atpp .631,645 .TheCommissionconsidersitrele�antthattheEritreanauthoritieschosetoaddressthequestionofnationalityinaseparateandearlierproclamation,notaspartofProclamationNo .22/1992 .Incorporatingthenationalitypro-�isionsintotheReferendumProclamationmightha�eindicatedthatthedeterminationofnationalitywasforalimitedpurpose,i.e. solelyfortheReferendum .ThatwasnotthecourseEritreachose .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 217
qualifiedto�ote intheReferendumasha�ing lost theirEthiopiancitizen-ship .Eritrea’sdocumentarye�idenceincludednumerousEthiopianpassports,�oterregistrationcardsandotherofficialdocumentsissuedorrenewedaftertheReferendum,indicatingthebearers’subsequentunimpededexerciseofimportantattributesofEthiopiancitizenship .Referendumparticipantsalsocontinuedtoholdimmo�ableproperty(arightforbiddenforforeignersunderArticle390oftheEthiopianCi�ilCode),toholdbusinesslicenses,andtoprac-ticeprofessionsreser�edtoEthiopiannationals .
47 . EthiopiamaintainedthatitcontinuedtoissuethesepassportsandotherofficialdocumentsbecauseitandEritreahadbeenplanningtoworkoutarrangementsthatwouldpermitthenationalsofbothcountriestotradeandin�estineithercountry .Itwasexpectedthat,whenthesearrangementswereinplace,eachofthoseEritreanswhohadalsobeenenjoyingEthiopiannationalitywouldha�etochooseoneofthosenationalities .Untilthattime,Ethiopiaintendedtorefrainfromimplementingitsnationalitylaw .Howe�er,EthiopiacontendedthatallofthoseexpectationsweredestroyedbyEritrea’sattackinMay1998andtheensuingwar,andthatthisfundamentalchangeincircumstancesjustifiedtheimmediateimplementationofitsnationalitylaw .Ethiopiaurgedthatitshouldnotnowbepenalizedbecauseofactionsbetween1993and1998thatwereintendedtobehelpfulforthoseEthiopianswhohadobtainedEritreannationality .
48 . Withrespecttothesearguments,theCommissionisnot,ontheonehand,persuadedbyEritrea’sargumentthatregistrationasanEritreannationalinordertoparticipateinthe1993Referendumwaswithoutimpor-tantlegalconsequences .Thego�erningentityissuingthosecardswasnotyetformallyrecognizedasindependentorasamemberoftheUnitedNations,butitexercisedeffecti�eandindependentcontrolo�eradefinedterritoryandapermanentpopulationandcarriedoneffecti�eandsubstantialrelationswiththeexternalworld,particularlyineconomicmatters .Inalltheserespects,itreflectedthecharacteristicsofaStateininternationallaw .21
49 . Ontheotherhand,neitheristheCommissionpersuadedbyEthio-pia’sargumentthatthecontinuedissuanceofEthiopianpassportsandotherofficialdocumentswasnote�idenceofcontinuedEthiopiannationality .Pass-portsinparticularcontaintheissuingState’sformalrepresentationtootherStatesthatthebearerisitsnational .Thedecisiontoissuesuchadocument,intendedtobepresentedtoandrelieduponbyfriendlyforeignStates,isaninternationallysignificantact,notacasualcourtesy .
50 . TheCommissionisnotinsensiti�etothehumandimensionsandcostsof theunusual,perhapsunique,puzzleofnationality,depri�ationofnationality,and(asaddressedseparatelybelow)expulsionthatitfaces .Inpar-
21 SeeIanBrownlie,Principles of Public International Lawpp .70–72(6thed .2003);Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Lawpp .75–81(PeterMalanczuk,ed .,7thre� .ed .1997) .
218 Eritrea/Ethiopia
ticular,theCommissionisawarefromthee�idencethatsomeproportionofEthiopiannationalsofEritreanoriginwhoregisteredto�oteintheReferen-dum,withofficialencouragementfromtheGo�ernmentofEthiopia,didnotintendtoabandonorprejudicetheirEthiopiannationality,didnotforeseetherisktothatnationalitythatwouldariseinthee�entofwarbetweenEritreaandEthiopia,and,hadtheyforeseenit,wouldnotha�eregistered .Muchoftheconflict,andtragedy,infusingtherecordintheseclaimsstemsfromtherealitythatmanyEthiopiansofEritreanoriginwhoregisteredto�oteintheReferendumhadnoideaofthelegalimpactoftheiractionandofitspotentialriskstothem .Oncethewarbeganin1998,manydeclarantswhohadresidedonlyinEthiopiaandwhoconsideredalltheirimportantconnectionstobeinEthiopia,expressedconfusionandshockthattheirGo�ernment—theGo�-ernmentofEthiopia—haddepri�edthemoftheirEthiopiannationalityandtreatedthemasnationalsofanenemyState—Eritrea .
51 . Nonetheless, nationality is ultimately a legal status . Taking intoaccounttheunusualtransitionalcircumstancesassociatedwiththecreationofthenewStateofEritreaandbothParties’conductbeforeandafterthe1993Referendum,theCommissionconcludesthatthosewhoqualifiedtopartici-pateintheReferenduminfactacquireddualnationality .TheybecamecitizensofthenewStateofEritreapursuanttoEritrea’sProclamationNo .21/1992,butatthesametime,Ethiopiacontinuedtoregardthemasitsownnationals .
52 . TheCommission’sconclusionisreinforcedbyanimportantunder-takingbythePartiessuggestingthatthosewhoacquiredEritreannationalityretainedtheirEthiopiannationality .In1996,seniorofficialsofbothPartiessignedaformalAgreedMinutestatingthat
[o]nthequestionofnationalityitwasagreedthatEritreanswhoha�esofarbeenenjoyingEthiopiancitizenshipshouldbemadetochooseandabidebytheirchoice .Itwasdecidedthattheimplementationofthisagreementshouldawait,howe�er,decisionongrantingthefreedomtotradeandtoin�estineithercountryforbothnationalsofEthiopiaandEritrea .22
53 . Whetherthe1996AgreedMinutewasatreatybindingundertheinternationallawoftreatieswasdiscussedinconclusi�elyatthehearing .WhiletheCommissionseestheAgreedMinuteasha�ingimportantattributesofaninternationallybindinglegalinstrument,itslegalstatusneednotbedecided .Whate�eritsstatus,thedocumentindicatesbothParties’awarenessofthecitizenshipissuesresultingfromtheseparationofEritreaandtheirdetermi-nationtoresol�ethemthroughanorderly,mandatoryfuturechoiceofeitherEthiopianorEritreannationalitybyaffectedindi�iduals .Howe�er,thatchoicewouldonlyberequiredafterthePartiessetthegroundrulesgo�erningtheirfutureeconomicrelations .
22 AgreedMinutesoftheFourthEthio-EritreanJointHighCommissionMeeting(August1996),para .4 .3 .4 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 219
54 . ItwasurgedthattheAgreedMinuteaddressedonlyanarrowgroupcomposedofEthiopianswhowerenotyetEritreannationalsbutwhowereentitledtoacquireEritreannationality .TheCommissiondoesnotfindthisnarrowreadingpersuasi�e .Itisnotconsistentwiththemostnaturalmean-ingofthewordsofthetext .Moreo�er,anyindi�idual’sentitlementtooptforEritreannationalityatsomefuturetimewouldnotdependonanagreementbetweenStatesbutonEritreannationalitylaw .
55 . Thead�entofthewardidnotper se endthesepeople’sdualnation-ality,butitfundamentallychangedtheircircumstancesandplacedtheminanunusualandpotentiallydifficultposition .Inwartime,aStatemaylaw-fullyassignsignificantandsometimespainfulconsequencestoeitherofadualnational’snationalities,lea�ingsuchpersonspotentiallysubjecttohea�ybur-densflowingfrombothnationalities:
[I]fheisbothacitizen . . .andanenemynational,heis,asamatteroflaw,liabletothemilitaryandotherobligationsofsuchcitizensandinhislattercapacitytointernmentandsimilarmeasures . . .Dualnationalityisnothalfonenationalityandhalfanother,buttwocompletenationalitiesandintimeofwar�erilyadamnosa hereditas. AsRidlyJ .saidinExparte Freyberger[citeomitted],‘suchapersonisnothalfasubjectofoneStateandhalfofanotherState . . .heiscompletelyasubjectofeachState .’23
56 . Eritrea’sMemorialpresenteditsmassexpulsionclaimsfirst, fol-lowedbyitsclaimsforwrongfuldepri�ationofnationalityandothermat-ters .WhiletheCommissionwouldnormallyconsiderclaimsinthesequencepresentedbytheParties,thesetwoclaimsarecloselyintertwinedlegallyandfactually .Tofacilitateitsanalysis,theCommissionwillbeginwithEritrea’sclaimsfordepri�ationofnationality .
Vii. eriTrea’s Claim for dePriVaTion of naTionaliTy
57 . NeitherinternationalhumanitarianlawnoranytreatyapplicablebetweenthePartiesduringthewaraddressesthelossofnationalityorthesituationofdualnationalsinwartime .Withrespecttocustomaryinterna-tionallaw,Ethiopiacontendedthatcustomaryinternationallawgi�esaStatediscretiontodepri�eitsnationalsofitsnationalityiftheyacquireasecondnationality .Foritspart,Eritreaemphasizede�eryone’srighttoanationality,asexpressedinArticle15oftheUni�ersalDeclarationofHumanRights,24particularlytherightnottobearbitrarilydepri�edofone’snationality .Eritrea
23 LordMcNair&ArthurD .Watts,TheLegalEffectsofWarp .70(4thed .1966) .
24 Uni�ersalDeclarationonHumanRights,G .A .Res .217A(III),U .N .Doc .A/810(1948) .
220 Eritrea/Ethiopia
maintainedthatthoseexpelledhadnotacquiredEritreannationality,andsowereunlawfullyrenderedstatelessbyEthiopia’sactions .
58 . TheCommissionagreeswithbothPartiesregardingtherele�anceof the customary law rules they cited . The problem remains, howe�er, toapplytheminthecircumstanceshere .ThequestionbeforetheCommissioniswhetherEthiopia’sactionswereunlawfulintheunusualcircumstancesofthecreationofthenewStateofEritreafollowedbytheoutbreakofwarbetweenEritreaandEthiopia .
59 . WithrespecttoEthiopia’scontention,theCommissionrecognizesthatsomeStatespermittheirnationalstopossessanothernationalitywhileothers do not . International law prohibits neither position . Accordingly,internationallawwouldha�eallowedEthiopiatotakeappropriatemeasurestoimplementits1930nationalitylawatthetimeofthe1993ReferendumastopersonswhoacquiredEritreannationalitythen .Forreasonsthatappeartoha�ebeenquitecommendable,Ethiopiadidnotdoso .ItinsteadallowedEthiopianswhohadalsoacquiredEritreannationalitytocontinuetoexer-cisetheirEthiopiannationality,whileagreeingwithEritreathatthesepeoplewouldha�etochooseonenationalityortheotheratsomefuturetime .Thewarcamebeforethesematterswereresol�ed .
60 . WithrespecttoEritrea’scontention,theCommissionalsorecog-nizesthatinternationallawlimitsStates’powertodepri�epersonsoftheirnationality .Inthisregard,theCommissionattachesparticularimportancetotheprincipleexpressedinArticle15,paragraph2,oftheUni�ersalDeclarationofHumanRights,that“nooneshallbearbitrarilydepri�edofhisnationality .”Inassessingwhetherdepri�ationofnationalitywasarbitrary,theCommissionconsideredse�eralfactors,includingwhethertheactionhadabasisinlaw;whetheritresultedinpersonsbeingrenderedstateless;andwhethertherewerelegitimatereasonsforittobetakengi�enthetotalityofthecircumstances .
61 . AstothelegalbasisofEthiopia’saction,therewasnoproclama-tionorsimilardocumentintherecordrecordingthedecisiontoterminatetheaffectedpersons’Ethiopiannationality,butcounsel indicatedthat thiswasdonepursuanttoEthiopia’s1930nationalitylaw,alawoflongstandingcomparabletolawsofmanyothercountries,whichpro�idesthatEthiopiannationalityislostwhenanEthiopianacquiresanothernationality .25NeitherPartyhaspointedtoanyotherEthiopianlawthatcouldha�ebeenabasisfortheterminationbyEthiopiaofthenationalityofanyEthiopians .Consequent-ly,theCommissionacceptsthatallterminationsofEthiopiannationalityforwhichEritreaisclaimingweremadeonthebasisofthatlaw .
25 Ethiopia’ssubsequentcallforregistrationofEritreannationalsinAugust1999,infra atpara .74,clearlyreferstopersonsacquiringEritreannationalityinconnectionwithparticipationintheReferendum .ThisisatoddswithEritrea’sclaimthatEthiopia’spositionregardingthelossofEthiopiannationalitywasde�isedafter-the-factforpurposesoflegalargument .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 221
62 . IfEthiopia’snationalitylawwereproperlyimplementedinaccord-ancewithitsterms,onlydualnationalscouldbeaffected,andthatlaw,byitself,couldnotresultinmakinganypersonstateless .Gi�enthefact,howe�er,thatEthiopiadidnotimplementthatlawuntilsometimein1998withrespecttoitsnationalswhohadacquiredEritreannationalitybetween1993and1998,thepossibilitycouldnotbeexcludedthatsomepersonswhohadacquiredEritreannationalityhadsubsequentlylostitandthusweremadestatelessbyEthiopia’saction .Perhapsmorelikely,statelessnesswouldresultifEthiopiaerroneouslydeterminedthatoneofitsnationalshadacquiredEritreannationalitywhen,infact,heorshehadnotdoneso .SuchanunfortunateresultmightbemostlikelytooccurwithrespecttoEthiopiannationalsnotresidentinEthiopia,butitcouldoccure�enwithrespecttoEthiopiansresidentinEthiopia .Thee�idenceindicatesthatEthiopiaappearstoha�emadeatleastafewerrorsinthisprocess .WhileEritreacannotclaimforthelosssufferedbythepersonswhowerethe�ictimsofthoseerrors,EthiopiaisliabletoEritreaforanydam-agescausedtoitbythoseerrors .
63 . ItremainsfortheCommissiontoconsiderthegroundsforEthiopia’sactionsastheyaffecteddualnationalsinlightofthefactualcircumstancesoftheemergenceofthenewStateofEritreaandofthearmedconflictbetweenthetwo .Ethiopiacontendedthatitcannotbearbitraryandunlawfulintimeofwarforittoha�eterminatedtheEthiopiannationalityofanyonewho,withinthepastfi�eyears,hadchosentoobtainthenationalityoftheenemyState .Eritreacontendedthatthosedepri�edoftheirEthiopiannationalityhadnotbeenshowntothreatenEthiopia’ssecurity,andthatitwasarbitraryforEthio-pia,whichhadencouragedpeopletoparticipateintheReferendumwithoutnoticeofthepotentialimpactontheirEthiopiannationality,todepri�ethemofEthiopiannationalityfordoingso .
64 . TheCommissionwillexamineseparatelyEritrea’sclaimsregardingse�eralgroupsdepri�edoftheirEthiopiannationality .
65 . Dual Nationals Depri�ed of their Ethiopian Nationality andExpelledforSecurityReasons .Ethiopiacontendedthatwhenthewarbrokeout,itsdurationandextentcouldnotbeforeseen .Ethiopiansecurityofficialsweresaidtobedeeplyconcernedaboutthepotentialsecuritythreatsposedbyo�er66,000Ethiopianresidentswhohadshownasignificantattachmenttothenow-enemyStatebyacquiringEritreannationalityinordertoregisterfortheReferendumorotherwise .
66 . Ethiopiainsistedthatitdidnot�iewEritreannationalityaloneassufficienttodeemanyoneasecuritythreatsubjecttolossofnationalityandexpulsion .Forthat,additionaltiesoractionsindicatingapossiblethreattoEthiopia’ssecuritywererequired .TheprincipalindicatorswereraisingmoneyonbehalfofEritreaorparticipatinginorganizationspromotingEritreanGo�-ernmentinterestsorencouragingcloserlinksbetweenexpatriateEritreansandEritrea .In�ol�ementintwoorganizationsdrewparticularscrutiny .
222 Eritrea/Ethiopia
67 . ThefirstwasthePopularFrontforDemocracyandJustice(“PFDJ”) .Thee�idenceshowedthatthePFDJwastherulingpoliticalpartyinEritrea,but itwasmore thanawestern-stylepoliticalparty . Itwasmoreakintoanationalmo�ement,constitutingasignificantelementinEritrea’smachineryofgo�ernment .Thee�idenceshowedthatthePFDJmaintainedastructureoflocalgroupsatnumerouslocationsinEthiopia,whichwereusedtopromotetheinterestsofEritrea .
68 . Ethiopia’sscreeningprocessalsofocusedonpersonsacti�eintheEritreanCommunityAssociations .TheCommunityAssociationswerelesso�ertlypoliticalthanthePFDJ .Ne�ertheless,thee�idenceshowedthattheyraisedfundstosupportEritreaandpromotednationalisticsolidarityamongtheirmembers .
69 . Thee�idenceindicatedthattheo�erallstructureanddirectionofthesecurityeffortwastheresponsibilityofEthiopia’snationalsecurityagency,“SIRAA .”Personswereidentifiedthroughadecentralizedstructureimple-mentingguidancefromthecentralauthorities .Ethiopia’se�idenceportrayedacomplexprocessbywhichatierofsecuritycommittees,includingcommitteesatthewereda,tabiaandkebelele�el,identifiedpersonsmeetingthecriteriaaspotentialsecuritythreats .SIRAAofficialsapparentlyre�iewedrecommenda-tionsandcontrolledthisprocess .
70 . Persons identified through this process were then indi�iduallydetained,broughttocollectioncentersandthenexpelled,usuallywithinafewdays .Expellees’passportsandotherdocumentsindicatingEthiopiannation-alitywereconfiscated,andEthiopiasubsequentlytreatedthemasha�inglosttheirEthiopiannationality .Eritrea’se�idencewasconsistentwithEthiopia’sclaimthattheprocessin�ol�eddeliberationandselectionofindi�iduals .Eri-treanwitnessesregularlydescribedEthiopiansecuritypersonnelcomingtotheirresidencesorplacesofworkseekingthemindi�iduallybyname .
71 . Depri�ationofnationalityisaseriousmatterwithimportantandlastingconsequencesforthoseaffected .Inprinciple,itshouldfollowproce-duresinwhichaffectedpersonsareadequatelyinformedregardingthepro-ceedings,canpresenttheircasestoanobjecti�edecisionmaker,andcanseekobjecti�eoutsidere�iew .Ethiopia’sprocessoftenfellshortofthis .Theprocesswashurried .Detaineesrecei�ednowrittennotification,andsomeclaimedtheywerene�ertoldwhatwashappening .Ethiopiacontendedthatdetain-eescouldorallyapplytosecurityofficialsseekingrelease .Therecordincludessomedeclarationsofpersonswhowerereleased,butitalsoincludesseniorEthiopianwitnesses’statementssuggestingthattherewerefewappeals .Somedeclarantsclaimthattheyweredepri�edofEthiopiannationalityandexpellede�enthoughtheydidnotqualifyto�oteintheReferendumormeetEthiopia’sotherselectioncriteria .
72 . Notwithstanding the limitations of the process, the record alsoshowsthatEthiopiafacedanexceptionalsituation .ItwasatwarwithEritrea .ThousandsofEthiopianswithpersonalandethnictiestoEritreahadtaken
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 223
stepstoacquireEritreannationality .SomeoftheseparticipatedingroupsthatsupportedtheEritreanGo�ernmentandoftenactedonitsbehalf .Inresponse,Ethiopiade�isedandimplementedasystemapplyingreasonablecriteriatoidentifyindi�idualdualnationalsthoughttoposethreatstoitswartimesecu-rity .Gi�entheexceptionalwartimecircumstances,theCommissionfindsthatthelossofEthiopiannationalityafterbeingidentifiedthroughthisprocesswasnotarbitraryandcontrarytointernationallaw .Eritrea’sclaimsinthisregardarerejected .
73 . DualNationalsWhoChosetoLea�eEthiopiaandGotoEritrea .Thereweremanydualnationalswhodecidedtolea�eEthiopiaduringthewarandgotoEritrea .Thetotalnumberisuncertain .Ethiopiacounted21,905fam-ilymemberswhoaccompaniedthosewhowereexpelledforsecurityreasons .Othersleftbyaircraftorothermeans .Whilemany,butnotall,ofthesewererelati�esofthosewhowereexpelledforsecurityreasons,theCommissionrec-ognizesthat,whate�ertheirindi�idualmoti�esmayha�ebeen,itwasaseri-ousactthatcouldnotbewithoutconsequencesforanydualnationaloftwohostilebelligerentstochoosetolea�eonefortheotherwhiletheywereatwarwitheachother .TheCommissiondecidesthattheterminationoftheEthio-piannationalityofthesepersonswasnotarbitraryandwasnotin�iolationofinternationallaw .
74 . DualNationalsRemaining inEthiopia:“Yellow-CardPeople .” ItisundisputedthataconsiderablenumberofotherdualnationalsremainedinEthiopiaduringthewar,thatEthiopiadepri�edthemoftheirEthiopiannationalityand, inAugust1999, required themtopresent themsel�esandregisterasaliensandobtainaresidencepermit .TheAugust1999callforreg-istrationorderedthat“anyEritreanofeighteenyearsofageando�er,whohasacquiredEritreannationalitytakingpartintheEritreanindependencereferendumorthereafter”mustreportandberegistered .Thosewhodidnotcomply“willbeconsideredanillegalpersonwhohasunlawfullyenteredthecountryandshallbetreatedassuchaccordingtothelaw .”
75 . Thosewhoregisteredrecei�eddistincti�eyellowalienidentitycards,and were referred to at the hearing as “yellow-card people .” The numbersaffectedweredisputed .CounselforEritreaestimatedthatabout50,000per-sonswereaffected .Ethiopiastatedthatamuchsmallergroup—about24,000persons—registeredandobtainedtheyellowidentitycards .Eritreacontendedthatpersonsinthisgroupwerewronglydepri�edoftheirEthiopiannation-ality .Whate�erthenumbersaffected,therewasnoe�idenceindicatingthatthedualnationalsinthisgroupthreatenedEthiopiansecurityorsuggestingotherreasonsfortakingawaytheirEthiopiannationality .Therewasnoproc-esstoidentifyindi�idualswarrantingspecialconsiderationandnoapparentpossibilityofre�ieworappeal .Consideringthatrightstosuchbenefitsaslandownershipandbusinesslicenses,aswellaspassportsandothertra�eldocu-mentswereatstake,theCommissionfindsthatthiswide-scaledepri�ationof
224 Eritrea/Ethiopia
EthiopiannationalityofpersonsremaininginEthiopiawas,underthecircum-stances,arbitraryandcontrarytointernationallaw .
76 . DualNationalsWhoWereinThirdCountriesorWhoLeftEthio-piaToGotoThirdCountries .EritreaalsocontendedthatanundeterminednumberofthepersonsfoundbytheCommissiontoha�ebeendualnationalswerepresentinothercountrieswhenEthiopiadeterminedthattheywouldnolongerbeacceptedasEthiopiannationals .Aswiththe“yellow-cardpeople,”thereisnoe�idenceindicatingthatthesepeople,bytheirmerepresenceinthirdcountriescouldreasonablybepresumedtobesecuritythreatsorthattheywerefoundtobepotentialthreatsthroughanyindi�idualizedassess-mentprocess .Moreo�er,theonlymeansbywhichtheycouldcontesttheirtreatmentwastoapproachEthiopiandiplomaticorconsularestablishmentsabroad,andthee�idenceshowedthatthosewhodidsotoseekclarificationorassistanceweresentaway .TheCommissionfindsthatthemembersofthisgroupwerealsoarbitrarilydepri�edoftheirEthiopiancitizenshipin�iolationofinternationallaw .
77 . DualNationalsWhoWereinEritrea .TherecorddoesnotindicatehowmanydualnationalswereinEritreawhenthewarbeganinMay1998andsoonthereafter,whenEthiopiaterminatedtheEthiopiannationalityofErit-rea-Ethiopiadualnationals,buttheCommissionmustassumethatsomewerethere .WhileitcouldnotfairlybeassumedthatmerepresenceinEritreawasproofthatsuchdual-nationalsweresecurityrisks,theCommissionfindsthatthee�identrisksandtheinabilitytocontactthemunderwartimeconditionsmadesuchterminationnotarbitraryorotherwiseunlawful .
78 . DualNationalsExpelledforOtherReasons .WhileEthiopiaassert-edthatnoonewasexpelledexceptforholdersofEritreannationalityfoundtobesecurityrisksthroughtheprocesspre�iouslydescribed,thee�idenceshowsthatanunknown,butconsiderable,numberofdualnationalswereexpelledwithoutha�ingbeensubjecttothisprocess .Particularlyinsmallertownsandinagriculturalareasneartheborder,mostoralldualnationalsweresome-timesroundedupbylocalauthoritiesandforcedintoEritreaforreasonsthatcannotbeestablished .Thereisalsoe�idencetosuggestthattheseexpulsionsincludedsomedualnationalrelati�esofpersonswhohadbeenexpelledassecurityrisksandmayha�eincludedsomedualnationalswhowereexpelledagainsttheirwill .TheCommissionholdsthattheterminationoftheEthiopiannationalityofallsuchpersonswasarbitraryandunlawful .
Viii. eriTrea’s Claim for eXPulsion79 . EritreaallegedthatEthiopia�iolatedinternationallawbyengag-
inginamassexpulsionofEthiopiannationalsofEritreanorigin,contendingthatEthiopia’sactionsamountedto“ethniccleansing .”Ethiopiadeniedthatitengagedinanymassexpulsionor,indeed,anyexpulsionofitsownnation-als,anddeniedtheallegationofethniccleansing .Ethiopiamaintainedthatit
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 225
expelledtoEritreaonlypersonsofEritreannationality,andthatinternationalhumanitarianlawrecognizestherightofabelligerenttorequirenationalsoftheenemyStatetoreturntotheStateoftheirnationality .BothPartiessug-gestedthatthemassexpulsionofallnationalsofanenemyStateatthebegin-ningofawarmightbeinconsistentwiththelaw,butEthiopiadeniedha�ingdonethis .ItassertedthatithadexpelledonlyselectedEritreannationalsforsecurityreasonsbasedonindi�idualin�estigationanddetermination .
80 . The Commission will initially address Eritrea’s allegations thatEthiopiaengagedinprohibitedethnicallybasedmassexpulsionsorethniccleansing .Ethiopiamaintainedthat15,475personswithEritreannationalitywereindi�iduallyidentifiedthroughitssecurityprocessandthendepri�edofEthiopiannationalityandexpelled .Thisisalargegroup,butitislessthan25%ofthemorethan66,000personsinEthiopiawhoqualifiedto�otefortheReferendum .Itis3%ofthemorethan500,000personsinEthiopiabothPartiescitedasha�ingEritreanantecedents .EritreadisputedEthiopia’sfig-ure,bute�enifthetotalweremuchhigher,therecordindicatesanexpulsionprocessin�ol�ingdeliberationandselection,notindiscriminateround-upsandexpulsionsbasedonethnicity .Eritrea’sclaimsthatEthiopiaengagedinindiscriminatemassexpulsionsbasedonethnicityorinethniccleansingarerejectedforlackofproof .
81 . Internationalhumanitarianlawgi�esbelligerentsbroadpowerstoexpelnationalsoftheenemyStatefromtheirterritoryduringaconflict .TheCommissionnotesinthisregardthefollowingstatementoftherele�antinter-nationallawbyaleadingtreatise:26
Therightof states toexpelaliens isgenerally recognized . Itmattersnotwhetherthealienisonatemporary�isitorhassettleddownforprofes-sional,businessorotherpurposesonitsterritory,ha�ingestablishedhisdomicilethere .Ontheotherhand,whileastatehasabroaddiscretioninexercisingitsrighttoexpelanalien,itsdiscretionisnotabsolute .Thus,bycustomaryinternationallawitmustnotabuseitsrightbyactingarbitrar-ilyintakingitsdecisiontoexpelanalien,anditmustactreasonablyinthemannerinwhichiteffectsanexpulsion .Beyondthis,howe�er,customaryinternationallawpro�idesnodetailedrulesregardingexpulsionande�ery-thingaccordinglydependsuponthemeritsoftheindi�idualcase .Theoryandpracticecorrectlymakeadistinctionbetweenexpulsionintimeofhos-tilitiesandintimeofpeace .Abelligerentmayconsideritcon�enienttoexpelallhostilenationalsresiding,ortemporarilystaying,withinitsterritory:
26 IOppenheim’s International Law§413,pp .940–941(SirRobertJennings&SirArthurWattseds .,1996) .
226 Eritrea/Ethiopia
althoughsuchameasuremaybe�eryhardonindi�idualaliens,itisgener-allyacceptedthatsuchexpulsionisjustifiable .27
82 . TheCommissionconcludedabo�ethatEthiopialawfullydepri�edasubstantialnumberofdualnationalsoftheirEthiopiannationalityfollowingidentificationthroughEthiopia’ssecuritycommitteeprocess .Ethiopiacouldlawfullyexpelthesepersonsasnationalsofanenemybelligerent,althoughitwasboundtoensurethemtheprotectionsrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIVandotherapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Eritrea’sclaimthatthisgroupwasunlawfullyexpelledisrejected .
83 . Howe�er,Eritreaalsocontendedthatsomeexpelleesdidnotpar-ticipate in the Referendum process and could not ha�e acquired Eritreannationalityinthatway,sothattheirexpulsion�iolatedtheinternationallawrulebarringStatesfromexpellingtheirownnationals .Ethiopiadeniedthesecontentions .Twogroupswereemphasized .
84 . RuralExpellees .Inadditiontothedualnationalsfromruralareasreferredtoabo�einthesectiondealingwithnationality,thee�idenceindicatesthatmanyotherpersonswereforcedoutofruralareasneartheborderintoEritrea .Eritreacontendedthatse�eralthousandpersonswithEritreanante-cedentsinruralareas,particularlyinTigrayPro�ince,wereforciblyroundedupbylocalsecurityforcesandcollecti�elyexpelled .Eritreaindicatedthatthenumbersaffectedwereuncertainbecauseoftheremoteareasin�ol�ed .Con-sideringthedeclarationsofcampadministratorswhoassistedthesepeopleinEritrea,Eritreaestimatedthat10,000to15,000ruralpeoplewereforciblyexpelled .Thereisnofirme�idenceastotheirnationality,butEritreacontend-edthatbecauseoftheremoteareasin�ol�ed,fewifanyoftheseexpelleeswerelikelytoha�eparticipatedinthe1993Referendumprocessortoha�eacquiredEritreannationalityinotherways .Fromthesmallnumberofdeclarationsbyruralexpellees,theCommissionbelie�esthatmostofthesepersonshadbeeninEthiopiaforanumberofyears .
27 Writersoninternationalhumanitarianlawaretothesameeffect .See,e .g .,KarlDoehring,Aliens, Expulsion and Deportation,in8Encyclopedia of Public International Lawp .16(1985)(“[A]Statemaynonethelessbejustifiedinexpellingsuchagroupwithoutregardtotheindi�idualbeha�iourofitsmembers, ifthesecurityandexistenceoftheexpellingStatewouldotherwisebeseriouslyendangered,forexample . . .duringastateofwar .”);GeraldDraper,The Red Cross Conventionspp .36–37(1958),quoted in10Digest of International Lawp .274(MarjorieWhitemaned .,1968)(citing“thecustomaryrightofastatetoexpelallenemyaliensattheoutsetofaconflict”);Handbook of Humanitarian Law,supranote15,at§589(5),p .287(forced“repatriation[ofnationalsofanenemystate]mustbeconsideredaspermissible”);McNair&Watts,supranote23,atp .76(“Thereisnorulewhichrequiresabelligerenttoallowenemysubjectstoremaininhisterritoryandheisentitledtoexpelthemifhechooses”) .Gene�aCon�entionIVdoesnotexplicitlyaddressexpulsionofnationalsoftheenemystateorotheraliens,insteademphasizingtherightofalienswhowishtolea�etheterritoryofabelligerenttodoso .SeeArt .35 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 227
85 . EthiopiarespondedthatEritrea failed topro�e that thesee�entsoccurred .Italsoarguedthatanydisplacementsthatmightha�eoccurredwereprobablytheuna�oidableresultofmilitaryoperations .
86 . Eritrea’se�idenceincludedfirst-handaccountsofforcedroundupsduringthewarofpersonsofEritreanbackgroundinruralareasandoftheirsubsequentexpulsions,aswellasstatementsbycampadministratorsin�ol�edinrecei�ingandattemptingtoresettletheseexpelleesinEritrea .28Thee�idenceshowedthattheroundupsandexpulsionswerenottheuna�oidableresultofcombatoperations,butwereforcedbylocalpeopleandcrowds,includinglocalofficials .Therewasnoe�idencethattheywereorganizedordirectedbycentralgo�ernmentauthorities .Theseruralexpulsionsoftenin�ol�edharshjourneystoreachtheborder,sometimesonfoot .
87 . The e�idence concerning forced rural expulsions prior to theDecember2000Agreement isnotasextensi�eas thatconcerningsomeofEritrea’sotherclaims .Howe�er,theCommissionfindsitsufficienttopro�eEritrea’sclaimthatthesee�entsoccurred,andthatEthiopiafailedtorebutthate�idence .
88 . Gi�entheremotelocationsandthenatureofthepopulationsaffect-ed, theCommissionfinds itunlikely thatmany, ifany,of theruralexpel-leesparticipatedintheReferendumprocessandsoacquireddualnationality .Therewasnoe�idencethattheyconstitutedathreattoEthiopia’snationalsecurity .Instead,thoseexpelledappeartoha�ebeenlargely,ifnotexclusi�ely,EthiopiannationalsroundedupandforciblyexpelledfromEthiopiabecauseoftheirEritreanethnicity .
89 . Theforcibleexpulsionoftheseruralpeople,particularlyifbasedonethnicityasapparentlyhappenedhere,clearly�iolatesinternationallaw .Therewasnoe�idencethattheseexpulsionsresultedfromanynationalpolicy,andtheyappeartoha�ebeencarriedoutbylocalfarmers,militiaorpolice .Ne�ertheless,theStateofEthiopiaremainsresponsibletoEritreaunderinter-nationallawforanydamagesandlossestoEritreacausedbytheseactions,as theyoccurredin itsso�ereignterritoryandin�ol�edstateagentswhosemisconductEthiopiadidnotpre�ent .
90 . TheCommissionheldearlierthat,e�enundertheunusualjuris-dictionalpro�isionsofArticle5oftheDecember2000Agreement,theStateofEritreacouldnotclaimforinjuriestoitselfbaseduponinjuriessufferedbypersonswhoweresolelyEthiopiannationalswhentheywereinjured .29Mostifnotallofthepersonsco�eredbythisportionofEritrea’sclaimwerenationals
28 Eritrea’se�idencealsoincludedse�eraldeclarationsfromruralpeopleforciblyexpelledfromTigrayinmid-2001ande�idenceofinternationalprotestsbytheUNSec-retary-Generalandothersregardingthe2001expulsions .Howe�er,asindicatedsupra, atpara .16,claimsforthe2001expulsionsareoutsidetheCommission’stemporaljurisdic-tion .
29 See paras .19and20supra.
228 Eritrea/Ethiopia
ofEthiopiaandonlyofEthiopiawhentheywereexpelled .Accordingly,inthesubsequentdamagesportionoftheCommission’sproceedings,itwillnotbeopentoEritreatoclaimdamagesinrespectoftheirindi�idualinjuries .How-e�er,Eritreacanseektopro�eanymonetarydamagesitmayha�eincurredasaresultofthesee�ents .
91 . FamilyMembers .Asecondmajorgroupofdeporteesraisedduringtheproceedingsin�ol�esthefamilymembersofpersonswhowereexpelledafterbeingidentifiedthroughEthiopia’ssecurityprocess .ThePartiesagreethatmanythousandsofexpellees’ familymembers leftEthiopia, includingspouses,children,dependentsiblings,andparents,butthenumbersaffectedandthecircumstancesoftheirdeparturesaredisputed .Ethiopiacontendedthato�er20,000 familymembers leftEthiopia�oluntarily to joinEritreanexpellees .EritreamaintainedthatthenumberwasfarlargerandthatmanyleftunderphysicalcompulsionorbecauseEthiopiafosteredhostileconditionsforfamilymembersinEthiopia,oftenwomenwhosehusbandshadbeenexpelledearlier,lea�ingthemnopracticalchoicebuttofollow .
92 . TheCommissionnotedabo�ethatinternationallawallowsabel-ligerenttoexpelthenationalsoftheenemyStateduringwartime .Thus,totheextentthatthoseexpelledwereEritreannationals,theirexpulsionwaslawful,e�enifharshfortheindi�idualsaffected .
93 . Howe�er,thee�idenceisnotclearregardingthenationalityofmanyfamilymembers,andthematterwasnotclarifiedduringtheproceedings .30Theprincipale�idencea�ailabletotheCommissionisEritrea’sNationalityProc-lamationNo .21/1992 .31Article6ofthatProclamationdoesnotautomaticallyconferEritreannationalityonEritreannationals’spouses,insteadrequiringanaturalizationprocessincludingthreeyearsofresidenceinEritrea .Moreo-�er,itisunclearwhetherchildrenofEritreansareEritreannationalsbybirth,as indicatedinArticle2,orwhetherArticle4appliestothemandfurtheractionisrequired .Thee�idencedoesnotshowtheextenttowhichtheselegalrequirementswerecompliedwithsothattheEthiopianspousesandoffspringofEritreannationalsalsobecameEritreannationals .
94 . Thee�idence isalsomixedregardingthecircumstancesof fam-ilymembers’departures .It indicatesthatfamilymembers leftunder�ary-ingcircumstances,withmembersofasinglefamilysometimeslea�ingunderquitedifferentconditions .Thee�idencedoesnotpermitjudgmentsastothefrequencyorextentof�aryingtypesofdepartures .Thefollowingsituationsappeartoha�eoccurredfrequently:
30 Eritrea maintained throughout that only Ethiopian nationals were expelled .EthiopiamaintainedthatitonlyexpelledEritreannationals“whohadbeenindi�iduallydeterminedtobeEritreannationals(aswellasthreatstoEthiopia’snationalsecurity .”)(Ethiopia’sCounter-Memorial,filedbyEthiopiaonJan .15,2004,p .109,para .6 .85 .)
31 See para .40supra.
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 229
–Familymemberschose(orwereselectedbythefamily)toaccompanyapersonbeingexpelledonsecuritygroundsatthetimeofdeporta-tion .Manyexpelleeswereaccompaniedbytheirminorchildren,andsomewereaccompaniedbyspousesorotheradultfamilymembers;
–Familymembersdecidedtolea�eEthiopiaaftertheexpulsionofafamilymember,anddidsoutilizingnormalemigrationandtra�elproceduresortheassistanceoftheICRC .Suchdeparturesin�ol�ed�aryingmeansoftransportationand�ariousdestinations .
95 . TheCommissiondoesnotregardEthiopiaasha�inganyliabilityfordeparturesinthesesituations,wheredeparturesresultedfromchoicesmadebytheaffectedindi�idualsortheirfamilies .AsabelligerentcanlawfullyexpelanationaloftheenemyState,familymembers’decisionstoaccompanytheexpellee,eitherattheinitialexpulsionorthereafter,arelawfulaswell .
96 . Howe�er, thee�idencealso indicates thatsomefamilymemberswereforciblyexpelled .ManyEritreandeclarantsspeakbroadlyoftheirfam-ilymembersbeingexpelledordeportedfollowingthedeclarant’sexpulsion .Itoftenisnotclearwhetherthewords“expelled”or“deported”areusedinatechnicalwayandwhetherthesedeparturesinfactresultedfromcompulsionbyEthiopianofficials .Ne�ertheless,somedeclarationsclearlydescribedirectcoercionbeingusedtodetainandforciblyexpelfamilymembers,includingwi�esandyoungchildren .
97 . TotheextentthatfamilymemberswhodidnotholdEritreannation-alitywereexpelled,theexpulsionwascontrarytointernationallaw .Gi�enthelimitationsofthee�idence,theCommissioncannotdeterminetheextenttowhichthisoccurred .Aswiththeruralexpellees,thisfindingissubjecttotheCommission’searlierfindingthatEritreacannotclaimforinjuriestoitselfbaseduponinjuriessufferedbypersonswhoweresolelyEthiopiannationalswhentheywereinjured .32InthesubsequentdamagesportionoftheCommis-sion’sproceedings,Eritreacannotclaimdamagesinrespectoftheirindi�idualinjuries,butitcanseektopro�eanymonetarydamagesitmayha�eincurredasaresultofEthiopia’streatmentofthesepersons .
98 . OtherDualNationals .Asdiscussedinparagraph78abo�e,inaddi-tiontoruralresidents,thee�idenceshowsthatanunknown,butconsiderable,numberofdualnationals,includingsomerelati�esofdualnationalspre�iouslyexpelledassecurityrisks,wereroundedupbylocalauthoritiesandforcedintoEritreaforreasonsthatcannotbeestablished .TheCommissionhasheldthattheterminationoftheirEthiopiannationalitywasarbitraryandconsequentlyunlawfulandthatEthiopiaisliableforpermittingittooccur .AstheCommis-sionindicatedinparagraph92abo�e,therighttoexpelthenationalsoftheenemyStateinwartimeisarightofabelligerent,anditcanbeexercisedlaw-fullyonlybyabelligerent .Ethiopia,thebelligerent,didnotconduct,authorize,
32 Supra paras .19and20 .
230 Eritrea/Ethiopia
orratifytheseexpulsions .Consequently,theywereunlawfulunderapplicableinternationallaw,andEthiopiaisliableforpermittingthemtooccur .
99 . Physical Conditions of Expulsion . Eritrea also claimed that thephysicalconditionsunderwhichpersonswereexpelledfromEthiopiawereinhumaneandunsafe .Internationalhumanitarianlawrequiresthatalldepar-tures,whetherlawfulornot,beconductedhumanely,“insatisfactorycondi-tionsasregardssafety,hygiene,sanitationandfood .”33Eritreacontendedthattheseconditionswerenotmet;Ethiopiacontendedthattheywere .Thetwosidespresentedextensi�eandsharplyconflictinge�idence .
100 . Expelleesgenerallydescribedtheirexperiencesinsimilarterms .Ethiopiansecuritypersonnel,oftenaccompaniedbyarmedpoliceormilitia,tookexpelleesintocustodyindi�iduallyattheirhomesorworkplacesandthentookthemtoanassemblyfacility .Theywereheldtherewithotherdetainees,generally forabriefperiodof threetofi�edays,whileasufficientnumberofdetaineeswascollected .Manyassemblyfacilities,particularlyinsmallertowns,wereimpro�isedandlackedadequatesanitaryorcookingfacilities;expelleesoftenrecei�edfoodfromtheirfamilies .Expelleeswerekeptunderarmedguard .Whiletherewereaccountsof�erbalharassment,physicalabusedoesnotappeartoha�ebeencommon .
101 . Whena“criticalmass”ofse�eralhundredexpelleeswascollected,theywereloadedontoacon�oyofbuses;armedguardsusuallyrodeoneachbus .Thecon�oyswerecrowdedanduncomfortable,andthejourneywastypi-callylong,hot,andunpleasant .Stopswereinfrequentandcloselyguarded .Somedetaineesreportedspendingthenightonthefloorsofschoolsorotherfacilitiesenroute;othersdescribedbeingheldo�ernightonsealedandhotbuses,particularlyascon�oysnearedtheborder .
102 . ThePartiesdisputedtheadequacyofthefoodandwaterpro�ided,buttheweightofthee�idenceindicatesthattheygenerallywereinadequate .Numerous declarations described wholly insufficient food and water . Thedetailsofthesestatements�arysomewhat,suggestingthatconditions�ariedfromonetripandplacetoanother,butthepre�ailingpictureisnotfa�ora-ble .
103 . Eritreacontendedthatmanyexpulsioncon�oysunnecessarilyuti-lizeddesertroutessubjectingexpelleestoextremeheat,andthatexpelleeswereforcedtolea�ethebusesnearthefrontlinesandtocrossonfoot,exposedtolandminehazardsandwithoutcoordinationwithEritreanforcesontheotherside .Eritreacitedthereportsofinternationalobser�ers,includingtheICRCandUNICEF,criticaloftheconditionsofparticulartransports .
104 . Se�eraldeclarants referred to thecurtainsandwindowsof thebusesbeingclosedwhile tra�ellingandwhiledetaineesremained in themo�ernight .Itwasnotapparentwhetherthiswasdonetopre�entescapesorfor
33 Gene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,atart .36(1);ProtocolI,supra note7,atart .75 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 231
otherreasons .Ethiopiacontendedthatthecurtainsweredrawnonlywhenrequiredforsecurity,aswhenbuseswerepassingthroughmilitaryzones,butthee�idencedoesnotsupportthiscontention .Combinedwithcrowdedcon-ditionsandEthiopiansummerheat,theclosedcurtainsandwindowswouldha�egreatlyincreasedthepassengers’suffering .
105 . Ethiopia countered Eritrea’s allegations by contending that theICRC was frequently in�ol�ed in the transports, pro�iding an importantsafeguardagainstabuses .Thee�idenceindicatesthattheICRCdidfacilitatesomebordercrossings,butitdoesnotindicateconsistentICRCin�ol�ementinmo�ementstotheborder .ItappearsthatmanytransportswerenotnotifiedtotheICRCorforotherreasonsdidnotha�eICRCin�ol�ement .
106 . Basedon the totalityof the record, theCommissionconcludesthat,despitesomeeffortstopro�ideforexpelleesduringsometransports,thephysicalconditionsfrequentlyfailedtocomplywithinternationallawrequire-mentsofhumaneandsafetreatment .
iX. deTenTion WiTHouT due ProCess107 . Introduction .Eritrea’sthirdmajorclaimisthatEthiopiawrong-
fullydetainedlargenumbersofci�iliansunderharshconditionscontrarytointernationallaw .Thisclaimin�ol�esseparategroups,including(a)personsheldpendingtheirexpulsion,oftenforbriefperiodsandintemporaryfacili-ties;(b)thoseheldinjailsorprisonsforlongerperiods,manybasedonsus-picionsthatthedetaineewasaspyorotherwiseacti�elyassistedtheEritreanwareffort;and(c)ci�iliansclaimedtobewronglydetainedandthenwronglyconfinedtogetherwithprisonersofwar .34ThislastcategoryincludedagroupofEritreanuni�ersitystudentsdetainedbyEthiopiaattheoutbreakofthewar .Foreachgroup,Eritreacontendedboththattheinitialdetentionswereillegalandthatthedetaineeswereheldinpoorandabusi�econditionsthatdidnotsatisfylegalrequirements .
108 . Applicablelaw .Theapplicablelawdependeduponthestatusornationalityofthosein�ol�ed .SomewereEritreannationalsprotectedbyinter-nationalhumanitarianlawapplicableininternationalarmedconflicts .AstoEthiopiannationals,internationalhumanrightslawpro�idedrele�antrules .Incasesofuncertaintyregardingpersons’status,the“safetynet”pro�isionsofArticle75ofProtocolIpro�idedprotection .Howe�er,allpotentiallyappli-cable legalrulesrequiredhumanetreatmentandpro�idedbroadlysimilarprotection .
109 . PersonsDetainedShort-Term .Thisgroupprimarilyin�ol�edper-sonsheldforshortperiodspendingtheirexpulsionfromEthiopia .ManyEri-treanwitnessaccountsdescribeuncomfortablebutshort-termdetentionasgroupsofexpelleeswereassembled,oftenintemporaryfacilities,fortransport
34 See PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atparas .24and28 .
232 Eritrea/Ethiopia
totheborder .Therewasconflictinge�idenceregardingthea�ailabilityoffood,waterandbedding;conditionsmayha�e�ariedbylocationando�ertime .Therewerefewallegationsofphysicalabuse,butallegationsof�erbalabuseweremorecommon .
110 . WhiletheCommissionbelie�esthatthephysicalcircumstancesofpersonsbeingheldpendingdeportationwereoftenaustereanduncomfort-able,theperiodsin�ol�edweregenerallyshort,andtherewerefewallegationsofphysicalabuse .TheCommissionfindsthatthee�idenceisinsufficienttoshowawidespreadorsignificantfailurebyEthiopiatopro�ideinternationallyrequiredstandardsoftreatmentforpersonsheldinshort-termdetentionpriortotheirexpulsion .
111 . PersonsDetainedinPrisonsorJails .Thesecondgroupin�ol�espersonstakenintocustodybytheEthiopiansecurityforcesandthenheld,oftenforlongperiods,inEthiopianprisonsorjails .Theseprisoners’accountssuggestthatmanyweredetainedonsuspicionofespionageorotheroffens-esagainstEthiopianstatesecurity .Thenumbersin�ol�edarenotclear .TheICRCreportedregistering664ci�iliandetainees inEthiopia,andtheU .S .StateDepartmentestimated1,200 .Howe�er,thesefiguresdonotdistinguishbetweenthoseheldinjailsandprisonsonsecuritygroundsandthoseheldforotherreasonsorunderlessharshconditions .Inaddition,thee�idenceinclud-edse�eralprisoneraccountsofbeingshiftedbetweenplacesofdetention;thedeclarantsmaintainedthiswasdonetopre�enttheICRCfromidentifyingandregisteringthem .
112 . Theaccountsofthoseimprisonedonsecurity-relatedsuspicionsor charges consistently describe �ery harsh conditions, with crowded andunsanitaryli�ingarrangementsandlimitedandpoorfood .Therewerefre-quent,recurringallegationsofbeatingsandotherbrutalphysicalabuse .Mostprisonerswereheldwithoutbeingformallychargedorbroughtbeforeajudge .Nonementionsaccesstolegalcounselorotheroutsidead�isers .
113 . TheCommissionconcludesonthebasisofthee�idencethatthosedetainedinprisonsandjailsonsecurity-relatedcharges,EthiopiansandEri-treansalike,wereheldinharshandunsanitaryconditionsandsubjectedtophysicalabuse,contrarytointernationallaw .
114 . Other Ci�ilian Internees . Eritrea next contended that EthiopiawrongfullyinternedotherEritreanandEthiopianci�ilianswithoutproperjustificationandunderunlawfulconditions .EritreacitedArticle42ofGene�aCon�entionIV,whichallowsinternmentorassignedresidence“onlyifthesecurityoftheDetainingPowermakesitabsolutelynecessary,”andtheCon-�ention’sdetailedrequirementsfordetentionfacilities .EthiopiadeniedErit-rea’sclaims .
115 . TheExchangeStudents .EritrearaisedthefirstsuchgroupinitsPrisonerofWarClaim(Eritrea’sClaim17),whichcitedtheallegedlyunlawfuldetentionandtreatmentofabout85Eritreanuni�ersitystudentsstudyingin
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 233
EthiopiawhowereinitiallydetainedinJune1998soonafterthewarbegan .Therecordindicatesthattheirdetentionbecameaninternationalcause celè-bre, leadingtonumerousinternationalappealsfortheirrelease .Theywereconfinedunderallegedlyharshconditionsfor�aryinglengthsoftime;somewerereleasedearlyin1999whileotherswereheldmuchlonger .InitsPartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaim17,theCommissiondeferreddecisionregard-ingthestudents,findingthat“allmistreatmentofci�iliansisthesubjectofotherclaimsbybothParties,whicharetobeheardanddecidedinaseparateproceeding .”35
116 . Therecordindicatesthatthestudentswereofmilitaryageandthatsomehadrecei�edmilitarytraininginEritrea .EthiopiacontendedthattheirinternmentwasjustifiedunderArticle35,paragraph1,ofGene�aCon�entionIV .Underthatpro�ision,nationalsofanenemystateha�etherighttolea�eabelligerent’sterritory“unlesstheirdepartureiscontrarytothenationalinter-estsofthestate .”“TheHandbookofHumanitarianLaw”explainsthat“[t]hisreferencetothenationalinterestofthestateofresidenceisintendedabo�ealltoenablethestatetoprohibitresidentssuitableformilitaryser�icefromlea�-ing .”36LeslieGreensimilarlydescribesArticle35asallowingabelligerenttopre�ent“thedepartureofthoselikelytobeofassistancetothead�ersepartyinitswarefforts .”37
117 . Thee�idenceinthisandotherclaimsbeforetheCommissionindi-catesthatsomemo�ementofci�iliansbetweenthetwocountriescontinuedduringthewar .Ethiopiacouldreasonablyha�efearedthatthestudents—andotherEritreansofmilitaryage,particularlythosewithmilitarytraining—mightha�ereturnedtoEritreaandjoinedtheEritreanforcesifleftatlarge .TheirinternmentwasconsistentwithArticle35,paragraph1,ofGene�aCon-�entionIV .Further,whiletheconditionsinwhichtheyweredetainedmayha�ebeendifficultandaustere,particularlyincomparisontothosetheypre-�iouslyexperiencedinEthiopia,therecorddoesnotestablishasubstantialorwidespreadfailuretomeetGene�aCon�entionrequirementswithrespecttotheirtreatment .
118 . Itisnotapparentfromtherecordwhetherthestudentshadindi-�idualopportunitiestoappealeithertheirconfinement,aspro�idedinArticle43ofGene�aCon�entionIV,orEthiopia’srefusaltoallowthemtolea�e,aspro�idedinArticle35 .Gi�enthepaucityoftherecordandtherequirementforclearandcon�incinge�idence,theCommissioncannotfindanyliabilityconcerningthisaspectoftheirtreatment .
119 . Ci�iliansallegedlyconfinedwithPOWS .EritreaalsoallegedinitsPrisonerofWarClaimthatEritreanci�ilianswerewronglyclassifiedandheldasprisonersofwar,andwerebadlymistreatedwhilesoheld .TheCom-
35 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atpara .28 .36 Handbook of Humanitarian Law,supranote15,at§583(p .281) .37 LeslieC .Green,The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflictp .89(2ded .2000) .
234 Eritrea/Ethiopia
mission’sPartialAwardinEritrea’sPrisonerofWarClaimsalsodeferredtheseclaimstobeconsideredinthecontextofthepresentproceeding .38
120 . Eritrea’sprisonerofware�idenceincludesmultipleaccountsofEritreanfarmersandotherlocalresidentsli�ingclosetothemilitaryfrontswhoweretakenprisonerbytheEthiopianArmyandthenheldasprisonersofwar,sometimesforyears .Theseindi�idualsmaintainedthattheywerenotsol-diersandtooknopartinmilitaryoperations .Somewereintheirearlyteens;otherswereoldermen,somewellabo�emilitaryage .Eritreaalsopresentede�idenceofotherEritreanci�iliansli�ingfarfromthefrontswhoweresimi-larlydetainedandheldasprisonersofwar .
121 . Ethiopiadidnotrebutthee�idencethatEritreanci�ilians,includ-ingbothci�iliansli�ingclosetothefrontandothersfromelsewhereinEthio-pia,weredetainedandthenheldasprisonersofwar .Whileinternationallawallowstheinternmentofci�iliannationalsofanenemyStateunderspecifiedconditionsandappropriatesafeguards, therecorddidnotshowthat theserequirementsweremet .39Accordingly,theircontinueddetentionwascontrarytointernationallaw .Inaddition,underArticle84ofGene�aCon�entionIV,prisonersofwarmustbeheldseparatelyfromci�ilians .EthiopiadidnotrebutEritrea’se�idenceshowingthatEritreanci�ilianswerewronglyheldasprison-ersofwarinbreachoftheserequirements .
122 . Conditionsoftreatment .Theseci�ilianswereheldinDedessaandotherEthiopiancampsastowhichtheCommissionmadefindingsinitsPar-tialAwardonEritrea’sPrisonerofWarClaims .40Whiletheywerenotlegallyentitledtothesametreatmentasprisonersofwarinallrespects,Ethiopiawaslegallyrequiredinallinstancestoaccordthemhumanetreatment .41 TheCom-mission’sfindingsinitsearlierPartialAwardregardingEthiopia’sfailurestopro�ideadequatedietandcareforprisonersinitsprisonerofwarcampsarelikewiseapplicabletotheseindi�iduals .
X. dePriVaTion of ProPerTy
123 . EritreaallegedthatEthiopiaimplementedawidespreadprogramaimedatunlawfullyseizingEritreanpri�ateassets,includingassetsofexpel-leesandofotherpersonsoutsideofEthiopia,andoftransferringthoseassetstoEthiopiango�ernmentalorpri�ateinterests .Ethiopiadeniedthatittook
38 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atpara .28 .39 Asnotedabo�e,underArticle35ofGene�aCon�entionIV,abelligerentcanpre-
�entnationalsofanenemybelligerentfromlea�ingits territoryif theymayassist theopposingwareffort .Suchpersonscanalsobeassignedresidenceorinternediftherequire-mentsofArticle41aremet .
40 PartialAwardinEritrea’sPOWClaims,supra note2,atPartV .D .41 SeeGene�aCon�entionIV,supranote6,atart .27;ProtocolI,supranote7,at
art .27 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 235
anysuchactions .Itcontendedthatanylossesresultedfromthelawfulenforce-mentofpri�ateparties’contractrights,orthenondiscriminatoryapplicationoflegitimateEthiopiantaxorotherlawsandregulations .
124 . BothParties’argumentsemphasizedthecustomaryinternationallawrules limitingStates’rightstotakealiens’propertyinpeacetime;bothagreedthatpeacetimerulesbarringexpropriationcontinuedtoapply .How-e�er,thee�entsatissuelargelyoccurredduringaninternationalarmedcon-flict .Thus,it isalsonecessarytoaddresstheroleofthejus in bello, whichgi�esbelligerentssubstantiallatitudetoplacefreezesorotherdiscriminatorycontrolsonthepropertyofnationalsoftheenemyStateorotherwisetoactinwayscontrarytointernationallawintimeofpeace .Forexample,underthejus in bello, thedeliberatedestructionofaliens’propertyincombatoperationsmaybeperfectlylegal,whilesimilarconductinpeacetimewouldresultinStateresponsibility .
125 . Thestatusof thepropertyofnationalsofanenemybelligerentunderthejusin bello hase�ol�ed .Untilthenineteenthcentury,nodistinctionwasdrawnbetweenthepri�ateandpublicpropertyoftheenemy,andbothweresubjecttoexpropriationbyabelligerent .42Howe�er,attitudeschanged;asearlyas1794,theJayTreaty43boundtheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKing-domnottoconfiscatetheother’snationals’propertye�eninwartime .Thisattitudecametopre�ail;the1907HagueRegulations44reflectadeterminationtoha�ewaraffectpri�atecitizensandtheirpropertyaslittleaspossible .45
126 . Themodern jus in bello thuscontainsimportantprotectionsofaliens’property,beginningwiththefundamentalrulesofdiscriminationandproportionalityincombatoperations,whichprotectbothli�esandproperty .Article23,paragraph(g),oftheHagueRegulationssimilarlyforbidsdestruc-tionorseizureoftheenemy’spropertyunless“imperati�elydemandedbythenecessitiesofwar .”Article33ofGene�aCon�entionIVprohibitspillage46andreprisalsagainstprotectedpersons’property,bothinoccupiedterritoryand
42 IIInternational Law: A Treatise: Disputes, War and Neutralityp .326(H .Lauter-pachted .,7thed .1952)[hereinafterDisputes, War and Neutrality] .Therewasamajorcaseofconfiscationofpri�ateenemypropertyin1793,attheoutbreakofwarbetweenFranceandGermany .Id.
43 TreatyofAmity,CommerceandNa�igationbetweenGreatBritainandtheUnitedStates,No� .19,1794,52Consol .T .S .p .243 .
44 HagueCon�ention(IV)RespectingtheLawsandCustomsofWaronLandandAnnexedRegulations,Oct .18,1907,36Stat .p .2277,1Be�ansp .631[hereinafterHagueRegulations] .
45 GeorgeSchwarzenberger,IIInternational Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals—The Law of Armed Conflictp .259(1968) .
46 Canada’slawofarmedconflictmanualdefinespillageas“the�iolentacquisitionofpropertyforpri�atepurposes . . . .Pillageistheft . . . .”OfficeoftheJudgeAd�ocateGen-eral,TheLawofArmedConflictattheOperationalandTacticalLe�el,B-GG-005–027/AF-021,p .6–6 .
236 Eritrea/Ethiopia
intheParties’territory .47Article38ofGene�aCon�entionIVisalsorele�ant .Itestablishesthat,exceptformeasuresofinternmentandassignedresidenceorotherexceptionalmeasuresauthorizedbyArticle27,“thesituationofpro-tectedpersonsshallcontinuetoberegulated,inprinciple,bythepro�isionsgo�erningaliensintimeofpeace .”
127 . Howe�er,thesesafeguardsoperateinthecontextofanotherbroadandsometimescompetingbodyofbelligerentrightstofreezeorotherwisecontrolorrestricttheresourcesofenemynationalssoastodenythemtotheenemyState .Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,importantStatesincludingFrance,Germany, theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStatesha�efrozen“enemy”property,includingpropertyofci�ilians,sometimes�estingitforthe�estingState’sbenefit .AsRousseausummarizes:
Durant la guerre de 1914, presque tous les Etats belligérents . . . ont pris des measures restrictives très rigoreuses, allant du simple séquestre (France) à la liquidation et à la vente des biens des sujets ennemis (Grande-Bretagne, Allemagne). . . . [Durant la guerre de 1939]: ‘Un régime analogue á celui de 1914—construit autour des trois idées de contrôle, de séquestre et de liquida-tion—fut appliqué par tous les belligerents .’48
Suchcontrolmeasuresha�ebeenjudgednecessarytodenytheenemyaccesstoeconomicresourcesotherwisepotentiallya�ailabletosupportitsconductofthewar .
128 . States ha�e not consistently frozen and �ested enemy pri�ateproperty .Inpractice,States�estingtheassetsofenemynationalsha�edonesoundercontrolledconditions,andforreasonsdirectlytiedtohigherstateinterests;commentatorsemphasizetheselimitations .49Thepost-wardisposi-tionofcontrolledpropertyhasoftenbeenthesubjectofagreementsbetweentheformerbelligerents .Theseauthorizetheuseofcontrolledor�estedassetsforpost-warreparationsorclaimssettlements,therebymaintainingatleast
47 Propertyinoccupiedterritoryrecei�esspecialprotection .Article53ofGene�aCon�entionIV,supra note6,prohibitsdestructionofpri�atepropertythereexceptwhere“renderedabsolutelynecessarybymilitaryoperations .”Article47oftheHagueRegula-tions,supra note44,forbidspillageinoccupiedterritory .Otherrele�antpro�isionsincludeArticles49,51and52(limitingle�ies,contributionsandrequisitionsinoccupiedterritory)andArticle53(allowingoccupyingforcestotakepossessiononlyofStateproperty)oftheHagueRegulations .
48 Ch .Rousseau,droit international public, pp .346–347(septième, 1973) .(“DuringtheFirstWorldWar,almostallbelligerentStates . . .took�eryrigorousrestricti�emeas-ures,rangingfromsimplefreezing(France)totheliquidationandsaleoftheassetsofenemysubjects(GreatBritain,Germany) . . . .[DuringtheSecondWorldWar]:aregimeanalogoustothatof1914–constructedaroundthethreeideasofcontrol, freezingandliquidation—wasappliedbyallbelligerents .”)
49 Brownlie,supra note21,atp .514;Disputes, War and Neutrality,supra note42,atpp .326–331 .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 237
theappearanceofconsentforthetaking .ThisoccurredbothintheVersaillesTreatyafterWorldWarI50andinpeacetreatiesafterWorldWarII .51
129 . EritreadidnotcontendthatEthiopiadirectlyfrozeorexpropriatedexpellees’property .Instead,itclaimedthatEthiopiadesignedandcarriedoutabodyofinterconnecteddiscriminatorymeasurestotransferthepropertyofexpelledEritreanstoEthiopianhands .Theseincluded:
– Pre�enting expellees from taking effecti�e steps to preser�e theirproperty;– Forcingsalesofimmo�ableproperty;– Auctioningofexpellees’propertytopayo�erduetaxes;and– Auctioningofexpellees’mortgagedassetstoreco�erloanarrears .
Eritreaassertsthatthecumulati�eeffectofthesemeasureswastoopenupEritreanpri�atewealthforlegalizedlootingbyEthiopians .
130 . Preser�ation of Property—Powers of Attorney . The principalmeansbywhichexpelleessoughttosafeguardtheirpropertywasbyappoint-ingagentsbymeansofpowersofattorney .Eritreaclaimednumerousdeficien-ciesinthisprocess,contendingthatmanypersonsinpre-expulsiondetentioncouldnotexecuteeffecti�epowersofattorney .Se�eraldetaineesallegedthattheyhadnoopportunitytoappointanagent .Otherswhowereabroadcouldnotmakeeffecti�eappointmentsbecauseEthiopianconsularofficialswouldnotpro�ideconsularformalities .
131 . Eritreaarguedthatdetaineeshadtoolittletimetoidentifyasuit-ableagent,executeapowerofattorneyandotherwisearrangetheiraffairs .(Asnotedabo�e,theperiodbetweenarrestandexpulsionwasoftenjustafewdays .)Somepowersofattorneywerenotsignedintheagents’presence,lea�ingtheagenttoguessabouttheactionrequired .Someappointmentswerene�erdeli�ered,oragentslackedtheknowledgeorexpertisetoperformrequiredfunctions,orwerethemsel�esimprisonedorexpelled .Suchcircumstancesweresaidtoleadtomismanagement,spoilageorlossofexpellees’propertyforwhichEthiopiawasclaimedtoberesponsible .
132 . Ethiopiarespondedthatitpro�idedexpelleeswithadequatemeanstoappointrepresentati�estoprotecttheirinterests .Itse�idencedetailedspe-cialprocedurescreatedtoallowdetaineestoexecutelegallyeffecti�epowersofattorneywhileindetention .ThecapacitytoauthenticatepowersofattorneywasexceptionallydelegatedbytheAddisAbabaCity“ActsandCi�ilStatusDocumentationSer�ices”topoliceofficers .Theywouldsignthedocument,andtheagentwouldgototheresponsibleofficetoha�eitauthenticatedand
50 TreatyofPeaceatVersailles,June28,1919,225Consol .T .S .p .188 .Ontheliquida-tionofGerman-ownedpri�atepropertybytheAlliedandAssociatedPowersundertheTreatyofVersailles,see Schwarzenberger,supra note45,atpp .84–88 .
51 TreatyofPeacewithItaly(art .79),withBulgaria(art .25),andwithHungary(art .29) .
238 Eritrea/Ethiopia
registeredbasedonasampleofthepoliceofficer’ssignaturekeptonfile .Coun-selforEthiopiarepresentedthatthissystemwasappliedinthewholecountry,andEthiopiasubmittede�idenceofagentsabletouseapowerofattorneycre-atedutilizingthisprocedure .
133 . TheCommissionrecognizestheenormousstressesanddifficul-tiesbesettingthosefacingexpulsion .Theresurelywerepropertylossesrelatedtoimperfectlyexecutedorpoorlyadministeredpowersofattorney .Howe�er,particularlyinthesewartimecircumstances,wherethee�idenceshowsEthio-pianefforts tocreatespecialprocedures to facilitatepowersofattorneybydetainees,theshortcomingsofthesystemofpowersofattorneystandingalonedonotestablishliability .
134 . Compulsory sale of immo�able property . Eritrea next assertedEthiopia’sresponsibilityforexpellees’lossescausedbyforcedsalesresultingfromenforcementofprohibitionsonalienownershipofimmo�ablepropertyunderEthiopia’s1960LawonForeignOwnershipofProperty .Thee�idenceindicatedthatifthedeporteehadanEthiopianspouse,co�eredpropertycouldbetransferredtothespouse .IftherewasnoEthiopianspouse,theexpellee’sagentcouldselltheproperty .Otherwise,theEthiopianauthoritiessolditatauction .Thee�idenceshowedthatEthiopiacreatedaspecialinstitution,the“EritreanPropertyHandlingCommittee,”too�erseesaleofEritreanexpel-lees’property .
135 . Prohibiting real property ownership by aliens is not barred bygeneralinternationallaw;manycountriesha�esuchlaws .TheCommissionacceptsthatdualnationalsdepri�edoftheirEthiopiannationalityandexpelledpursuanttoEthiopia’ssecurityscreeningprocesscouldproperlyberegardedasEritreansforpurposesofapplyingthislegislation .Further,Ethiopiaisnotinternationally responsible for losses resulting from sale prices depressedbecauseofgeneraleconomiccircumstancesrelatedtothewarorothersimilarfactors .
136 . Ne�ertheless,theCommissionhasseriousreser�ationsregardingthemannerinwhichtheprohibitiononalienownershipwasimplemented .Thee�idenceshowedthattheEthiopianGo�ernmentshortenedtheperiodformandatorysaleofdeportees’assetsfromthesixmonthsa�ailabletootheralienstoasinglemonth .Thiswasnotsufficienttoallowanorderlyandbenefi-cialsale,particularlyfor�aluableorunusualproperties .AlthoughrequiringEritreannationalstodi�estthemsel�esofrealpropertywasnotcontrarytointernationallaw,Ethiopiaactedarbitrarily,discriminatorily,andinbreachofinternationallawindrasticallylimitingtheperioda�ailableforsale .
137 . The Location Value Tax . Eritrea next contended that Ethiopiaunlawfullyappropriatedasignificantportionofthe�alueofexpellees’prop-ertybyimposinga“100%location�alue”taxonforcedrealestatesales .Thee�idenceindicatedthatinmid-2000theAddisAbabaCityFinanceBureauissueda“Directi�efortheProcedureofTransferofLandHoldingsandHousesofEritreansDeportedBecauseofNationalSecurity .”Thisdocumentreferred
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 239
to a federal directi�e by the Ethiopian Economic Affairs Office regardingtransactionsbetweendeporteesandEthiopians,butitwasnotintherecord .
138 . TheDirecti�erequiredthatforsalesbyalien�endorsbeforethewarbeganinMay1998,a30%“capitalgaintax”wastobeapplied .(Smallsaleswereexempted .)Forforcedsalesthereafter,thetaxontheadded�alueonthehouseremainedat30%,butanother100%taxwasappliedtothe“location�alue,”i.e., the�alueoftheland .Thee�idenceincludedofficialdocumentsshowingthistaxbeingappliedto100%ofthe�alueofexpellees’realproperties .
139 . EthiopiacontendedthatthisDirecti�ereflectedanerroneouslocalpolicy .Thetaxwasalsodefendedonthebasisthatpersonswhoacquiredlandinthecourseofpri�atizationafterthefalloftheMengisturegimein1991didnotpayforitandsoshouldnotbenefitfromitssale .Howe�er,thee�idenceindicatedthatthetaxwasnotgenerallyappliedtoallsalesofrealproperty,asthisrationalewouldrequire .Samplesalesdocumentsshowedthetaxwasnotmentionedontheformsnormallyusedtorecordtaxesonrealestatetransac-tions,andwasinsteadwritteninbyhandinsalesofexpellees’property .Thee�idencealsoshowedthatthe100%locationtaxwasnotimposedonsalesbybankscollectingonloanstoexpellees .
140 . TheCommissionconcludesthatthe100%“locationtax”wasnotataxgenerallyimposed,butwasinsteadimposedonlyoncertainforcedsalesofexpellees’property .Suchadiscriminatoryandconfiscatorytaxationmeasurewascontrarytointernationallaw .
141 . ForeclosuresofExpellees’Loans .EritreanextcontendedthatEthi-opiawrongfullyfacilitatedorparticipatedintheprocessofcollectingexpel-lees’bankloansthroughenforcedsalesofcollateral .TheprincipalactorinsuchsaleswastheCommercialBankofEthiopia .ThecollectionprocesswasdescribedintheBank’sJanuary2001“GeneralReportonEritreanExpelleesBankLoanCollectionProcessandItsResults”:
Afterrecei�ingalistofEritreanswho left the country fromtheGo�ernment,theBankhasbeenengagedinthetaskofidentifyingtheirloansandcol-lectingontheirdebts[ . . .]Iftheyfailedtopaytheirdebtsinfullwithin30days,itisrequestedinwritingthattheRegistrarBureau(AddisAbabaAdministrationWorksandUrbanDe�elopmentBureau),whichwasestab-lishedtoexecutetheForeclosureLaw,assistintheauctioningofcollateralproperties .
Asimilarprocessappliedtotheauctioningof�ehiclesfinancedbytheBank .142 . Itdoesnotappearthatperformingloanswereaccelerated .Instead,
loansindefaultwerecollectedinaccordancewiththeirtermsandwithlegis-lationinforcewhenthewarbegan .Whilesomeoralloftheothermeasuresdiscussedinthissectionmayha�econtributedtoexpellees’inabilitytokeeptheirloanscurrent,therecorddoesnotshowthatthemeasurestocollecto�er-dueloanswereinthemsel�escontrarytointernationallaw .Thisclaimmustbedismissed .
240 Eritrea/Ethiopia
143 . TaxCollection .EritreaattackedaspecialprocesscreatedbyEthio-piatocollecttaxesallegedlyduefromexpellees .AnofficialintheAddisAbabaCityAdministrationFinanceBureau(“CAFB”)describedtheprocess:
DuringtheconflictwithEritrea,theCAFBwasnotifiedofpotentialexpel-leesandsentwrittentaxassessmentnoticestothoseindi�iduals .Thenoticesga�ethepotentialexpelleesadeadlinebywhichtaxesweredueandnotifiedthemthat,iftheyfailedtopaytheirassessedtaxes,theirpropertywouldbeattachedandauctionedtosatisfytheamountindefault .TheCAFBusedtheseprocessestocollectonthelawfuldebtowedbythetaxpayer .
Eritreacontendedthatthistaxassessmentandcollectionprocesswasarbitraryanddiscriminatoryinoperation .
144 . International lawdidnotprohibitEthiopiafromrequiringthatexpelleessettletheirtaxliabilities,butitrequiredthatthisbedoneinarea-sonableandprincipledway .Thee�idenceindicatesthatitwasnot .Theamountdemandedwassimplyanestimate .Therewasnoeffecti�emeans formostexpelleestore�ieworcontestthisamount .Therewas�erylittletimebetweenissuanceofthetaxnoticeanddeportation(if indeedthenoticewasissuedbeforethetaxpayerwasexpelled) .Therewasnoassurancethatexpelleesortheiragentsrecei�edthenotices .Iftheydid,thepaymentoftaxescouldbeimpossiblebecauseofbankforeclosureproceedingsagainstassetsandthearrayofothereconomicmisfortunesbefallingexpellees .Viewedo�erall,thetaxcollectionprocesswasapproximateandarbitraryandfailedtomeettheminimumstandardsoffairandreasonabletreatmentnecessaryinthecir-cumstances .
145 . RestrictedAccounts .Thee�idencesuggested thatanyproceedsremainingtoexpelleesafterforcedpropertysalesandcollectionofoutstand-ingloansandtaxescouldbedepositedintoanaccountopenedbytheEthio-pianauthoritiesintheformerowner’snameintheCommercialBankofEthio-pia .Theseaccountsrequiredtheownertocomeinpersonwiththepassbooktoaccessthefunds .Eritreacontendedthatexpelleescouldnotaccesstheseaccounts,eitherbecausetheydidnotpossessthepassbookorcouldnotcomeinperson .
146 . Therewase�idencesuggestingthatafewaccountholdersorper-sonsauthorizedtoactontheirbehalfwereabletoaccesssuchaccounts .Par-ticularlyinlightoftherightsofbelligerentstofreezetheassetsofpersonspresentinanyenemyStateandtoblocktransfersoffundsthere,itwasnotille-galforEthiopiatoestablishtheseaccountsinawaythateffecti�elyforeclosedfundtransfersabroad .Eritrea’sclaimswithrespecttothesebankaccountsaredenied .
147 . HornInternationalBank .EritreamadeparticularreferencetothecaseofHornInternationalBank(“HIB”),contendingthatEthiopiaarbitrar-ilywithdrewtheBank’sbusinesslicence,destroyingtheenterprise’s�aluein�iolationofinternationallaw .TherecordindicatedthattheHornInternationalBankwasbeingorganizedinEthiopiainthemonthspriortothewar .The
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 241
circumstancesofitscreationarenotclear,butitappearsthattheBank’sorgan-izersincludedpersonsprominentintheaffairsoftheEritreancommunityinEthiopia,andthatsomestart-upfundswerepro�idedbytheGo�ernmentofEritreathroughaloanorgrantchannelledthroughanofficialintheEritreanEmbassyinAddisAbaba .
148 . TherecordalsoshowsthatEthiopianbankinglaw(Proclamation84/94)prohibitedforeignersfromundertakingbankingoperationsinEthio-pia .TheNationalBankofEthiopia(“NBE”)initiatedanin�estigationofHIBinDecember1997,beforethewar,andinstructeditnottobeginoperationsuntilfurthernotice .Thisin�estigationsoughttodeterminewhethertheHIBwas�iolatingtheprohibitiononforeignparticipationinthebankingsector .Counsel forEthiopia represented that theNBEdisco�ered that twoof theBank’sfoundingmembershadstrongconnectionswithEritrea,thatstart-upfundingwaspro�idedbyorthroughtheEritreanEmbassy,andthattherewerequestionsregardingtheshareholders’nationality .
149 . Notwithstanding the December NBE directi�e, the HIB beganbankingoperations .ItsassetsthenwerefrozenonJune17,1998,shortlyafterthewarbegan .AnEthiopiancourtpronounced theBank’sdissolutiononJune1,2000onthegroundofpresentationoffalsee�idence .
150 . Therecordbefore theCommission indicates that theproblemsbefallingtheHornInternationalBankresultedfromaregulatoryproceedingin�ol�ingapplicationoflimitsonforeignparticipationinthebankingsec-torsimilartothoseimposedbymanycountries .Eritrea’sclaimsofunlawfulconductinrelationtotheHornInternationalBankaredismissedforlackofproof .
151 . TheCumulati�eWeightofEthiopia’sMeasures .Inadditiontoitsfindingsabo�eregardingparticularEthiopianeconomicmeasures,theCom-missionbelie�esthatthemeasures’collecti�eimpactmustbeconsidered .Wargi�esbelligerentsbroadpowerstodealwiththepropertyofthenationalsoftheirenemies,butthesearenotunlimited .IntheCommission’s�iew,abel-ligerentisboundtoensureinsofaraspossiblethatthepropertyofprotectedpersonsandofotherenemynationalsarenotdespoiledandwasted .Ifpri�atepropertyofenemynationalsistobefrozenorotherwiseimpairedinwartime,itmustbedonebytheState,andunderconditionspro�idingfortheproperty’sprotectionanditse�entualdispositionbyreturntotheownersorthroughpost-waragreement .52
152 . TherecordshowsthatEthiopiadidnotmeettheseresponsibilities .Asaresultofthecumulati�eeffectsofthemeasuresdiscussedabo�e,manyexpellees, includingsomewithsubstantialassets, lost�irtuallye�erythingtheyhadinEthiopia .SomeofEthiopia’smeasureswerelawfulandotherswere
52 See, e.g., Article38ofGene�aCon�entionIV,requiringthat“thesituationofpro-tectedpersonsshallcontinuetoberegulated,inprinciple,bythepro�isionsconcerningaliensintimeofpeace .”
242 Eritrea/Ethiopia
not .Howe�er,theircumulati�eeffectwastoensurethatfewexpelleesretainedanyoftheirproperty .Expelleeshadtoactthroughagents(ifareliableagentcouldbefoundandinstructed),facedrapidforcedrealestatesales,confisca-torytaxesonsaleproceeds,�igorousloancollections,expeditedandarbitrarycollectionofothertaxes,andothereconomicwoesresultingfrommeasuresinwhichtheGo�ernmentofEthiopiaplayedasignificantrole .Bycreatingorfacilitatingthisnetworkofmeasures,Ethiopiafailedinitsdutytoensuretheprotectionofaliens’assets .
Xi. family seParaTion
153 . Finally,EritreacontendedthatEthiopia’sactionsresultedintheseparationoffamiliesandfailurestoassuretheprotectionofchildrencon-trarytointernationallaw .EritreaallegedthatthereweremanyinstancesinwhichEthiopia’sdetentionandexpulsionprocessesledtoforcibleseparationofspouses,forcibleseparationofchildrenfromoneorbothparents,andchil-drenbeingleftwithoutpropercare .Initsdefense,EthiopiadeniedthatEritreahadestablishedaprima facie caseandcontendedthatithadcompliedwithinternationalhumanitarianlawbytakingwhatstepsitcouldtoprotectchil-drenandtheunityoffamiliesdespitedetentionsanddeportationsfornationalsecurityreasons .EthiopianotedthatmanyofthedeparturesfromEthiopiacited inEritrea’sclaims in�ol�edchildrenandother familymemberswhoaccompaniedEritreansbeingexpelled .IturgedthatitwasunreasonableforEritreatoclaimthatEthiopiahadactedillegallybothbyseparatingfamiliesandbyallowingfamiliestolea�eEthiopiatogether .
154 . Internationalhumanitarianlawimposesclearburdensonbellig-erentswithrespecttotheprotectionofchildrenandtheintegrityoffamilies .Article27ofGene�aCon�entionIV,forexample,pro�idesthatallprotectedpersonsareentitled inallcircumstances torespect for their familyrights .Howe�er,bothinternationalhumanitarianlawandhumanrightslaw,whichEritreaemphasized,alsorecognizethat,regrettably,absoluteprotectionofthefamilycannotbeassuredinwartime .WhileArticle9oftheCon�entionontheRightsoftheChild53statesthatchildrenshouldnotbeseparatedfromtheirparentsagainsttheirwill,italsorecognizesseparationmayresultinthecourseofarmedconflictduetodetentionordeportationofoneorbothparents .Inthefaceoftherealitiesofwar,Article24ofGene�aCon�entionIVsetsoutspecialprotectionsforchildrenundertheageoffifteenwhoareseparatedfromtheirfamiliesororphaned:
Thepartiestotheconflictshalltakethenecessarymeasurestoensurethatchildrenunderfifteen,whoareorphanedorareseparatedfromtheirfami-liesasaresultofthewar,arenotlefttotheirownresources,andthattheir
53 See para .27supra.
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 243
maintenance,theexerciseoftheirreligionandtheireducationarefacilitatedinallcircumstances .
FurtherguidanceappearsinArticle38oftheCon�entionontheRightsoftheChild,whichcallsforpartiestotake“allfeasiblemeasurestoensureprotectionandcareofchildrenwhoareaffectedbyanarmedconflict .”
155 . Eritrea’se�idenceprimarilyin�ol�edasmallnumberofdeclara-tionsfromalleged�ictimsoffamilyseparation,whorecountedseriouspsycho-logicalandfinancialdamagesasaresult .Eritrea’sMemorialalsocited�ariousarticlesandreports,includingstatisticsonthenumberofseparatedchildrenfromapressreportdescribingaUNICEFsur�eyunderthetitle“UNICEFreportonsituationofdeportees .”54Whilethestatisticsreportedinthatarticlemightbecompelling,theCommissioncannotaccordthesur�eycon�incingweightbecauseEritreasubmittedonlythepressaccountunderanEmbassyofEritreabyline .
156 . InadditiontochallengingEritrea’sfailuretomakeaprima facie case,Ethiopiacontendedthat it tookfeasiblemeasurestoa�oidseparatingfamiliesbyallowingdetaineestobringtheirchildrenintodetentionwiththemandbyallowingfamilymembersofexpelleestolea�eEthiopiaeithersimul-taneouslyorsubsequently .EthiopiapointedtoEritreanwitnessstatementsofexpelleeswhowereallowedtobringallmembersofentirefamilies,someoftheirchildren(lea�ingotherswiththeparentremaininginEthiopia)and,inthecaseofmotherswhowereexpelled,theirinfantsandyoungchildreninparticular .Wherefamiliesorchildrencouldnotaccompanytheexpellee,reunionsoccurredrelati�elyquicklythereafter,oftenfacilitatedbytheICRC .
157 . TheCommissionhasbeenconcernedwithissuesoffamilyprotec-tionthroughouttheseproceedings,andsoughtatthehearingtoclarifytheParties’positionsandthenatureandqualityofthee�idence .Ha�ingre�iewedtheentirerecord,theCommissionissatisfiedthatEritreafailedtopro�eapat-ternoffrequentinstancesofforciblefamilyseparationorfailurestoassuretheprotectionofchildreninconnectionwithEthiopia’sdetentionandexpulsionprocesses .Therecordisnotde�oidoftroublinginstancesofforcibleseparationofyoungchildrenfromtheirparentsandofentirefamiliesseparatedfromthebread-winningparent .Withoutsanctioningtheinstancesjustmentioned,theCommissiondismissesEritrea’sfamilyseparationclaimsforfailureofproof .
Xii. Claims on beHalf of sPeCifiC indiViduals158 . In addition to Eritrea’s claims on its own behalf in Claims 15,
16and23,theCommissionalsohadbeforeitintheseproceedingsEritrea’sClaims27–32 .TheseareclaimsbroughtbyEritreaonbehalfofindi�idualsalleginginjuryresultingfromthebroaderpatternsofconductconsideredinthisPartialAward .Claim27(HiwotNemariam)allegedthatMs .Hiwotwas
54 UNICEF report on situation of deportees,AfricaNews(Aug .19,1998) .
244 Eritrea/Ethiopia
“adenationalizedEthiopiancitizenofEritreanorigin,whowasunlawfullyarrested,detainedandexpelledfromEthiopiaonJuly6,1998andwhosebankaccountsandotherpropertywereconfiscatedbyEthiopia .”Claim28(BelayRedda,thehusbandofMs .Hiwot)issimilar .
159 . Theotherfourclaimsinthisgroup(Claim29,Mr .SertzuGebreMeskel;Claim30,Mr .FekaduAndemeskal;Claim31,Mr .MebrehtuGebreme-dhim;andClaim32,Ms .MebratGebreamlak)eachreflectthedifferentfactualsituationsoftheindi�idualclaimants,butallofthemallegeinjuryresultingfromEthiopia’sactionsin�ol�ingdepri�ationofcitizenshipandexpulsionandEthiopianmeasuresaffectingexpellees’property .
160 .ThisPartialAwardappliestoalloftheclaimsbeforeitinthesepro-ceedings,includingClaims27–32 .TheCommission’sfindingsofliabilityapplyfullytothoseclaimstotheextentindicatedbytheirparticularfacts .Theappli-cationoftheCommission’sfindingstothefactsofeachoftheseclaimswillbeassessedinthefuturedamagesphaseoftheseproceedings .
Xiii. aWard
In�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:
a. Jurisdiction
1 . Eritrea’sclaimsregardingtheallegedforcibleexpulsionfromEthio-piaof722personsinJuly2001aredismissedforlackofjurisdiction .
2 . Eritrea’sclaimsbasedoninjuriestonon-nationalsmadeforEritrea’sownaccount,andnotonbehalfoftheaffectedindi�iduals,areoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdiction .
3 . Thea�ailabilityofamonetaryremedyforanypastdamagestoper-sonswhoremaininEthiopiaisreser�edforthesubsequentdamagesphaseoftheseproceedings .
4 . Eritrea’srequestsforremediesotherthanmonetarycompensationwerenotshowntomeettherequirementsofCommissionDecisionNo .3andaredenied .
5 . Eritrea’srequestfordeclaratoryreliefrelatingtopossiblefutureinju-riesisoutsidetheCommission’sjurisdictionandisdenied .
6 . Eritrea’sclaimsrelatingtopensionswillbeconsideredbytheCommis-sioninsubsequentproceedingsandarenotadmissibleinthisproceeding .
7 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 245
b. applicable law
1 . WithrespecttomatterspriortoEritrea’saccessiontotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949,effecti�eAugust14,2000,theinternationallawappli-cabletothisclaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinter-nationalhumanitarian lawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsof thefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .
2 . HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularrele�antpro�isionofthoseCon�entionswasnotpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwouldha�ebeenontheassertingparty,butthatdidnothappen .
3 . WithrespecttomatterssubsequenttoAugust14,2000,theinter-nationallawapplicabletothisclaimistherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,aswellascustomaryinternationallaw .
4 . Mostofthepro�isionsofProtocolIof1977totheGene�aCon�en-tions,includingArticle75thereof,wereexpressionsofcustomaryinternation-alhumanitarianlawapplicableduringtheconflict .HadeitherPartyassertedthataparticularpro�isionofProtocolIshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcus-tomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwouldha�ebeenontheassertingparty,butthatdidnothappen .
5 . CustomarylawconcerningtheprotectionofhumanrightsremainedinforceduringthearmedconflictbetweentheParties,withparticularrel-e�anceinanysituationsin�ol�ingpersonsnotfullyprotectedbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw .
6 . The Agreement of December 12, 2000 was the transition pointbetweentheregimeofGene�aCon�entionIVandpeacetimerulesofinter-nationallaw .Howe�er,internationalhumanitarianlawprotectionscontinuedtoapplyafterDecember12,2000withrespecttopersonswhoremainedindetentionorintheprocessofrepatriationorre-establishment .
C. evidentiary issues
TheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishtheliabilityofaPartyfor�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .
d. finding on dual nationality
EthiopiannationalswhoacquiredEritreannationalitythroughqualifyingtoparticipateinthe1993ReferendumonEritreanself-determinationacquireddualnationalityascitizensofboththeStatesofEritreaandofEthiopia .
246 Eritrea/Ethiopia
e. findings on liability for Violation of international law
TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsofinternationallawin�ol�ingactsoromissionsbyitsci�ilianofficials,militarypersonnelorothersforwhoseconductitisresponsible:
1 . Forerroneouslydepri�ingat least someEthiopianswhowerenotdualnationalsoftheirEthiopiannationality;
2 . Forarbitrarilydepri�ingdualnationalswhoremainedinEthiopiaduringthewaroftheirEthiopiannationality;
3 . Forarbitrarilydepri�ingdualnationalswhowerepresentinthirdcountriesduringthewaroftheirEthiopiannationality;
4 . Forarbitrarilydepri�ingdualnationalswhowereexpelledtoEritreabutwhowerenotscreenedpursuanttoEthiopia’ssecurityre�iewprocedureoftheirEthiopiannationality;
5 . Forpermittinglocal farmers,militiaorpolicetoforciblytoexpelruralpeople,manyormostofwhomweresolelyEthiopiannationals,fromruralareasneartheborder;
6 . ForpermittingtheforcibleexpulsiontoEritreaofsomemembersofexpellees’familieswhodidnotholdEritreannationality;
7 . For permitting local authorities to forcibly to expel to Eritrea anunknown,butconsiderable,numberofdualnationalsforreasonsthatcannotbeestablished;
8 . Forfrequentlyfailingtopro�idehumaneandsafetreatmenttoper-sonsbeingexpelledtoEritreafromEthiopia;
9 . ForholdingEritreanci�iliansonsecurityrelatedchargesinprisonsandjailsunderharshandunsanitaryconditionsandwithinsufficientfood,andforsubjectingthemtobeatingsandotherabuse;
10 . For detaining Eritrean ci�ilians without apparent justification,holdingthemtogetherwithprisonersofwar,andsubjectingthemtoharshandinhumanetreatmentwhilesoheld;
11 . Forlimitingtoonemonththeperioda�ailableforthecompulsorysaleofEritreanexpellees’realproperty;
12 . Forthediscriminatoryimpositionofa100%“locationtax”onpro-ceedsfromsomeforcedsalesofEritreanexpellees’realestate;
13 . FormaintainingasystemforcollectingtaxesfromEritreanexpel-leesthatdidnotmeettherequiredminimumstandardsoffairandreasonabletreatment;and
14 . For creating and facilitating a cumulati�e network of economicmeasures,somelawfulandothersnot,thatcollecti�elyresultedinthelossof
PartVI—Civiliansclaims eritrea’sclaims15,16,23&27–32 247
allormostoftheassetsinEthiopiaofEritreanexpellees,contrarytoEthiopia’sdutytoensuretheprotectionofaliens’assets .
f. other findingsAllotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .DoneatTheHague,this17thdayofDecember,2004,
[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte
[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich
[Signed]JohnR .Crook
[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul
[Signed]LucyReed