REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Partial Award, Prisoners of war—Ethiopia’s...
Transcript of REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL …Partial Award, Prisoners of war—Ethiopia’s...
REPORTS OF INTERNATIONALARBITRAL AWARDS
RECUEIL DES SENTENCESARBITRALES
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission - Partial Award: Prisoners of War - Ethiopia's Claim 4
1 July 2003
XXVI pp. 73-114VOLUME
NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONSCopyright (c) 2009
ParT iii
Partial Award Prisoners of War—Ethiopia’s Claim 4
Decision of 1 July 2003
Sentence partielle Prisonniers de guerre—Réclamation de l’Éthiopie No 4
Décision du 1er juillet 2003
PartialAward,Prisonersofwar—Ethiopia’sClaim4,Decisionof1July2003
Sentencepartielle,Prisonniersdeguerre—Réclamationdel’ÉthiopieNo4,Décisiondu1erJuillet2003
Jurisdiction of the Commission—determination of the liability of States forbreachesofinternationalobligations—liabilityonlyforserious�iolationsofinterna-tionalhumanitarianlawaffectingse�eral�ictims—liabilityengagedonlyforsystem-atic,frequentandrecurring�iolations—nojurisdictiono�erindi�idualcrimes—nojurisdictiono�erclaimsextinguishedbytheexpirationoftheclaimsfilingdeadline .
Lawinforceduringthearmedconflict—Eritreasubjecttocustomaryinterna-tionalhumanitarianrulesbeforebecomingapartytoGene�aCon�entions—custom-arystatusofinternationalhumanitarianrulesasexemplifiedbytheGene�aCon�en-tions—burdenofproofontheStatedenyingcustomarystatustoaspecificpro�isionofaGene�aCon�ention .
Successiontotreaties—noautomaticsuccessiontoGene�aCon�entionsbyErit-reaafteritsseparationfromEthiopia—rebuttaloftheusualpresumptioninfa�ourofsuccessionin�iewofthestatementsofEritrea .
Customary international humanitarian law principles—training soldiers torespectrulesgo�erningtreatmentofPOWs—pre�enting�iolations—in�estigatingandprosecuting�iolationsthatoccurred .
TreatmentofPOWs—treatmentofPOWsashumanbeings—legalobligationtokeepPOWsali�eandingoodhealth—standardofmedicalcarecontingentonthecircumstancesandequipmenta�ailable—liabilityoccurringfromthelackofinquiryordisciplinaryactionregardingabuseofPOWs—absenceofliabilityoccurringfromharshconditionsofe�acuationofPOWsalsoenduredbytroops—obligingPOWstowalkbarefootduringe�acuationsconsideredasinhumanetreatment—liabilityarisingfrompermittingcoerci�einterrogations—requirementofconditionsofdetentionasfa�ourableasthoseforState’stroopsaccommodation—liabilityarisingfromsubstand-ardconditionsofdetentionseriouslyendangeringthehealthofprisoners—highdeathratecombinedwithseriousdeficienciesintheconditionsofdetentionconsideredase�idenceofalackofbasicmedicalcare—scarcityoffinancialresourcesandinfrastruc-turenotanacceptableexcuseforthelackofmedicalcare—liabilityarisingfromforcedlabourimposedonPOWs,moreo�erunderharshconditions—roadconstructionandcampfacilitiesbuildingnotconsideredofmilitarycharacter—customarystatusoftheobligationtopostthecampregulationsandtoconferarighttocomplaintoPOWs .
RightofaccessoftheInternationalComitteeoftheRedCrosstothecamps—necessitytopro�ideexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWs—rightofsuchscru-tinybasedoncustomaryinternational law—necessitytoguaranteelegalregimeofprotectiontoPOWs—rightofaccess�iewednotasaproceduralpro�isionbutasanessentialpartoftheregimeofprotection—denialofaccesswithoutanyotheralterna-ti�econsideredabreachofinternationallaw .
76 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
Questionofe�idence—requirementofclearandcon�incinge�idenceforcrimesofacertaingra�ity—burdenofproofontheclaimant—creditaccordedtocumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonies—uncertainprobati�e�alueofquestionnairesandformsforfilingclaims—exclusi�erelianceontheformalsigneddeclarationssubmittedbyeachParty,thereaftersupplementedbytestimonyatthehearingandotherdocu-ments—refusaltoacceptwrittene�idencenottranslatedintoEnglish,soleworkinglanguageoftheCommission—requirementoffirst-handtestimonies—requirementoforganised,completeandrele�antdocumentationinwrittenform .
Compétencede laCommission—déterminationdes responsabilitésétatiquespour�iolationsd’obligationsinternationales—responsabilitélimitéeaux�iolationsimportantesdudroitinternationalhumanitaireaffectantplusieurs�ictimes—respon-sabilitéuniquementengagéepourdes�iolationssystématiques,fréquentesetrécur-rentes—absencedecompétencequantauxcomportementscriminelsindi�iduels—absencedecompétencequantauxréclamationséteintesdufaitdeleursoumissionhors-délai .
Droiten�igueurpendantleconflitarmé—Érythréesoumiseauxrèglesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumiera�antmêmedede�enirPartieauxCon�entionsdeGenè�e—caractèrecoutumierderègleshumanitairesinternationalestelqu’illustréparlesCon�entionsdeGenè�e—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurl’Étatréfutantlecara-ctèrecoutumierd’unedispositionparticulièredel’unedesCon�entionsdeGenè�e .
Successionauxtraités—absencedesuccessionautomatiquedel’ÉrythréeauxCon�entionsdeGenè�eaprèssaséparationd’a�ecl’Éthiopie—réfutationdelaprésomp-tionhabituelleenfa�eurdelasuccessionrésultantdesdéclarationsdel’Érythrée .
Principesdudroitinternationalhumanitairecoutumier—formationdessoldatsàrespecterlesrèglesrelati�esautraitementdesprisonniers—pré�entiondesinfrac-tions—in�estigationetpoursuitedes�iolationsayanteulieu .
Traitement des prisonniers—traitement des prisonniers comme des êtreshumains—qualitédessoinsmédicauxdépendantdescirconstancesetdel’équipementdisponible—responsabilitéengagéepourlemanqued’in�estigationoud’actiondis-ciplinairepourlessé�icesinfligésauxprisonniers—absencederesponsabilitépourdesconditionsrigoureusesd’é�acuationdesprisonnierségalementenduréesparlessoldats—assimilationdel’obligationpourlesprisonniersdemarcherpieds-nuslorsdesé�acuationsàuntraitementinhumain—responsabilitéengagéepourl’autorisationd’interrogatoires coercitifs—exigence de conditions de détention aussi fa�orablesquelesconditionsd’hébergementdessoldatsdel’État—responsabilitéengagéeparl’existence de mau�aises conditions de détention mettant sérieusement en dangerla santé des prisonniers—considération d’un fort taux de mortalité combiné à desérieuseslacunesauni�eaudesconditionsdedétentioncommeunepreu�edemanquedepriseenchargemédicale—réfutationdel’argumentselonlequell’insuffisancederessourcesfinancièresetd’infrastructuresseraituneexcuseacceptablepourlemanquedepriseenchargemédicale—responsabilitéengagéeparletra�ailforcéimposéauxprisonniers,quiplusestdansdesconditionstrèsdures—tra�auxdeconstructionderoutesetd’équipementspourlecampnonconsidéréscommeétantdenaturemili-taire—obligationdenaturecoutumièred’afficherlerèglementducampetd’accorderundroitdeplainteauxprisonniers .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 77
Droitd’accèsduComitéInternationaldelaCroix-Rougeauxcamps—néces-sitéd’assurerunexamenimpartialdutraitementdesprisonniers—droitàl’examenfondésurledroitcoutumier—nécessitédegarantirlerégimedeprotectionjuridiquedesprisonniers—droitd’accèsconsidérécommeunecomposanteessentielledusys-tèmedeprotectionetnoncommeunedispositiond’ordreprocédural—refusd’accèssansautrealternati�econsidérécommeune�iolationdudroitinternational .
Questiondespreu�es—nécessitédepreu�esclairesetcon�aincantespour lescrimesd’unecertainegra�ité—chargedelapreu�ereposantsurleplaignant—créditaccordéauxtémoignagescumulatifs,complémentairesetdétaillés—�aleurprobanteincertainedesquestionnairesetdesformulairesdesoumissionderéclamations—créditexclusifaccordéauxdéclarationsformellesetsignéessoumisesparchaquePartie,parlasuitecomplétéesparuntémoignagelorsdesaudiencesainsiquepard’autresdocu-ments—exigencedetémoignagesdepremièremain—exigenced’unedocumentationorganisée,complèteetpertinente,sousformeécrite .
ERITREA-ETHIOPIA CLAIMS COMMISSION
PARTIAL AWARD
Prisoners of War Ethiopia’s Claim 4
between
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
and
The State of Eritrea
BytheClaimsCommission,composedof:
Hans�anHoutte,PresidentGeorgeH .AldrichJohnR .CrookJamesC .N .PaulLucyReed
TheHague,July1,2003
78 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
ParTial aWard—Prisoners of War—ethiopia’s Claim 4 between the Claimant,
The federal democratic republic of ethiopia, represented by:
Government of EthiopiaHisExcellencyMr .SeyoumMesfin,MinisterofForeignAffairsofthe
FederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AgentHisExcellencyAmbassadorFissehaYimer,PermanentRepresentati�eof
theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,Gene�a,Co-Agent
Mr .SeifeselassieLemma,Minister,PermanentMissionof theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiatotheUnitedNations,NewYork
Mr .RetaAlemu,FirstSecretary,MinistryofForeignAffairsoftheFed-eralDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia,AddisAbaba
Counsel and ConsultantsMr .B .Dono�anPicard,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,Member
of theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
Mr .W .DeVierPierson,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,Memberof theBarof theDistrictofColumbia;Memberof theBarof theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
ProfessorSeanD .Murphy,GeorgeWashingtonUni�ersityLawSchool,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheStateBarofMaryland
Mr .KnoxBemis,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
Ms .LynnM .VanBuren,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .,MemberoftheBaroftheDistrictofColumbia;MemberoftheStateBarofWisconsin
Mr .MichaelMcDonald,PiperRudnickLLP,Washington,D .C .and the respondent,
The state of eritrea, represented by:
Government of EritreaHisExcellency,AliSaidAbdela,MinisterofForeignAffairs,Agentfor
theGo�ernmentofEritreaProfessorLeaBrilmayer,Co-AgentfortheGo�ernmentofEritrea
Counsel and ConsultantsProfessorJamesCrawfordMr .PayamAkha�anMs .SemharAraiaMs .MeganMunzertMs .AmandaJones
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 79
Table of ConTenTs
I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
A . SummaryofthePositionsoftheParties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80B . TheEritreanPOWCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80C . GeneralComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
II . Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
III . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A . Jurisdictiono�erClaimsArisingSubsequenttoDecember12,2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B . Jurisdictiono�erClaimsNotFiledbyDecember12,2001 . . . . 83
IV . TheMerits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
A . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83B . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1 . QuantumofProofRequired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 872 . ProofofFacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 . E�idenceundertheControloftheICRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
C . ViolationsoftheLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901 . OrganizationalComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902 . Eritrea’sRefusaltoPermittheICRCtoVisitPOWs . . . . . . . 923 . MistreatmentofPOWsatCaptureanditsImmediateAf-
termath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944 . PhysicalandMentalAbuseinPOWCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985 . UnhealthyConditionsinCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1006 . InadequateMedicalCareinCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047 . UnlawfulConditionsofLabor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1088 . ConditionsofTransferBetweenCamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1099 . TreatmentoftheDead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11010 .FailuretoPostCampRulesandAllowComplaints . . . . . . . 111
V . Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
A . Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112B . ApplicableLaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113C . E�identiaryIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113D . FindingsofLiabilityforViolationofInternationalLaw . . . . . . . 113E . OtherFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
80 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
i. introductiona. summary of the Positions of the Parties
1 . ThisClaim(“Ethiopia’sClaim4;”“ET04”)hasbeenbroughttotheCommissionbytheClaimant,theFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopia(“Ethiopia”),pursuanttoArticle5oftheAgreementbetweentheGo�ernmentoftheFederalDemocraticRepublicofEthiopiaandtheGo�ernmentoftheStateofEritreaofDecember12,2000(“theAgreement”) .TheClaimseeksafindingoftheliabilityoftheRespondent,theStateofEritrea(“Eritrea”),forloss,damageandinjurysufferedbytheClaimantasaresultoftheRespond-ent’sallegedunlawfultreatmentofitsPrisonersofWar(“POWs”)whowerenationalsoftheClaimant .InitsStatementofClaim,theClaimantrequestedmonetarycompensation,andinitsMemorial,itproposedthatcompensationbedeterminedbyamassclaimsprocessbaseduponthefi�epermanentcampsinwhichthosePOWswereheld .
2 . TheRespondentassertsthatitfullycompliedwithinternationallawinitstreatmentofPOWs .
b. The eritrean PoW Camps
3 . Eritreainternedatotalofapproximately1,100EthiopianPOWs,�ir-tuallyallmale,betweenthestartoftheconflictinMay1998andAugust2002,whentheremainingEthiopianPOWsregisteredbytheInternationalCommit-teeoftheRedCross(“ICRC”)werereleased .
4 . Eritreautilizedfi�epermanentcamps,someonlybriefly:Barentu,Embakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfa(alsoknownasSahel) .Eritreautilizedthesecampsoneaftertheotherand,withtheexceptionofBarentu,closedeachcampupontransferofthePOWstothenextcamp .
5 . EritreausedfacilitiesatBadme,Asmara,TesseneyandBarentuastran-sitcampsduringe�acuationoftheEthiopianPOWsfromthe�ariousfronts .POWsweretypicallyheldinthetransitcampsforse�eraldaysorweeks .
6 . Inthefirstdaysoftheconflict,Eritreacapturedapproximately100EthiopianPOWsandheldthemforaboutthreedaysinabuildinginBadme .FromBadme,theyweretransferredtoBarentu .
7 . EritreausedBarentuasapermanentPOWcampforapproximate-lyfi�eweeksinMayandJune1998 .Barentuwaslocatedsomefortykilom-etersnorthwestofwheretheEritrea-EthiopiabordercoincideswiththeMaiAmbessaRi�er .BarenturemainedinuseasatransitcampuntilatleastMay16,2000 .
8 . Eritreaoperateditssecondpermanentcamp,Embakala, forthreemonths between June and September 1998 . Embakala was located someninetymilesnorthoftheborderandsixteenkilometersnortheastofAsmara .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 81
Approximately140POWswereinternedatEmbakala,includingthosetrans-ferredfromBarentuandotherscapturedontheCentralFront .
9 . InSeptember1998,EritreatransferredthePOWsfromEmbakalatoitsthirdpermanentcamp,Digdigta .TheywereheldinDigdigtauntilJuly1999,sometenmonths .Digdigtawaslocatedapproximately120kilometersnorthoftheborderandthirty-fi�ekilometersnorthwestofAsmara .Eritreaalsotrans-ferredEthiopianPOWstoDigdigtafromatransitcampnearAsmara,whichwasopenfromJune1998throughJuly2000 .Atotalofapproximately600EthiopianPOWswereinternedatDigdigta .
10 . Eritreautilizeditsfourthpermanentcamp,Afabet,fromJuly1999toMay2000 .Afabetwaslocatedabout200kilometersnorthoftheborderand100kilometersnorthwestofAsmara .InadditiontothePOWsfromDigdigta,EritreatransferrednewPOWstoAfabetfromthetransitcampatBarentu .Inall,approximately800EthiopianPOWswereinternedatAfabet .
11 . FollowingEthiopia’sMay2000offensi�e,Eritreamo�edthePOWsfromAfabettothefifthandfinalpermanentPOWcampatNakfa .Nakfaisinamountainousregiono�er260kilometersnorthoftheborderand170kilom-etersnorthwestofAsmara,justoutsidethetownofNakfa .EritreatransferredadditionalprisonerstoNakfafromthetransitcampnearTesseney,approxi-matelytwenty-fi�ekilometersfromtheSudanborder .AccordingtotheICRCListofRegisteredEthiopianPOWs,Eritreainternedatotalof1,017POWsatNakfa .EritreausedNakfauntilAugust2002,whentheremainingprisonersregisteredwiththeICRCwerereleasedandrepatriated .
C. General Comment12 . AsthefindingsinthisAwardandintherelatedAwardinEritrea’s
Claim17describe,thereweresignificantdifficultiesinbothParties’perform-anceofimportantlegalobligationsfortheprotectionofprisonersofwar .Ne�-ertheless,theCommissionmustrecordanimportantpreliminarypointthatpro�idesessentialcontextforwhatfollows .Basedontheextensi�ee�idenceadducedduringtheseproceedings,theCommissionbelie�esthatbothPartieshadacommitmenttothemostfundamentalprinciplesbearingonprisonersofwar .Bothpartiesconductedorganized,officialtrainingprogramstoinstructtheirtroopsonprocedurestobefollowedwhenPOWsaretaken .Incontrasttomanyothercontemporaryarmedconflicts,bothEritreaandEthiopiaregu-larlyandconsistentlytookPOWs .Enemypersonnelwhowerehorsdecombatweremo�edawayfromthebattlefieldtoconditionsofgreatersafety .Further,althoughthesecasesin�ol�etwoofthepoorestcountriesintheworld,bothmadesignificanteffortstopro�ideforthesustenanceandcareofthePOWsintheircustody .
13 . Thereweredeficienciesofperformanceonbothsides,sometimessignificant, occasionally gra�e . Ne�ertheless, the e�idence in these casesshowsthatbothEritreaandEthiopiaendea�oredtoobser�etheirfundamen-
82 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
talhumanitarianobligationstocollectandprotectenemysoldiersunabletoresistonthebattlefield .TheAwardsinthesecases,andthedifficultiesthattheyidentify,mustbereadagainstthisbackground .
ii. Proceedings14 . TheCommissioninformedthePartiesonAugust29,2001thatit
intendedtoconductproceedingsinGo�ernment-to-Go�ernmentclaimsintwostages,firstconcerning liability,andsecond, if liability is found,con-cerningdamages .ThisClaimwasfiledonDecember12,2001 .AStatementofDefensewasfiledonApril15,2002 .TheClaimant’sMemorialwasfiledonAugust1,2002,andtheRespondent’sCounter-MemorialwasfiledonNo�em-ber1,2002 .AhearingontheissueofliabilitywasheldatthePeacePalaceinDecember2002inconjunctionwithahearingintherelatedClaim17oftheStateofEritrea .
iii. Jurisdiction
a. Jurisdiction over Claims arising subsequent to december 12, 2000
15 . Article5,paragraph1,oftheAgreementdefinesthejurisdictionoftheCommission .Itpro�ides,inter alia,thattheCommissionistodecidethroughbindingarbitrationclaimsforallloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�-ernmentagainsttheotherthatarerelatedtotheearlierconflictbetweenthemandthatresultfrom“�iolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,includingthe1949Gene�aCon�entions,orother�iolationsofinternationallaw .”
16 . InthisClaim,asinEritrea’sClaim17,eachPartycontendsthattheother’streatmentofPOWsfollowingtheoutbreakofhostilitiesinMay1998didnotmeetgo�erningstandardsofinternationallaw .BothClaimsproceedfromthepremise,whichtheCommissionfullyshares,thattheAgreementclearlyestablishestheCommission’sjurisdictiono�erclaimsregardingthetreatmentofPOWsintheperiodafterhostilitiesbeganinMay1998untiltheconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000 .ClaimsrelatingtothetreatmentofPOWsduringthatperiodclearlyrelatetotheconflict;areforloss,damageorinjurybyoneGo�ernmentagainsttheother;andin�ol�ealleged�iolationsofapplicableinternationallaw .
17 . EthiopiamaintainedinthisClaimandinEritrea’srelatedClaim17thattheAgreementdoesnotgranttheCommissionjurisdictiono�erclaimsbaseduponthetreatmentofPOWsthatarosesubsequenttoDecember12,2000,includingclaimsfordelaysintheirrepatriation .Consequently,Ethiopiamadenoclaimsofthatsort .Howe�er,initsMemorialinthisClaimanddur-ingthehearing,Ethiopiaassertedthat,shouldtheCommissiondeterminethatithasjurisdictiono�er�iolationsoftherequirementofrepatriationof
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 83
POWswithoutdelayafterthecessationofacti�ehostilitiesfoundincustomaryinternationallawandinArticle118oftheGene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWar,August12,1949(“Gene�aCon�entionIII”),1“theCommissionshouldalsofindthatEritreafailedtorepatriateEthiopianPOWswithallduedispatchinaccordancewiththejus in bello.”2
18 . InitsPartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17oftoday’sdate,theCom-mission finds that it has jurisdiction o�er Eritrea’s claims concerning therepatriationofPOWs .Consequently,asamatteroftemporaljurisdiction,theCommissionhasjurisdictiono�erclaimsbyeitherPartybaseduponallegeddelaysinrepatriationofPOWs .
b. Jurisdiction over Claims not filed by december 12, 2001
19 . Itwillberecalledthat,inresponsetoEritrea’sClaim17,EthiopiachallengedthejurisdictionoftheCommissiono�erse�eralclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialwhich,Ethiopiaasserted,werenotincludedinErit-rea’sStatementofClaimonDecember12,2001,andconsequentlywereextin-guishedbythetermsofArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreement .ThePartiesagreethattheAgreementextinguishedanyclaimsnotfiledwiththeCommis-sionbythatdate .InitsPartialAwardinEritrea’sClaim17oftoday’sdate,theCommissionholdsthatthreeclaimsassertedbyEritreainitsMemorialhadnotbeenfiledinitsStatementofDefenseandconsequentlywereextinguishedandcouldnotbeconsideredbytheCommission .
20 . ThesameholdingmustbemadewithrespecttoEthiopia’sclaimconcerningrepatriation,whichwasnotfiledbyDecember12,2001,andcon-sequentlyhasbeenextinguishedby�irtuebyArticle5,paragraph8,oftheAgreement .
21 . AllotherclaimsassertedbyEthiopiainthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdictionoftheCommission,includingtheclaimconcerningdelayedaccessbytheICRCtoEthiopianPOWsthatEritreaarguedwaslatefiled .
iV. The merits
a. applicable law22 . Article5,paragraph13,oftheAgreementpro�idesthat“inconsid-
eringclaims,theCommissionshallapplyrele�antrulesofinternationallaw .”Article19oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedureismodeledonthefamiliar
1 75U .N .T .S .p .135;6U .S .T .p .3316 .2 Ethiopia’sClaim4,PrisonersofWar,Memorial,filedbyEthiopiaonAugust1,
2000,p .283[hereinafterET04MEM] .
84 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
languageofArticle38,paragraph1,oftheStatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice .ItdirectstheCommissiontolookto:
1 . Internationalcon�entions,whethergeneralorparticular,establish-ingrulesexpresslyrecognizedbytheparties;
2 . Internationalcustom,ase�idenceofageneralpracticeacceptedaslaw;
3 . Thegeneralprinciplesoflawrecognizedbyci�ilizednations;
4 . Judicialandarbitraldecisionsandtheteachingsofthemosthighlyqualifiedpublicistsofthe�ariousnations,assubsidiarymeansforthedeterminationofrulesoflaw .
23 . Themostob�iouslyrele�antsourceoflawforthepresentAwardisGene�aCon�entionIII .BothPartiesreferextensi�elytothatCon�entionintheirpleadings,andthee�idencedemonstratesthatbothPartiesrelieduponitfortheinstructionoftheirarmedforcesandfortherulesofthecampsinwhichtheyheldPOWs .ThePartiesagreethattheCon�entionwasapplicablefromAugust14,2000,thedateofEritrea’saccession,buttheydisagreeastoitsapplicabilitypriortothatdate .
24 . EthiopiasignedthefourGene�aCon�entionsin1949andratifiedthemin1969 .Consequently,theywereinforceinEthiopiain1993whenErit-reabecameanindependentState .SuccessorStatesoftenseektomaintainsta-bilityoftreatyrelationshipsafteremergingfromwithinthebordersofanotherStatebyannouncingtheirsuccessiontosomeorallofthetreatiesapplicablepriortotheirindependence .Indeed,treatysuccessionmayhappenautomati-callyforcertaintypesoftreaties .3Howe�er, theCommissionhasnotbeenshowne�idencethatwouldpermitittofindthatsuchautomaticsuccessiontotheGene�aCon�entionsoccurredintheexceptionalcircumstanceshere,desirablethoughsuchsuccessionwouldbeasageneralmatter .FromthetimeofitsindependencefromEthiopiain1993,seniorEritreanofficialsmadeclearthatEritreadidnotconsideritselfboundbytheGene�aCon�entions .
25 . Duringtheperiodofthearmedconflictandpriortotheseproceed-ings,EthiopialikewiseconsistentlymaintainedthatEritreawasnotapartytotheGene�aCon�entions .4TheICRC,whichhasaspecialinterestandrespon-
3 CaseconcerningtheGabcíko�o-NagymarosProject(Hung ./Slo�k .),1997I .C .J .p .7para .123(Sept .25) .
4 BothpartiesreferredtotheStatementbyMr .MinelikAlemu,Obser�erforEthio-piaattheFiftiethSessionoftheU .N .Sub-CommissiononthePre�entionofDiscrimina-tionandProtectionofMinoritiesunderItem10on“FreedomofMo�ement”intheExer-ciseoftheRightofReply(Gene�a,August24,1998),available at<http://www .ethemb .se/s980824_2 .htm> .SeeET04MEMp .34note97,p .57note241,p .146note616;ProfessorBrilmayer,TranscriptoftheEritrea/EthiopiaClaimsCommissionHearingsofDecember3-14,2002,PeacePalace,TheHague,p .62[hereinafterTranscript] .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 85
sibilityforpromotingcompliancewiththeGene�aCon�entions,likewisedidnotatthattimeregardEritreaasapartytotheCon�entions .5
26 . Thus,itise�identthatwhenEritreaseparatedfromEthiopiain1993ithadaclearopportunitytomakeastatementofitssuccessiontotheCon�en-tions,butthee�idenceshowsthatitrefusedtodoso .Itconsistentlyrefusedtodososubsequently,andin2000,whenitdecidedtobecomeapartytotheCon�entions,itdidsobyaccession,notbysuccession .Whileitmaybethatcontinuityoftreatyrelationshipsoftencanbepresumed,absentfactstothecontrary,nosuchpresumptioncouldproperlybemadeinthepresentcasein�iewofthesefacts .Theseunusualcircumstancesrenderthepresentsituation�erydifferentfromthataddressedintheJudgementbytheAppealsChamberoftheInternationalTribunalfortheFormerYugosla�iaintheČelebići Case.6ItisclearherethatneitherEritrea,EthiopianorthedepositoryoftheCon�en-tions,theSwissFederalCouncil,consideredEritreaapartytotheCon�entionsuntilitaccededtothemonAugust14,2000 .Thus,fromtheoutbreakoftheconflictinMay1998untilAugust14,2000,EritreawasnotapartytoGene�aCon�entionIII .Ethiopia’sargumenttothecontrary,inrelianceuponArticle34oftheViennaCon�entiononSuccessionofStatesinRespectofTreaties,7cannotpre�ailo�erthesefacts .
27 . AlthoughEritreawasnotapartytotheGene�aCon�entionspriortoitsaccessiontothem,theCon�entionsmightstillha�ebeenapplicabledur-ingthearmedconflictwithEthiopiapursuanttothefinalpro�isionofArticle2commontoallfourCon�entions,whichstates:
AlthoughoneofthePowersinconflictmaynotbeapartytothepresentCon�ention,thePowerswhoarepartiestheretoshallremainboundbyitintheirmutualrelations .TheyshallfurthermorebeboundbytheCon�entioninrelationtothesaidPower,ifthelatteracceptsandappliesthepro�isionsthereof .
28 . Howe�er,thee�idencereferredtoabo�eclearlydemonstratesthat,priortoitsaccession,EritreahadnotacceptedtheCon�entions .Thisnon-acceptancewasalsodemonstratedbyEritrea’srefusaltoallowtherepresenta-ti�esoftheICRCto�isitthePOWsithelduntilafteritsaccessiontotheCon-�entions .
29 . Consequently,theCommissionholdsthat,withrespecttomatterspriortoAugust14,2000,thelawapplicabletothearmedconflictbetweenEritreaandEthiopiaiscustomaryinternationallaw .Initspleadings,Eritrearecognizesthat,formostpurposes,“thedistinctionbetweencustomarylaw
5 ICRC,“Ethiopia-Eritrea:Aidformedicalfacilitiesandthedisplaced”,ICRC News98/23,June12,1998,inEritrea’sClaim17,PrisonersofWar,Memorial,filedbyEritreaonAugust1,2002,DocumentaryAnnexp .40[hereinafterER17MEM] .
6 ČelebićiCase(The Prosecutor v. Delalicetal .),2001ICTYAppealsChamberJudge-mentCaseNo .IT-96–21-A(Feb .20) .
7 1946U .N .T .S .p .3;17I .L .M .p .1488 .
86 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
regardingPOWsandtheGene�aCon�entionIIIisnotsignificant .”8Itdoes,howe�er,offerasexamplesofthemoretechnicalanddetailedpro�isionsoftheCon�entionthatitconsidersnotapplicableascustomarylawtherightoftheICRCto�isitPOWs,thepermissionoftheuseoftobaccoinArticle26,andtherequirementofcanteensinArticle28 .ItalsosuggeststhatpaymentofPOWsforlaborandcertainburialrequirementsfordeceasedPOWsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationallaw .9Eritreacitesthevon LeebdecisionoftheAlliedMilitaryTribunalin1948assupporti�eofitsposi-tiononthisquestion .10
30 . Gi�enthenearlyuni�ersalacceptanceofthefourGene�aCon�en-tionsof1949,thequestionoftheextenttowhichtheirpro�isionsha�ebecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawarisestodayonlyrarely .TheCommissionnotesthatthevon Leebcase(whichfoundthatnumerouspro�isionsatthecoreofthe1929Con�entionhadacquiredcustomarystatus)addressedtheextenttowhichthepro�isionsofacon�entionconcludedin1929hadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawduringtheSecondWorldWar,thatis,aconflictthatoccurredtentosixteenyearslater .Inthepresentcase,theCommissionfacesthequestionoftheextenttowhichthepro�isionsofacon�entioncon-cludedin1949andsinceadheredtobyalmostallStateshadbecomepartofcustomaryinternationallawduringaconflictthatoccurredfiftyyearslater .Moreo�er,treaties,liketheGene�aCon�entionsof1949,thatde�elopinterna-tionalhumanitarianlaware,bytheirnature,legaldocumentsthatbuilduponthefoundationlaidbyearliertreatiesandbycustomaryinternationallaw .11Thesetreatiesareconcludedforthepurposeofcreatingatreatylawforthepartiestothecon�entionandfortherelatedpurposeofcodifyingandde�elop-ingcustomaryinternationallawthatisapplicabletoallnations .TheGene�aCon�entionsof1949successfullyaccomplishedbothpurposes .
31 . Certainly,thereareimportant,modernauthoritiesfortheproposi-tionthattheGene�aCon�entionsof1949ha�elargelybecomeexpressionsofcustomaryinternationallaw,andbothPartiestothiscaseagree .12Themerefactthattheyha�eobtainednearlyuni�ersalacceptancesupportsthisconclu-
8 ER17MEMp .19 .9 Eritrea’sClaim17,PrisonersofWar,Counter-MemorialtoER17MEM,filedby
EthiopiaonNo�ember1,2002,pp .27–28[hereinafterER17CM] .10 U.S. v. Wilhelm von Leeb etal .,inTrials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals under Control Council Law, No. 10,VolumeXI,p .462(UnitedStatesGo�ernmentPrintingOffice,WashingtonD .C .1950) .
11 See RichardR .Baxter,Multilateral Treaties as Evidence of Customary Interna-tional Law,41Brit .Y .B .Int’lL .pp .275,286(1965–66) .
12 See,e.g.,Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,1996I .C .J .p .226para .79(July8);ReportoftheSecretary-GeneralPursuanttoParagraph2ofSecurityCouncilResolution808(May3,1993),U .N .Doc .S/25704para .35;The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflictsp .24(DieterFlecked .,OxfordUni�ersityPress,1995);andTheo-dorMeron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Lawp .45(ClarendonPress,1989) .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 87
sion .13Therearealsosimilarauthorities for thepropositionthatrules thatcommendthemsel�estotheinternationalcommunityingeneral,suchasrulesofinternationalhumanitarianlaw,canmorequicklybecomepartofcustom-aryinternationallawthanothertypesofrulesfoundintreaties .14TheCom-missionagrees .
32 . Consequently, the Commission holds that the law applicable tothisClaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinternationalhumanitarianlawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon-�entionsof1949 .Thefrequentin�ocationofpro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIIIbybothPartiesinsupportoftheirclaimsanddefensesisfullyconsistentwiththisholding .Whene�ereitherPartyassertsthataparticularrele�antpro�isionoftheseCon�entionsshouldnotbeconsideredpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theCommissionwilldecidethatques-tion,andtheburdenofproofwillbeontheassertingParty .
33 . ContrarytotheargumentofEthiopia,theCommissiondoesnotunderstandthereferencetotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949inArticle5,para-graph1,oftheAgreementasachoiceoflawpro�isionmeaningthattheCon-�entionsinalltheirdetailsbecamebindingastreatylawretroacti�elyuponEritreaonceitaccededtothem .ThatreferencetotheCon�entionswasappro-priatesimplybecause,priortotheconclusionoftheAgreementonDecember12,2000,bothnationshadbecomepartiestotheCon�entions .
b. evidentiary issues
1. Quantum of Proof Required
34 . The Commission’s brief Rules of Procedure regarding e�idencereflectcommoninternationalpractice .Articles14 .1and14 .2state:
14 .1 Eachpartyshallha�etheburdenofpro�ingthefactsitreliesontosupportitsclaimordefense .14 .2 TheCommissionshalldeterminetheadmissibility,rele�ance,mate-rialityandweightofthee�idenceoffered .35 . Alsoreflectingcommoninternationalpractice, theRulesdonot
articulatethequantumordegreeofproofthatapartymustpresenttomeetthisburdenofproof .
36 . At thehearing, counsel forbothPartiescarefullyaddressed thequantumorle�elofprooftoberequired,describingtheappropriatequan-tumin�erysimilarterms .CounselforEthiopiaindicatedthatinassessingitsrequestsforfindingsofsystematicandwidespread�iolationsofinterna-tionallawbyEritrea,“thebarshouldbeset�eryhigh,”particularlygi�enthe
13 See,e.g.,JonathanI .Charney,International Agreements and the Development of Customary International Law,61Wash .L .Re� .p .971(1986) .
14 SeeMeron,supranote12,atpp .56–58 .
88 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
seriousnessofthe�iolationsalleged .EthiopiaaccordinglyproposedthattheCommissionshouldrequiree�idencethatis“�erycompelling,�erycredible,�erycon�incing .”15CounselforEritrealargelyagreed,alsonotingthegra�ityofthe�iolationsallegedandurgingtheCommissiontorequire“clearandcon-�incing”e�idence .16Intheirwrittenororalpleadings,bothsidescitedjuris-prudenceoftheInternationalCourtofJusticeindicatingtheneedforahighdegreeofcertaintyinmattersin�ol�inggra�echargesagainstastate .17
37 . TheCommissionagreeswiththeessenceofthepositionad�ocat-edbybothParties .Particularlyinlightofthegra�ityofsomeoftheclaimsad�anced,theCommissionwillrequireclearandcon�incinge�idenceinsup-portofitsfindings .
38 . TheCommissiondoesnotacceptanysuggestionthat,becausesomeclaimsmayin�ol�eallegationsofpotentiallycriminalindi�idualconduct,itshouldapplyane�enhigherstandardofproofcorrespondingtothatinindi-�idual criminal proceedings . The Commission is not a criminal tribunalassessingindi�idualcriminalresponsibility .Itmustinsteaddecidewhetherthereha�ebeenbreachesofinternationallawbasedonnormalprinciplesofstateresponsibility .Thepossibilitythatparticularfindingsmayin�ol�e�eryseriousmattersdoesnotchangetheinternationallawrulestobeappliedorfundamentallytransformthequantumofe�idencerequired .
2. Proof of Facts
39 . Ethiopiapresentedalarge�olumeofdocumentationinsupportofitsclaims,includingdeclarationsofofficials,newsarticles,copiesoftrain-ingmaterials,campregulationsandmedicalrecords .Ethiopiaalsopresentedthreetypesofdocumentsrecordingindifferingwaysinformationregardingtheexperiencesofindi�idualprisoners .Itsubmittedthirtyformalwrittendec-larationsfromformerPOWssignedbythedeclarantsandcontainingaffirma-tionsoftheaccuracyofthetranslationandsolemnrepresentationsthatthedeclarationwastruthful .Duringthehearing,counselforEthiopiaindicatedthatitreliedprimarilyonthesedeclarations .18Similarsigneddeclarationsalsopro�idedtheheartofthee�idenceforEritrea’sclaims .
40 . Ethiopiaalsosubmittedmultiple�olumesofwhatwereinfactformsforcollectingclaims .ThesewerelengthydocumentsfilledinbyaformerPOWorapersonwritingforhim,respondingat�aryinglengthtodetailedquestionsregardingconditionsandexperiencesineachofEritrea’sPOWcamps .Ethio-piaalsofiledfour�olumescontainingtypewrittendistillationsofthe�erybrief
15 ProfessorMurphy,Transcriptp .185 .16 ProfessorCrawford,Transcriptpp .333–334 .17 See,e.g.,ET04MEMp .47;Transcriptpp .333–334 .18 Transcriptp .96 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 89
answerssomeformerprisonersga�etotheclaimsquestionnaires(generallyin�ol�ingpagescontainingonly“yes”or“no”answers) .
41 . Eritreaobjectedtothesecondandthirdtypesofdocuments,argu-ingthatthephrasingofthequestions,thecollectionmethodologyandotherfactorsine�itablyresultedininflated,inaccurateandunreliableresponses .TheCommissionagreesthatthesedocumentsareofuncertainprobati�e�alue .Ithasnotusedtheminarri�ingatthefactualjudgmentsthatfollow;insteadithasreliedontheformalsigneddeclarationssubmittedbyeachParty,assupplementedbythetestimonyatthehearingandotherdocumentsintherecord .
42 . Asnoted,Ethiopia’sdeclarationsincludethirtybyformerPOWs .The Commission is satisfied that Ethiopia selected these declarants in anobjecti�ewayand,hence,thatthedeclarationspro�idee�idencethatisasrea-sonablybalancedaspossibleunderthecircumstances .Fi�edeclarationsweredatedinNo�ember2001andweresubmittedwiththeStatementofClaim .Counsel forEthiopiaexplainedat thehearing thatEthiopiaalsocollecteddeclarations fromall twenty-fi�ePOWswhowererepatriatedonFebruary18,2002,whichwasthefirstrepatriationaftertheCommissionnotifiedthePartiesthatthePOWclaimswouldbeheardfirst(andthelastrepatriationbeforeAugust2002) .19Ethiopiapreparedthosedeclarationsapproximatelyonemonthaftertherepatriation .
43 . In e�aluating the probati�e strength of a declaration to portraya�iolation(orse�eral�iolations)ofinternationallaw,theCommissionhasconsideredtheclarityanddetailoftherele�anttestimony,andwhetherthise�idenceiscorroboratedbytestimonyinotherdeclarationsorbyothera�ail-ablee�idence .Theconsistentandcumulati�echaracterofmuchoftheParties’e�idencewasofsignificant�aluetotheCommissioninmaking its factualjudgements .20Whenthetotalityofthee�idenceofferedbytheClaimantpro-�idedclearandcon�incinge�idenceofa�iolation—i.e.,aprima faciecase—theCommissioncarefullyexaminedthee�idenceofferedbytheRespondent(usuallyintheformofadeclarationorcamprecords)todeterminewhetheriteffecti�elyrebuttedtheClaimant’sproof .
44 . At the hearing, Ethiopia presented as a fact witness one formerPOW,whohadbeeninternedatBarentu,Embakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfa .Eritreapresentednodefensewitnesses .
19 Transcriptp .105 .20 InthisconnectionseeSyl�ainVité,Les procédures internationales d’établissement
des faits dans la mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitairepp .345–346(Editionsdel’Uni�ersitédeBruxelles,1999) .
90 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
3. Evidence under the Control of the ICRC
45 . Throughouttheconflict,representati�esoftheICRC�isitedEthi-opia’scamps .BeginninglateinAugust2000,theICRCalsobegan�isitingEritrea’sNakfacamp .BothPartiesindicatedthattheypossessICRCreportsregardingthesecamp�isits,aswellasotherrele�antICRCcommunications .
46 . TheCommissionhopedtobenefitfromtheICRC’sexperiencedandobjecti�eassessmentofconditionsinbothParties’camps .ItaskedthePartiestoincludetheICRCreportsoncamp�isitsintheirwrittensubmissionsortoexplaintheirinabilitytodoso .BothrespondedthattheywishedtodosobutthattheICRCopposedallowingtheCommissionaccesstothesematerials .TheICRCmaintainedthattheycouldnotbepro�idedwithoutICRCconsent,whichwouldnotbegi�en .
47 . WiththeendorsementoftheParties,theCommission’sPresidentmetwithseniorICRCofficialsinGene�ainAugust2002tore�iewthesitua-tionandtoseekICRCconsenttoCommissionaccess,onarestrictedorcon-fidentialbasisifrequired .
48 . TheICRCmadea�ailabletotheCommissionandthePartiescop-iesofallrele�antpublicdocuments,butitconcludedthatitcouldnotpermitaccesstootherinformation .ThatdecisionreflectedtheICRC’sdeeplyheldbeliefthatitsabilitytoperformitsmissionrequiresstrongassurancesofcon-fidentiality .21TheCommissionhasgreatrespectfortheICRCandunderstandstheconcernsunderlyingitsgeneralpoliciesofconfidentialityandnon-disclo-sure .Ne�ertheless,theCommissionbelie�esthat,intheuniquesituationhere,wherebothpartiestothearmedconflictagreedthatthesedocumentsshouldbepro�idedtotheCommission,theICRCshouldnotha�eforbiddenthemfromdoingso .BoththeCommissionandtheICRCshareaninterestintheproperandinformedapplicationofinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Accord-ingly,theCommissionmustrecorditsdisappointmentthattheICRCwasnotpreparedtoallowitaccesstothesematerials .
C. Violations of the law1. Organizational Comment
49 . Ethiopiaallegedextensi�e�iolationsofapplicablelegalobligationsinEritrea’sPOWcamps .Itslegalclaimswerearrangedinele�enseparatecat-egories,se�eralwithmultiplesubsidiaryelements .Ethiopiaalleged�iolationsofalloralmostallofthefollowingele�encategorieswithrespecttoeachofEritrea’sfi�ecamps:–CaptureofPOWsandtheire�acuationtothecamps;–Physicalandmentalabuseinthecamps;
21 SeeGaborRona,“TheICRCPri�ilegenottotestify:Confidentialityinaction”,84Int’l Rev. Red Crossp .207(2002) .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 91
–Lackofadequatemedicalcare;–Unhealthycampconditions;–FailuretomaintainPOWswellbeing;–Impermissibleforcedlabor;–Improperhandlingofdeaths;–Lackofcomplaintprocedures;–Prohibitingcommunicationwiththeexterior;–Failuretopostcampregulations;and–Inhumaneconditionsduringtransferfromthecamps .
50 . Initswrittenandoralpresentations,Ethiopiaclearlyexplainedthefactorsleadingittostructureitsclaimsthisway .Howe�er,theresultisamatrixofo�erfiftyissues,manywithse�eralsubsidiaryelements,forassessmentanddecision .Ofgreaterconcern,theCommissionfoundthatthiscomplexandfragmentedstructureser�edtoconflate�eryseriousmatterswithothersofmuchlessgra�ity .Moreo�er,gi�enthe le�elofe�idencepresentedandthelimitedtimea�ailablefortheCommissiontocompleteitsworkonallclaims,itisclearthattheCommissionmustfocusitsattentiononthesubstanti�ecoreoftheclaims .
51 . Accordingly, the Commission has grouped se�eral of Ethiopia’sclaimstogetherorhasotherwisere-alignedtheirelementsinordertogi�egreaterweighttoandclearerfocusonthosemattersitseesasbeingofgreatestconcern .
52 . Ascommentatorsfrequentlyha�eobser�ed,Gene�aCon�entionIII,withits143Articlesandfi�eAnnexes,isanextremelydetailedandcompre-hensi�ecodeforthetreatmentofPOWs .22Gi�enitslengthandcomplexity,theCon�entionmixestogether,sometimesinasingleparagraph,obligationsof�erydifferentcharacterandimportance .Someobligations,suchasArticle13’srequirementofhumanetreatment,areabsolutelyfundamentaltotheprotec-tionofPOWs’lifeandhealth .Otherpro�isionsaddressmattersofprocedureordetailthatmayhelpeasetheirburdens,butarenotnecessarytoensuretheirlifeandhealth .
53 . Undercustomaryinternationallaw,asreflectedinGene�aCon�en-tionIII,therequirementoftreatmentofPOWsashumanbeingsisthebedrockuponwhichallotherobligationsoftheDetainingPowerrest .AtthecoreoftheCon�entionregimearethelegalobligationstokeepPOWsali�eandingoodhealth .23Theholdingsmadeinthissectionareorganizedtoemphasizethesecorelegalobligations .
54 . ItshouldalsobestatedattheoutsetthattheCommissiondoesnotseeitstasktobethedeterminationofliabilityofaPartyforeachindi�idual
22 See,e.g.,GeoffreyBest,War and Law since 1945p .135(ClarendonPress,1994) .23 SeeYoramDinstein,Prisoners of War, inEncyclopedia of Public International
Law,Volume4,pp .146,148(RudolfBernhardted .,North-HollandPublishingCom-pany,1982) .
92 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
incidentofillegalitysuggestedbythee�idence .Rather,itistodetermineliabil-ityforserious�iolationsofthelawbytheParties,whichareusuallyillegalactsoromissionsthatwerefrequentorper�asi�eandconsequentlyaffectedsignificantnumbersof�ictims .TheseparametersaredictatedbythelimitofwhatisfeasibleforthetwoPartiestobriefandargueandfortheCommissiontodetermineinlightofthetimeandresourcesmadea�ailablebytheParties .
2. Eritrea’s Refusal to Permit the ICRC to Visit POWs
55 . Fromtheoutsetofthearmedconflictin1998,theICRCwasper-mittedbyEthiopiato�isittheEritreanPOWsandthecampsinwhichtheywereheld .Itwasalsopermittedtopro�iderelieftothemandtoassistthemincorrespondingwiththeirfamiliesinEritrea,althoughthereise�idencethatEritrearefusedtopermitcommunicationsfromthosePOWstobepassedontotheirfamilies .24InEritrea,theICRChadalimitedroleinthe1998repatria-tionofse�entysickorwoundedPOWs,butalleffortsbytheICRCto�isittheEthiopianPOWsheldbyEritreawererefusedbyEritreauntilAugust2000,justafterEritreaaccededtothe1949Gene�aCon�entions .TheCommissionmustdecidewhether,asallegedbyEthiopia,suchrefusalbyEritreaconstituteda�iolationofitslegalobligationsundertheapplicablelaw .
56 . EritreaarguesthattherightofaccessbytheICRCtoPOWsisatreaty-basedrightandthatthepro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIIIgrant-ingsuchaccesstotheICRCshouldnotbeconsideredpro�isionsthatexpresscustomaryinternationallaw .Whilerecognizingthatmostofthepro�isionsoftheCon�entionha�ebecomecustomarylaw,Eritreaassertsthatthepro�i-sionsdealingwiththeaccessoftheICRCareamongthedetailedorproceduralpro�isionsthatha�enotattainedsuchstatus .
57 . ThattheICRCdidnotagreewithEritreaisdemonstratedbyapressstatementitissuedonMay7,1999,inwhichitrecountedits�isitstoPOWsandinternedci�iliansheldbyEthiopiaandsaid:“InEritrea,meanwhile,theICRCispursuingitseffortstogainaccess,asrequiredbytheThirdGene�aCon�en-tion,toEthiopianPOWscapturedsincetheconflicteruptedlastyear .”25
58 . TheICRCisassignedsignificantresponsibilitiesinanumberofarti-clesoftheCon�ention .26Thesepro�isionsmakeclearthattheICRCmayfunc-tioninatleasttwodifferentcapacities asahumanitarianorganizationpro�id-ingreliefandasanorganizationpro�idingnecessaryand�italexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWs,eithersupplementarytoaProtectingPowerorasasubstitutewhenthereisnoProtectingPower .Thereisnoe�idencebeforethe
24 SeeEthiopia’sClaim4,PrisonersofWar,Counter-MemorialtoET04,filedbyEritreaonNo�ember1,2002,p .140andnote856 .
25 ICRC,“Ethiopia/Eritrea:ICRCVisitsNewlyCapturedPrisoners”,ICRC NEWS,May7,1999,inET04MEM,AnnexXV,Tab94 .
26 SeeArticles9,10,73,81and126 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 93
CommissionthatProtectingPowerswereproposedbyeitherEthiopiaorEritrea,anditseemse�identthatnonewasappointed .Ne�ertheless,theCon�entionclearlyrequiresexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWs27and,inArticle10,wherethereisnoProtectingPowerorotherfunctioningo�ersightbody,itrequiresDetainingPowersto“accept . . .theofferoftheser�icesofahumani-tarianorganization,suchastheInternationalCommitteeoftheRedCross,toassumethehumanitarianfunctionsperformedbyProtectingPowersunderthepresentCon�ention .”Inthate�ent,Article10alsopro�idesthatallmentionofProtectingPowersintheCon�entionappliestosuchsubstituteorganizations .
59 . TherightoftheICRCtoha�eaccesstoPOWsisnotlimitedtoasitu-ationco�eredbyArticle10inwhichitser�esasasubstituteforaProtectingPower .Article126specifiesclearandcriticalrightsofProtectingPowerswithrespecttoaccesstocampsandtoPOWs,includingtherighttointer�iewPOWswithoutwitnesses,anditstatesthatthedelegatesoftheICRC“shallenjoythesameprerogati�es .”EthiopiareliesprimarilyonArticle126initsallegationthatEritrea�iolateditslegalobligationsbyrefusingtheICRCaccesstoitsPOWs .
60 . ProfessorLe�iepointsoutinhismonumentalstudyofthetreat-mentofPOWsin internationalarmedconflicts that theICRC“hasplayedanindispensablehumanitarianroleine�eryarmedconflictformorethanacentury .”28Healsonotesthat,inadditiontotheworkbythemanyProtectingPowers,theICRCplayeda�italroleinprotectingPOWsduringtheSecondWorldWar,whenitmadeatotalof11,175�isitstoinstallationswherePOWsandci�ilianinterneeswereconfined .29Le�iealsoliststheplaceswheretheICRCandprotectingpowersha�ebeenexcludedinrecenttimes theSo�ietUnion(1940–45),NorthKoreaandthePeoplesRepublicofChina(1950–53),andNorthVietnam(1965–73) .30ItiscommonknowledgethatthetreatmentofPOWsbythenamedPartiesinthosefourplaceswheretheICRCwasunlaw-fullyexcludedwasfarworsethanthatrequiredbythestandardsofapplicablelaw .Thelongtermresultoftheseexclusionshasbeenareinforcementofthegeneralunderstandingofthecrucialroleplayedbyoutsideobser�ersintheeffecti�efunctioningofthelegalregimefortheprotectionofPOWs .
61 . TheCommissioncannotagreewithEritrea’sargumentthatpro�i-sionsoftheCon�entionrequiringexternalscrutinyofthetreatmentofPOWsandaccesstoPOWsbytheICRCaremeredetailsorsimplyimplementingproceduralpro�isionsthatha�enot,inhalfacentury,becomepartofcustom-aryinternationallaw .Thesepro�isionsareanessentialpartoftheregimeforprotectingPOWsthathasde�elopedininternationalpractice,asreflectedinGene�aCon�entionIII .Theserequirementsare,indeed,“treaty-based”inthe
27 SeeArticles8and10 .28 HowardS .Le�ie,“PrisonersofWarinInternationalArmedConflict”,inInterna-
tional Law Studies,Volume59,p .312(UnitedStatesNa�alWarCollegePress,1978) .29 Id .atp .310 .30 Id .atp .312 .
94 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
sensethattheyarearticulatedintheCon�ention;but,assuch,theyincorpo-ratepastpracticesthathadstandingoftheirownincustomarylaw,andtheyareofsuchimportancefortheprospectsofcompliancewiththelawthatitwouldbeirresponsiblefortheCommissiontoconsidertheminapplicableascustomaryinternationallaw .AstheInternationalCourtofJusticesaidinitsAd�isoryOpinionontheLegalityoftheThreatorUseofNuclearWeapons:
79 . It is undoubtedly because a great many rules of humanitarian lawapplicableinarmedconflictaresofundamentaltotherespectofthehumanpersonand“elementaryconsiderationsofhumanity”astheCourtput itinitsJudgmentof9April1949intheCorfu ChannelCase(I.C.J. Reports1949,p .22),thattheHagueandGene�aCon�entionsha�eenjoyedabroadaccession .Furtherthesefundamentalrulesaretobeobser�edbyallStateswhetherornottheyha�eratifiedthecon�entionsthatcontainthem,becausetheyconstituteintransgressibleprinciplesofinternationalcustomarylaw .31
62 . Fortheabo�ereasons,theCommissionholdsthatEritrea�iolatedcustomaryinternationallawfromMay1998untilAugust2000byrefusingtopermittheICRCtosenditsdelegatesto�isitallplaceswhereEthiopianPOWsweredetained,toregisterthosePOWs,tointer�iewthemwithoutwitnesses,andtopro�idethemwiththecustomaryreliefandser�ices .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforthesufferingcausedbythatrefusal .
3. Mistreatment of POWs at Capture and its Immediate Aftermath
63 . OfthethirtyEthiopianPOWdeclarants,atleasttwentywerealreadywoundedatcaptureandnearlyalltestifiedtotreatmentofthesickorwoundedbyEritreanforcesuponcaptureatthefrontandduringe�acuation .Conse-quently,inadditiontothecustomaryinternationallawstandardsreflectedinGene�aCon�entionIII,theCommissionalsoappliesthestandardsreflectedintheGene�aCon�entionfortheAmeliorationoftheConditionoftheWoundedandSickinArmedForcesintheFieldonAugust12,1949(“Gene�aCon�en-tionI”) .32ForawoundedorsickPOW,thepro�isionsofGene�aCon�entionIapplyalongwithGene�aCon�entionIII .Amongotherpro�isions,Article12ofGene�aCon�entionIdemandsrespectandprotectionofwoundedorsickmembersofthearmedforcesin“allcircumstances .”
64 . AState’sobligationtoensurehumanetreatmentofenemysoldierscanbese�erelytestedintheheatedandconfusedmomentsimmediatelyfol-lowingcaptureorsurrenderandduringe�acuationfromthebattlefronttothe rear .Ne�ertheless, customary international lawas reflected inGene�aCon�entionsIandIIIabsolutelyprohibitsthekillingofPOWs,requiresthe
31 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,supranote12,atpara .79 .32 75U .N .T .S .p .31;6U .S .T .p .3114 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 95
woundedandsicktobecollectedandcaredfor,thedeadtobecollected,anddemandspromptandhumanee�acuationofPOWs .33
a. Abusive Treatment
65 . EthiopiaallegedthatEritreantroopsregularlybeatandfrequentlykilledEthiopiansuponcaptureanditsimmediateaftermath .Ethiopiapre-sentedaprima faciecase,throughclearandcon�incinge�idence,tosupportthisallegation .
66 . One-thirdoftheEthiopianPOWdeclarationscontainaccountsofEritreansoldiersdeliberatelykillingEthiopianPOWs,mostwounded,atcap-tureore�acuation .ParticularlytroublingareaccountsinthreedeclarationsofEritreanofficersorderingtroopstokillEthiopianPOWsorbeatingthemfornotdoingso .MorethanhalfoftheEthiopianPOWdeclarantsdescribedrepeatedandbrutalbeatings,bothatthefrontandduringe�acuation,includ-ingblowspurposefullyinflictedonwounds .Fortunately,theseaccountswerecounteredtoadegreebyse�eralotheraccountsfromEthiopiandeclarantsofEritreanofficersandsoldiersinter�eningtocurtailphysicalabuseandpre�entkillings .
67 . Inrebuttal,Eritreaoffereddetailedandpersuasi�ee�idencethatEritreantroopsandofficershadrecei�edextensi�einstructionduringtheirbasictraining,bothonthebasicrequirementsoftheGene�aCon�entionsonthetakingofPOWsandonthepoliciesandpracticesoftheEritreanPeople’sLiberationFront(“EPLF”)inthewaragainstthepriorEthiopiango�ernment,theDerg,forindependence,whichhademphasizedtheimportanceofhumanetreatmentofprisoners .Whatislackingintherecord,howe�er,ise�idenceofwhatstepsEritreatook,ifany,toensurethatitsforcesactuallyputthisexten-si�etrainingtouseinthefield .Thereisnoe�idencethatEritreaconductedinquiriesintoincidentsofphysicalabuseorpursueddisciplinarymeasuresunderArticle121ofGene�aCon�entionIII .
68 . TheCommissionconcludesthatEritreahasnotrebuttedtheprima faciecasepresentedbyEthiopiaand,consequently,holdsthatEritreafailedtocomplywiththefundamentalobligationofcustomaryinternationallawthatPOWs,e�enwhenwounded,mustbeprotectedandmaynot,underanycircumstances,bekilled .Consequently,EritreaisliableforfailingtoprotectEthiopianPOWsfrombeingkilledatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath,andforpermittingbeatingsandotherphysicalabuseofEthiopianPOWsatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath .
33 CommonArticle3(1)(a),(2);Gene�aCon�entionI,Articles12,15;Gene�aCon-�entionIII,Articles13,20,130 .
96 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
b. Medical Care Immediately Following Capture
69 . Ethiopiaalleges thatEritrea failed topro�idenecessarymedicalattentiontoEthiopianPOWsaftercaptureandduringe�acuation,asrequiredundercustomaryinternationallawreflectedinGene�aCon�entionsI(Article12)andIII(Articles20and15) .ManyEthiopiandeclarantstestifiedthattheirwoundswerenotcleanedandbandagedatorshortlyaftercapture,leadingtoinfectionandothercomplications .Eritreapresentedrebuttale�idencethatitstroopspro�idedrudimentaryfirstaidassoonaspossible,includingintransitcamps .
70 . TheCommissionbelie�esthattherequirementtopro�idePOWswithmedicalcareduringtheinitialperiodaftercapturemustbeassessedinlightoftheharshconditionsonthebattlefieldandthelimitedextentofmedi-cal trainingandequipmenta�ailabletofront linetroops .Onbalance,andrecognizingthelogisticalandresourcelimitationsfacedbybothPartiestotheconflict,theCommissionfindsthatEritreaisnotliableforfailingtopro�idemedicalcaretoEthiopianPOWsatthefrontandduringe�acuation .
c. Evacuation Conditions
71 . Ethiopiaalsoallegesthat,inadditiontopoormedicalcare,Erit-reafailedtoensurehumanee�acuationconditions .AsreflectedinArticles19and20ofGene�aCon�entionIII,theDetainingPowerisobligedtoe�acuateprisonershumanely,safelyandassoonaspossiblefromcombatzones;onlyifthereisagreaterriskine�acuationmaythewoundedorsickbetemporar-ilykeptinthecombatzone,andtheymustnotbeunnecessarilyexposedtodanger .Themeasureofahumanee�acuationisthat,assetoutinArticle20,POWsshouldbee�acuated“inconditionssimilartothosefortheforcesoftheDetainingPower .”
72 . Turningfirsttothetimingofe�acuation,Eritreasubmittedclearandcon�incinge�idencethat,gi�entherealityofbattle,thegreatmajorityofEthiopiansPOWsweree�acuatedfromthe�ariousfrontsinatimelymanner .DespiteonedisquietingincidentinwhichawoundedEthiopianPOWalleg-edlywasforcedtospendanightontopofatrenchwhileartilleryexchangesoccurredandhisEritreancaptorstookrefugeinthetrench,theCommissionconcludesthatEritreagenerallytookthenecessarymeasurestoe�acuateitsprisonerspromptly .
73 . Timingaside,theEthiopianPOWdeclarantsdescribedextremelyonerousconditionsofe�acuation .ThePOWswereforcedtowalkfromthefront for hours or days o�er rough terrain, often in pain from their ownwounds,oftencarryingwoundedcomradesandEritreansupplies,ofteninharshweather,andoftenwithlittleornofoodandwater .Eritreaofferedrebut-tale�idencethatitssoldiersfacednearlythesameuna�oidablydifficultcondi-tions,particularlygi�enthelackofpa�edroadsinEritrea .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 97
74 . Subjecttotheholdingabo�econcerningunlawfulphysicalabuseduringe�acuationandwithoneexception,theCommissionfindsthatEri-trean troopssatisfied the legal requirements fore�acuations fromthebat-tlefieldunder theharshgeographic,militaryand logisticalcircumstances .TheexceptionistheEritreanpracticeofseizingthefootwearofallEthiopianPOWs,testifiedtobymanydeclarants .Althoughtheharshnessof theter-rainandweatheronthemarchestothecampsmayha�ebeenoutofEritrea’scontrol,toforcethePOWstowalkbarefootinsuchconditionsunnecessarilycompoundedtheirmisery .TheCommissionfindsEritrealiableforinhumanetreatmentduringe�acuationsfromthebattlefieldasaresultofitsforcingEthi-opianPOWstogowithoutfootwearduringe�acuationmarches .
d. Coercive Interrogation
75 . EthiopiaallegesfrequentabuseinEritrea’sinterrogationofPOWs,commencingatcaptureande�acuation .InternationallawdoesnotprohibittheinterrogationofPOWs,butitdoesrestricttheinformationtheyareobligedtore�ealandprohibitstortureorothermeasuresofcoercion,includingthreatsand“unpleasantordisad�antageoustreatmentofanykind .”34
76 . Ethiopiapresentedclearandcon�incinge�idence,unrebuttedbyErit-rea,thatEritreaninterrogatorsfrequentlythreatenedorbeatPOWsduringinter-rogation,particularlywhentheyweredissatisfiedwiththeprisoner’sanswers .TheCommissionmustconcludethatEritreaeitherfailedtotrainitsinterrogatorsintherele�antlegalrestraintsortomakeitclearthattheyareimperati�e .Conse-quently,Eritreaisliableforpermittingsuchcoerci�einterrogation .
e. Confiscation of Personal Property
77 . EthiopiaallegeswidespreadandsystematicconfiscationbyEritreansoldiersofthepersonalpropertyofEthiopianPOWs .ThedeclarationsofEthi-opianPOWssubmittedintoe�idenceclearlyandcon�incinglysupportthisclaim .NotonlywereallcapturedEthiopiansoldiersdepri�edoftheirshoes(presumably,tomakeescapemoredifficult),butalmostalldeclarantsassertthattheyweresearcheduponcaptureandthatalloftheirpersonalpossessionsweretakenbytheircaptors .Theitemsallegedlytakenincludedcash,watches,familyphotos,radios,ringsandcigarettes,aswellasthePOWs’identitycardsand,occasionally,itemsofclothing .Thedeclarantsalsoassertthatnoreceiptsweregi�enandthatnoneoftheconfiscatedpropertywasreturned .
78 . Article18ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequiresthatPOWsbeallowedtoretaintheirpersonalproperty .Cashand�aluablesmaybeimpoundedonorderofanofficer,subjecttodetailedregistrationandothersafeguards .Ifpris-oners’propertyistaken,itmustbereceiptedandsafelyheldforlaterreturn .
34 Gene�aCon�entionIII,Article17 .
98 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
UnderArticle17,identitydocumentscanbeconsultedbytheDetainingPowerbutmustbereturnedtotheprisoner .TheCommissionbelie�esthattheseobli-gationsreflectcustomaryinternationallaw .
79 . Norebuttale�idencewassubmittedbyEritreawithrespecttothisclaim,andtheCommissionnotesthatEritrea’scampproceduresforPOWsstatethat“e�eryPOWhasthedutytohando�erpropertywhichhehadwithhimwhenhewascapturedtotheconcernedauthority .”35TheCommissionconcludesthatEritreafailedtotakethenecessarymeasurestopre�enttheconfiscationofprisoners’personalproperty .Consequently,gi�entheunrebuttede�idenceofwidespreadtakingsofpropertyandEritrea’scampprocedures,EritreafailedtocomplywiththeobligationsofArticles17and18ofGene�aCon�entionIIIandisliabletoEthiopiafortheconsequentlossessufferedbyEthiopianPOWs .
80 . Takingofprisoners’�aluablesandotherpropertyisaregrettablebutrecurringfeatureoftheir�ulnerablestate .Thelossofphotographsandothersimilarpersonalitemsisanindignitythatweighsonprisoners’morale,butthelossofpropertyotherwiseseemstoha�erarelyaffectedthebasicrequirementsforprisoners’sur�i�alandwellbeing .Accordingly,whiletheCommissiondoesnotwishtominimizetheimportanceofthese�iolations,theyloomlesslargethanothermattersconsideredelsewhereinthisAward .
4. Physical and Mental Abuse in POW Camps
81 . Ethiopia’se�idenceofphysicalandmentalabuseofEthiopianPOWsinEritreanPOWcampstakesse�eralforms .First,therewasthetestimonybeforetheCommissionofaformerPOW;second,EthiopiafiledwithitsMemo-rialfortysigneddeclarations,includingthirtybyformerPOWsinwhichtheydescribedtheirtreatmentwhilecapti�e;third,EthiopiafiledmanyunsignedstatementsandclaimsformsofformerPOWs;andfourth,EthiopiafileddataithaddrawnfromtheclaimsformsofotherformerPOWs .TheCommissionhasreliedhea�ilyonthefirsttwooftheseformsofe�idence,asitconsiderstheothersofuncertainprobati�e�aluefortheproofofliability .
82 . ThetestimonyatthehearingofaformerPOWandthedeclarationsoftheotherPOWsareconsistentandpersuasi�ethattheEritreanguardsatthe�ariousPOWcampsreliedoftenuponbrutalforcefortheenforcementofrulesandasmeansofpunishment .AllthirtyPOWdeclarationsdescribedfrequentbeatingsofPOWsbycampguards .Se�eralguardsaccusedofregularlyabusingPOWswereidentifiedbynameinnumerousdeclarations .Thee�idenceindicatesthatmanyofthesameguardsremainedinchargeasthenumbersofPOWsincreasedandastheyweremo�edfromonecamptoanother,andtheconclusionisuna�oidablethatguardswhoregularlybeatPOWswerenotreplacedasaresult .Beatingswithwoodenstickswerecommonand,onoccasion,resultedinbrokenbonesandlackofconsciousness .Thereweremultiple,consistentaccountsthat,
35 SeeER17MEM,DocumentaryAnnexpp .100–101 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 99
atDigdigta,se�eralPOWswhohadattemptedtoescapewerebeatensenseless,withonelosinganeye,priortotheirdisappearance .Beingforcedtoholdhea�yobjectso�erone’sheadforlongperiodsoftime,beingpunchedorkicked,beingrequiredtorollonstonyorthornyground,tolookatthesun,andtoundergoperiodsofconfinementinhotmetalcontainerswerenotableamongtheotherabuses,allofwhich�iolatedcustomaryinternationallaw,asexemplifiedbyArti-cles13,42,87and89ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Regrettably,thee�idencealsoindicatesthatthecampcommandersdidlittletorestraintheseabusesand,insomecases,e�enthreatenedPOWsbytellingthemthat,astherewas(priortothefirstICRC�isitsinAugust2000)nolistofprisoners,theycoulddoanythingtheywantedtothePOWsandcouldnotbeheldaccountable .
83 . Inadditiontothefearandmentalanguishthataccompaniedthesephysicalabuses,thereiscleare�idencethatsomePOWs,particularlyTigrayans,weretreatedworsethanothersandthatse�eralPOWsweretreatedasdesertersandgi�enfa�oredtreatment .(Thosegi�enfa�oredtreatmentwerenotamongthosewhosignedthethirtydeclarationsreliedonbyEthiopiaonthisissue .)Suchdiscriminationis,ofcourse,prohibitedbyArticle16ofGene�aCon�entionIII .
84 . Thee�idenceispersuasi�ethatbeatingswerecommonatallcamps:Barentu,Embakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfa .SolitaryconfinementofthreemonthsormoreoccurredatleastatDigdigtaandAfabet .AtNakfa,muchofthee�idenceofbeatingsandotherbrutalpunishmentsrelatestoPOWsawayfromcampworkingonlaborprojectsandoccurredwhenfatigueslowedtheirwork .AfterICRC�isitsbegan,thereissomee�idencethatPOWswerethreat-enedwithphysicalpunishmentiftheyreportedabusestotheICRC .
85 . Eritreaintroducedlittle,ifany,e�idencetocounterEthiopia’se�i-denceofphysicalandmentalabuseofPOWs .EritreasoughttounderminethecredibilityofEthiopia’switnessesbypointingtosomediscrepanciesintheirdeclarationsortestimonyonmedicalandfoodissues .Eritreaalsoassertedthattheallegationsofphysicalabusewerenotsufficientlyspecifictomakeitpossibletoin�estigateorrebutthem .Howe�er,Eritreachosenottointroduceanywitnessesfromamongitscampcommanders,anditdidnotunequi�o-callydenythatspecificabuses,suchasthebeatingoftheattemptedescapeesatDigdigta,hadoccurred .
86 . Inconclusion,theCommissionholdsthatEritrea�iolatedinter-nationallawfromMay1998untilthelastEthiopianPOWswerereleasedandrepatriatedinAugust2002bypermittingtheper�asi�eandcontinuousphysi-calandmentalabuseofEthiopianPOWsinEritreanPOWcamps .Conse-quently,Eritreaisliableforsuchabuse .
100 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
5. Unhealthy Conditions in Camps
a. The Issue
87 . AfundamentalprincipleofGene�aCon�entionIIIisthatdetentionofPOWsmustnotseriouslyendangerthehealthofthosePOWs .36Thisprin-ciple,whichisalsoaprincipleofcustomaryinternationallaw,isimplementedbyrulesthatmandatecamplocationswheretheclimateisnotinjurious;shel-ter that isadequate,withconditionsas fa�orableas those for the forcesoftheDetainingPowerwhoarebilletedinthearea,includingprotectionfromdampnessandadequateheatandlight,beddingandblankets;andsanitaryfacilitieswhicharehygienicandareproperlymaintained .Foodmustbepro-�idedinaquantityandqualityadequatetokeepPOWsingoodhealth,andsafedrinkingwatermustbeadequate .SoapandwatermustalsobesufficientforthepersonaltoiletandlaundryofthePOWs .
88 . Gene�aCon�entionIIIdeclarestheprinciplethatany“unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power . . . seriously endangering the health of a prisoner . . . will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention .”37TheCommissionbelie�esthisprincipleshouldguideitsdeterminationoftheliabilityofthePartiesforalleged�iolationsofanyoftheobligationsnotedabo�e .Ratherthansimplydecidingwhethertherewere�iolations,howe�erminoror transitory, theCommission’s task in thisproceeding is todeter-minewhethertherewere�iolationswhichwarranttheimpositionofdamagesbecausetheyclearlyendangeredtheli�esorhealthofPOWsincontra�entionofthebasicpolicyoftheCon�entionandcustomaryinternationallaw .
89 . Indeed,theclaimsofbothPartiesareimplicitly,ifnotexplicitly,castintermsofserious�iolationsofthestandardssetoutabo�e .NeitherPartyhassoughttoa�oidliabilitybyarguingthatitslimitedresourcesandthedif-ficulten�ironmentalandlogisticalconditionsconfrontingthosechargedwithestablishingandadministeringPOWcampscouldjustifyanyconditionwith-inthemthatdidinfactendangerthehealthofprisoners .Rather,indefenseagainstclaimsofserious�iolations,eachPartyhasreliedprimarilyonthedec-larationsofofficerschargedwiththeadministrationofeachofitscamps .Alloftheseofficersha�eindicatedtheirfullawarenessofthebasicstandardsforcampconditionsofGene�aCon�entionIII,ha�edescribedthestepstakentomeetthem,andha�edeniedthatanyconditionsexistedthatseriouslyendan-geredthehealthofthePOWs .
90 . Facedwiththisconflictinge�idence,theCommissionhasexaminedalloftheclaimsofeachPartyrelatingtoeachcampthatappeartoallegeaserious�iolation(asdefinedabo�e)ofeachofthestandardssetoutabo�eateachcamp .Ithassoughttodeterminewhetherthereexistsintherecordclearandcon�incinge�idencetosupportthoseclaims .Tosustainthisburdenin
36 SeeArticles13and21–29 .37 Article13(emphasisadded) .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 101
thecontextofcampconditions,theCommissionfindsthattheClaimantmustproducecrediblee�idencethat:
(a) portraysaserious�iolation;(b) iscumulati�eandisreinforcedbythesimilarityofthecriticalallegations;(c) isdetailedenoughtoportraythespecificnatureofthe�iolation;and(d) shows that the �iolation existed o�er a period of time longenough to justify the conclusion that it seriously endangered thehealthofatleastsomeofthePOWsinthecamp .
b. Analysis of Health-Related Conditions at Each of Eritrea’s POW Camps
91 . EthiopiaallegedthateachofEritrea’sPOWcampsfailedtopro�idehealthyconditionsofcapti�ity .
92 . Whiletherecertainlyise�idencethatthecampatBarentuwasin�iolationofstandardsprescribedbyGene�aCon�entionIII,itisinsufficienttopro�ethatthehealthofprisonerstherewasseriouslyendangered .Thiscampwasinoperationfornomorethansixweeks,andtheperiodofinternmentofmostoftherelati�elyfewprisonerstherewasforlesserperiods .
93 . Only threeof the thirtyPOWdeclarants speak toconditionsatEmbakala .Thisapparentpaucityoftestimonymaybeexplainedbythefactthatnomorethan150Ethiopianprisoners(outofatotalofapproximately1,100)wereinternedthereandfornolongerthanthreetofourmonthseach .Ne�ertheless, these threedeclarationspresentcumulati�e, reinforcinganddetailedtestimonyconstitutingastrongindictmentoftheconditionsatthecamp .Fromthee�idence,itappearsthatalltheprisonersatEmbakalawerehousedinonesmallbuildingcomposedofcorrugatedmetalsheetswhichwasdi�idedintotworoomsandbecamedangerouslyo�ercrowdedsoonafterthecampwentintooperation .Thefloorofthesequartersconsistedofdirt,whichwaso�ertimecon�ertedtofilthydustasaresultofthecrowdedli�ingcondi-tionsandproblemsofhygiene .Theroofwassolowthattheinmatescouldnotstanderect .Theprisonerswereoftenconfinedinthesequartersduringthedaywithlittleopportunitytogooutside,exceptwhenallowedtorelie�ethem-sel�esinanadjacentfield(onlyonceeachday)andtobathe(nomorethanonceaweek) .Confinedin�eryclosequarters,enduringstiflingheat,oftenstrippedtotheirunderwear,theprisonerswerealsooftenenjoinedtokeepsilentforlongperiodsoftime .Throughouttheirstay,theywerepro�idedwithameagerdietconsistingofbreadandlentilstew .Therewerenolatrinesinthefieldusedfortoileting(onceaday) .Prisonerswhosufferedfromdiarrheawereforcedtorelie�ethemsel�esintheo�ercrowdedquarters .TheCommissionfindsthisdetailede�idencetobeclearandcon�incingandtoconstituteaprima facie
102 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
caseofserious�iolationsatEmbakalaofrequiredhealth-relatedconditions,i.e.,thepro�isionofhealthyaccommodation,whichseriouslyendangeredthehealthofprisoners .
94 . There is more abundant e�idence to justify similar conclusionsregardingconditionsatDigdigta(nineteenPOWdeclarations),Afabet(twentyPOWdeclarations),andNakfa(thirtyPOWdeclarations) .Astoeachofthesecamps,thereis,prima facie,clearandcon�incinge�idencethatEritreafailedtopro�ideadequatehousing,foodandwater,andthatthesefailuresconstitut-edserious�iolationsofGene�aCon�entionIII .Cumulati�e,reinforcinganddetailedtestimonyshowthat,atallofthesecamps,thequarters(consistingofcorrugatedsteelstructures)wereseriouslyo�ercrowded,dirty,lackinginwindowsand�entilation,extremelyhotduringtheday(when,again,prisonerssometimesstrippeddowntotheirunderwear),andcoldatnightbecauseofalackofadequatepro�isionforbeddingandblankets .Manyprisonerstestifiedtothehighincidenceofdiarrheaandtuberculosis,andtodeathsresultingfromthesediseases,andtothefactthatthoseafflictedwiththesediseaseswerenothousedinseparatequarters .
95 . Effortstopro�idesanitarytoiletingfacilitiesatthesecampswere,atbest,limited .Ateachcamp,prisonersusedadjacentfields,twiceadayatpre-scribedandlimitedperiodsoftime .Thosewhoweresick(e.g.,withdiarrhea)orotherwiseinneedduringotherperiodsofthedayornightwereforcedtousecontainersorholesduginthegroundoftheirsleepingquarters .Thesmellsandtheabsenceofwatertowashaftertoiletingexacerbatedthead�ersecondi-tionsofhygiene .
96 . Indeed,pro�isionofadequatewaterforbothdrinkingandbathingwasaseriousproblematallthreecamps .Ineach,waterwasbroughtinbytankertrucks .AtDigdigta,thedrinkingwaterpro�idedduringtheday(whenhous-ingconditionswerestifling)wasoftentoohottodrinkinamountsadequatetorelie�ethirst,aswellasinsufficientinquantity .AtAfabet,drinkingwaterwasinshortsupplyandsometimesquite“salty .”AtNakfa,therewereoftenseriouswatershortagesbecausethetankertrucksfailedtoappearasscheduledorfailedtosupplyenoughtomeettheneedsofthecamp .Thereisalsotestimonythatthewatersecuredfromothersources(rainbarrelsandnearby“streams”)wasdirtyandinsect-ridden .Waterforbathingwasalsoinshortsupply;prisonerswereallowed,atbest,tobatheandlaunderonlyonceaweek .
97 . Virtuallyallofthedeclarantsallegethat,atallofthesecamps,thefoodpro�idedconsistedofinedible(e.g.,“dirty,”“worm-ridden”)breadandlentilstew .ThetestimonyaboutfoodatNakfaindicatesthatthedietwasfre-quently insufficient inquantityandqualityandthattherewasoftenwide-spreadhunger .
98 . Indeed,Nakfapresentsadisturbingpictureofinadequateeffortstoprepareinad�anceforthehealthconditionsofprisoners .Atanearliertime,thissitehadser�edasanhistoric,keybaseforEPLFforcesduringtheirlongwarforindependenceagainstthearmiesoftheDerg .Theisolated,ruggedterrainthere
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 103
includesundergroundca�es .LongabandonedaftertheDergcollapsedin1991,NakfawaschoseninMay2000asthesiteforanewcamptowhichallprisonersshouldberemo�ed .Thepreparationsforreceptionofprisonersappeartoha�ebeeninadequate .Thereisconsiderabletestimonythatthefirstgroupofprisonerstoarri�eatNakfawasputinunderground,windowless,dark,dankanddirtyquarters,whichwerelitteredwithhumantrashandthedungofdonkeysandgoats,andthereafterthesepremiseswerene�erproperlycleaned .Thise�idence,coupledwiththatportrayingtheproblemsencounteredinpro�idingenoughwaterfortheprisoners,suggestsaseriousfailuretomeetthebasicobligationofGene�aCon�entionIIItopro�ideattheoutset“premises . . .affordinge�eryguaranteeofhygieneandhealthfulness .”38
99 . Theconditionsdescribedabo�eexistedinacontextwhere,asdis-cussedelsewhere,thereisalsoclearandcon�incinge�idenceofphysicalmis-treatmentofprisoners(includingbeatingsorthreatsof�iolenceforthosewhoaskedtobeallowedtorelie�ethemsel�esoutsideoftheirsleepingquartersattimesotherthantheperiodprescribedfortoiletinginthefield)andclearandcon�incinge�idenceofarduousforcedlaboratallofthecamps .Theseharshregimesofdisciplineandlaborexacerbatedthedangerstothehealthofprisonerscreatedbythesub-standardconditionsofhousing,sanitation,food,waterandbathing .
100 . Eritreahasfailedtorebuttheprima faciecaseestablishedbyEthio-pia .Eritrea’srebuttaldependedprimarilyonthedeclarationsoftwoseniorofficerswhowerein�ol�edintheadministrationofthePOWcamps,whodidnottestifyatthehearing .
101 . Eritreapro�idedthedeclarationofanArmycolonel,whichtellstheCommissionthathewasbasedattheEritreanMinistryofDefenseinAsmarawherehecommandedtheDepartmentofMilitaryPolice .Thisofficerstatedthathewasresponsible for“allaspectsofo�ersight”o�erallof theprisoncamps,includingprocuringthenecessarysuppliesfortheiroperation .Hetes-tifiedthatheorderedsufficientsuppliesforeachcamptopro�ideadequatebedding,blankets, clothing, soapandrazors foreachprisoner; topro�ideeachcampwithenoughpastaand�egetablestosupplement,twiceaweek,thedailydietofbreadandlentils;andtosupplymeatforcelebrationsofreligiousholidays .Insupportofthistestimony,Eritreasubmittedamassi�enumberofreceipts,�irtuallyallwritteninTigrinya,which,theCommissionistold,reflectthepurchasesduringathree-yearperiodoftheabo�e“specialtyitems”fortheprisoncamps .Sincethesedocumentsha�enotbeentranslatedintoEnglish,asrequiredbyArticle12oftheCommission’sRulesofProcedure,theCommissionisunabletoanalyzetheimplicationsofthissubmission .Moreo-�er,sincethecolonelhadbeenbasedinAsmara,hedidnottestifydirectlyaboutthefoodoranyotherhealthconditionsatanyofthecamps .
38 Gene�aCon�entionIII,Article22 .
104 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
102 . ThedeclarationofanEritreanArmylieutenantcolonelwhohelpedwiththeactualadministrationofDigdigta,AfabetandNakfacontains�irtu-allynotestimonyaboutthefoodpro�idedatthesecamps .Thus,theCommis-sionisunabletoknowwithanycertaintywhether,andtowhatextent,thesesuppliesofsupplementalfoodactuallyreachedtheintendedbeneficiariesatanyofthesecamps .ThisdeclarationistheonlyonetheCommissionhasfromanofficerwhohaddirectresponsibilityfortheadministrationofcampsandwhowasinapositiontowitness,firsthand,thehealthconditionsthere .Thebulkofthisdeclarationdealswiththisofficer’seffortstoad�iseprisonersoftheirdutiesandofproceduresforraisingquestionsaboutthem .Nowheredoesthisdeclarationgi�eadescriptionofthehousing,sanitaryfacilities,water,bathingopportunitiesand foodpro�ided forprisonersat the threecampswhichheadministered .NordoesEritrea’sCounter-Memorialpro�ideaguidetootherdirecte�idencewhichmightrebutEthiopia’se�idence .
103 . Inconclusion,theCommissionfindsthattheconditionsofhous-ing,sanitation,drinkingwater,bathingopportunitiesandfoodattheprisoncampsatEmbakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfaweresuchastoconstituteaserious�iolationbyEritreaofitsbasicdutiestoprotectthehealthofprison-ersinitscustody,andthesefailuresseriouslyendangeredthehealthoftheseprisonersandthusconstituteda�iolationbyEritreaofapplicableinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Consequently,EritreaisliableforthisendangermentofthehealthofEthiopianPOWs .
6. Inadequate Medical Care in Camps
104 . ADetainingPowerhastheobligationtopro�ideinitsPOWcampsthemedicalassistanceonwhichthePOWsdependtohealtheirbattlewoundsandtopre�entfurtherdamagetotheirhealth .Thisdutyisparticularlycrucialincampswithalargepopulationandagreaterriskoftransmissionofconta-giousdiseases .
105 . Theprotectionspro�idedbyArticles15,20,29,30,31,109and110ofGene�aCon�entionIIIareunconditional .Theserules,whicharebasedonsimilarrulesinArticles4,13,14,15and68oftheGene�aCon�entionRelati�etotheTreatmentofPrisonersofWarofJuly27,1929,39arepartofcustomaryinternationallaw .
106 . ManyoftheserulesarebroadlyphrasedanddonotcharacterizepreciselythequalityorextentofmedicalcarenecessaryforPOWs .Article15speaksofthe“medicalattentionrequiredbytheirstateofhealth;”Article30requiresinfirmariestopro�ideprisoners“theattentiontheyrequire”(emphasisadded) .Thelackofdefinitionregardingthequalityorextentofcare“required”ledtodifficultiesinassessingthisclaim .Indeed,standardsofmedicalpractice�aryaroundtheworld,andtheremayberoomfor�aryingassessmentsofwhat
39 118L .N .T .S .pp .343–411 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 105
isrequiredinaspecificsituation .Moreo�er,theCommissionismindfulthatitisdealingherewithtwocountrieswith�erylimitedresources .
107 . Ne�ertheless,theCommissionbelie�escertainprinciplescanbeappliedinassessingthemedicalcarepro�idedtoPOWs .TheCommissionbeganbyconsideringArticle15’sconceptofthemaintenanceofPOWs,whichitunderstandstomeanthataDetainingPowermustdothosethingsrequiredtopre�entsignificantdeteriorationofaprisoner’shealth .Next,theCommis-sionpaidparticularattentiontomeasuresthatarespecificallyrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIII,suchastherequirementsforsegregationofprisonerswithinfectiousdiseasesandforregularphysicalexaminations .
a. Ethiopia’s Claims and Evidence
108 . AlargeproportionofEthiopianPOWdeclarationscontaindetailedallegationsthatthea�ailablemedicalcarewasinadequateinallEritreanPOWcamps .Thespecificallegations,howe�er,�aryconsiderablyandaresometimesmutually inconsistent . While some declarants recount, for example, thatmedicalcarewassimplyuna�ailableataspecificcamp,othersstatethattheyrecei�edtreatmentinthesamecampbutthatitfailedtohealtheirwoundsorillnesses .Consequently,whiletheCommissionissatisfiedthatmedicalcarewasa�ailableateachpermanentcamp,itisdifficulttoassessitsadequacy .
109 . Asnotedabo�e,internationallawrequireseffecti�emeasurestomaintainprisoners’health .Gi�entheoftenconflictinge�idenceregardingthedetailsofmedicalcarepro�idedtotheEthiopianPOWs,theCommis-sionconsidered�ariouspossiblemeasurestoassesscompliancewiththisbasicobligation .Whilesomewritersha�eidentifiedweightlossduringcapti�ityasapossiblemeasureoftheo�erallstandardofhealth,40 thismeasurewasnota�ailablehere .EthiopiadidnotarguethatPOWslostsubstantialweightduringtheircapti�ity .TheoneformerEthiopianPOWwitnessatthehearingtestifiedthathehadlostperhapsfi�ekilogramsduringhisnearlyfouryearsofdetention,andthathishealthwasnotunderminedwhenhereturnedtoEthiopia;41therewasnoallegationthathisweightlossper se indicatedinad-equatemedicalcare .
110 . TheCommissionwas,howe�er,sadlyimpressedbythehighnumberofEthiopianPOWswhodiedintheEritreancamps .Asignificantmortalityrateamongagroupofpredominantlyyoungpersonsisobjecti�elycauseforconcern .Thee�idence,althoughnotwhollyconsistent,clearlyindicatedanabnormallyhighrateofdeathsamongtheprisoners inEritreancamps .InresponsetoquestioningfromtheCommission,theEthiopianPOWwitnesstestifiedatthehearingthat,withinhisgroupoffifty-fi�ePOWs(withwhomhe
40 See,e.g .,Le�ie,supranote28,atp .133 .41 Transcriptp .169 .
106 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
mo�edfromcamptocamp),fourhaddied .42Se�eraldeclarationsstatethat,ofthetotalpopulationofsome1,100EthiopianPOWs,forty-eightdied .Ethiopiaga�ealistoffifty-onePOWswhodidnotsur�i�ethecamps .(Eritreaestimatedthatthirty-ninePOWsdiedincapti�ity .)Significantly,therewassubstantialandreinforcinge�idencethatmanyofthesedeathsresultedfromdiarrhea,tuberculosisandotherillnessesthatcouldha�ebeena�oided,alle�iatedorcuredbypropermedicalcare .
111 . IntheCommission’s�iew,thishighdeathtoll,combinedwiththeotherspecificseriousdeficienciesdiscussedbelow, isclearandcon�incinge�idencethatEritreadidnotgi�ethetotalityofPOWsthebasicmedicalcarerequiredtokeepthemingoodhealthasrequiredbyGene�aCon�entionIII,andconsequentlyconstitutesaprima faciecase .
112 . The Ethiopian POW declarations contain frequent complaintsthattreatmentwasinadequate .Manyindicatethatclinicpersonneloftenga�eprisonersonlypainkillers,andnotantibioticsorothercriticaldrugs .Manyindicatethattreatmentwasoftendelayed,therebyad�erselyaffectingreco�eryfromwoundsorillness .Thee�idencesuggeststhatdelaysofonetose�eraldayswerecommon,particularlyjustafterthearri�alofnewPOWsatacamp .Se�eralrecountedinstancesinwhichpatientswerenottransferredtohospitalsuntilitwastoolateforsur�i�al .Somecontainallegationsthatmedicalperson-nelwereinadequate,althoughthee�idenceconflictedinthisregard .
113 . TheEthiopianPOWdeclarantsalsotestifytothelackofbasicpre-�enti�ecare .Numerousstatementsindicatethatnoregularmedicalexamina-tionstookplace,exceptperhapsatNakfa .Thedeclarationsalsoindicatethattuberculosissufferersli�edtogetherwithotherPOWs .
b. Eritrea’s Defense
114 . Eritreasoughttopro�ethatithadpro�idedsubstantialmedicalcarebysubmittingdeclarationsfromse�eralmedicalpersonnelandamassi�eamountofmedicalrecords .Howe�er,muchofthemedicalrecorde�idencewasillegible,disorganized,outofchronologicalorder,sometimeso�erlap-pingandapparentlyincomplete .TheCommissioncouldnot,therefore,relyonmuchofthise�idence .
115 . Eritrea’s e�idence did demonstrate that many Ethiopian POWswerepro�idedwithmedicalattention,primarilyatthecampclinicswiththeser�icesofparamedicalpersonnel .SomePOWswithseriousdiseasesorwhorequiredspecialtreatmentwerereferredonoccasiontoamorespecializedhospital(e.g.,Keren,Afabet,Ghindu,Nakfa) .Therewase�idencethatEritreapro�idedfordentalcareeitherinhospitalsorinthecampclinicbyha�ingdentists�isit .Likewise,therewase�idencethatEritreaga�eafewPOWsexten-si�emedicaltreatment,includingmultiplesurgicalinter�entions .Itoccasion-
42 Transcriptpp .170–171 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 107
allypro�ideddrugsand�itaminsbeyondsuchfewdrugsandpainrelie�ersaswerea�ailableattheclinics .
c. The Commission’s Conclusions
116 . O�erall,whiletheCommissionissatisfiedfromthee�idencethatEritreamadeeffortstopro�idemedicalcareandthatsomecarewasa�ailableateachpermanentcamp,Eritrea’se�idenceisinadequatetoallowtheCom-missiontoformjudgementsregardingtheextentorqualityofhealthcaresuf-ficienttoo�ercomeEthiopia’sprima faciecase .
117 . The camp clinic logs (where readable) do show that numerousPOWswenttotheclinics,buttheycannotestablishthatcarewasappropriateorthatallPOWsinneedofmedicalattentionweretreatedinatimelymannero�erthefullcourseoftheircapti�ity .Forexample,fromtherecordsitappearsthattheclinicsdidnotregisterpatientsonadailybasis .Underinternationalhumanitarianlaw,aPOWhastherighttoseekmedicalattentiononhisorherowninitiati�eandtorecei�ethecontinuousmedicalattentionrequiredbyhisorherstateofhealth whichrequiresdailyaccesstoaclinic .
118 . InternationalhumanitarianlawalsorequiresthatPOWsbetreat-edataspecializedhospitalorfacilitywhenrequiredmedicalcarecannotbegi�eninacampclinic .ThehospitalrecordssubmittedbyEritrea,howe�er,arenotsufficienttoestablishthatallPOWsinneedofspecializedtreatmentwerereferredtohospitals .Moreo�er,aquantitati�eanalysisofthoserecordsshowsthat,whileafewrelatetotreatmentinthefirsthalfof1999atDigdigta,nearlyonehalfrelatetotheperiodfromAugusttoDecember2000andonequarterto2001and2002,i.e.,thetimeperiodafterEritreaaccededtotheGene�aCon-�entionsandICRCcamp�isitsstarted .OnlyafewrecordsrelatetotreatmentbetweenJuly1999andMay2000,whenthePOWsweredetainedatAfabet,andnonerelatestothetimewhenBarentuandEmbakalawereopen .
119 . Likewise,themedicinesupplyreportssubmittedbyEritreaindi-catethatEritreadistributedsomedrugsand�itaminstothePOWs,buttheydonotpro�ethatEritreapro�idedadequatedrugstoallPOWsinthecamps .Itisstrikingthat,accordingtothee�idencesubmitted,Eritreaapparentlydis-tributedsubstantiallymoreVitaminA,BandCandmulti-�itaminstoPOWsafterAugust2000thanbefore .
120 . Pre�enti�ecareisamatterofparticularconcerntotheCommission .Ase�idencedbytheirprominenceinGene�aCon�entionIII,regularmedicalexaminationsofallPOWsare�italtomaintaininggoodhealthinacloseden�i-ronmentwherediseasesareeasilyspread .TheCommissionconsidersmonthlyexaminationsofthecamppopulationtobeapre�enti�emeasureformingpartoftheDetainingPower’sobligationsunderinternationalcustomarylaw .
121 . TheCommissionmustconcludethatEritreafailedtotakese�eralimportantpre�entati�ecaremeasuresspecificallymandatedbyinternational
108 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
law .Inassessingthisissue,theCommissionlookednotjusttoEthiopiabutalsotoEritrea,whichadministeredthecampsandhadthebestknowledgeofitsownpractices .
122 . Asnoted,Ethiopiasubmittedse�eraldeclarationsindicatingthatnoregularmedicalexaminationstookplace .EritreafailedtosubmitrecordsinrebuttaldemonstratingthatpersonalPOWmedicaldata,includingweightrecords,weremaintainedonaregularbasis .Itappearsthathealthinspectionswereperformedonlyinthelastmonthsofcapti�ity .
123 . Thee�idencealsoreflectsthatEritreafailedtosegregatecertaininfectedprisoners .POWsareparticularlysusceptibletocontagiousdiseasessuchastuberculosis,andcustomaryinternationallaw(reflectingproperbasichealthcare)requiresthatinfectedPOWsbeisolatedfromthegeneralPOWpopulation . Se�eral Ethiopian POW declarants describe how tuberculosispatientswerelodgedwiththeotherPOWs,e�idencewhichwasnoteffecti�elyrebuttedbyEritrea .Thecampauthoritiesshouldha�edetectedcontagiousdiseasesasearlyaspossibleandorganizedspecialwards .
124 . Accordingly,theCommissionholdsthatEritrea�iolatedinterna-tionallawfromMay1998untilthelastEthiopianPOWswerereleasedandrepatriatedinAugust2002,byfailingtopro�ideEthiopianPOWswiththerequiredminimumstandardofmedicalcare .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforthis�iolationofcustomaryinternationallaw .
125 . Inclosing,theCommissionnotesitsrecognitionthatEritreaandEthiopiacannot,atleastatpresent,berequiredtoha�ethesamestandardsformedicaltreatmentasde�elopedcountries .Howe�er,scarcityoffinancesandinfrastructurecannotexcuseafailuretogranttheminimumstandardofmedicalcarerequiredbyinternationalhumanitarianlaw .Thecostofsuchcareisnot,inanye�ent,substantialincomparisonwiththeothercostsimposedbythearmedconflict .
7. Unlawful Conditions of Labor
126 . EthiopiaclaimsthatEritreaforcedPOWstoworkinconditionsthat�iolatedrequirementsofArticles13,14,26,27,49–55,62,65and66ofGene�aCon�entionIII .
127 . Article49ofGene�aCon�entionIIIdoesnotforbidaDetainingPowertocompelPOWswhoarephysicallyfittowork,butitdoesforbidcom-pellingofficerstowork .ThedeclarationsbyformerEthiopianPOWsmakeclearthat,whilethemostseriouslydisabledweregenerallyexcusedfromwork,othersickorwoundedPOWswhowerenotphysicallyfitwerenotexcusedandweregenerallyforcedtoworkandthatofficerswereforcedtowork .
128 . Thee�idencealsoindicatesthatEthiopianPOWs,whileatworkatAfabet,DigdigtaandNakfa,werefrequentlybeatenbytheEritreanguardswhentheytriedtotakerestsorfoundthemsel�esunabletocarryhea�yloads .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 109
SuchtreatmentofPOWsisnotonlya�iolationofArticle13ofGene�aCon-�entionIII,whichrequireshumanetreatmentofPOWsandtheirprotectionfromactsof�iolence,butalsoofArticle51,whichforbidsmakinglabormorearduousthroughdisciplinarymeasures,a fortioriincludingbeatingsandotherphysicalpunishments .
129 . Thee�idencealsocompelsthefindingthatEritreafailedtopro-�idePOWsatAfabet,DigdigtaandNakfawithsuitableworkingconditions,asrequiredbyArticles27and51ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Examplesincludethedepri�ationoffootwearwhilethePOWswereforcedtoworkonroadcon-struction,stonequarryingorcarrying,orfirewoodcollection,andtherefusalofaccesstodrinkingwaterexceptduringlunch .
130 . Thereisalsoe�idence,whichwasnotrebutted,thatPOWsatAfa-bet,DigdigtaandNakfawereoftenrequiredtoworkexcessi�ehours,withoutsufficientbreaks,inbreachofArticle53ofGene�aCon�entionIII .
131 . TheCommissionfindsthatthee�idence,whichwasnotrebutted,establishesthatnoneofthePOWswaspaidforhiswork,asrequiredbyArti-cles54and62ofGene�aCon�entionIII .
132 . EthiopiaalsohasarguedthatforthePOWstobeforcedtoworkinweakhealth,hungryandthirsty,withoutappropriatefootwear,andunderthethreatofbeatings,washumiliatingandthereforeinbreachofArticle52ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Howe�er,theCommissionbelie�esthatisnotthepurportofthatArticle .
133 . Finally,EthiopiaassertedthatEritrearequireditsPOWstoper-formworkofamilitarycharacterinbreachofArticle50ofGene�aCon�en-tionIII .Howe�er,nosufficiente�idencehasbeensubmittedforthisallegation .Tobuildresidencehousesandotherfacilitiesforthecampandtheguardsisnotworkofamilitarycharacter,butconcernstheinstallationofthecamp,andisallowedunderArticle50 .Similarly,underArticle50,roadsareconsideredworksofpublicutilityandthereforeworkonthemispermissible,unlessitispro�enthattheyha�eamilitarycharacterorpurpose .Ethiopiadidnotsub-mitsuche�idence .Consequently,theCommissiondoesnotfindthatEritreabreachedArticle50ofGene�aCon�entionIII .
134 . Inconclusion,theCommissionholdsthatEritreahassubjectedEthiopianPOWstoconditionsoflaborthat�iolatedArticles13,27,49,51,53,54and62ofGene�aCon�entionIII .Consequently,Eritreaisliablefortheseunlawfullaborconditions .
8. Conditions of Transfer Between Camps
135 . TheCommissionturnsnexttoEthiopia’sallegationsthatEritreatreatedPOWsinhumanelyinthecourseoftransferbetweencamps .AsrecitedbyEthiopia,Articles46and47ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequiretheDetainingPowertoconducttransfershumanely .Ataminimum,aswithe�acuationfrom
110 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
thefront,theDetainingPowershouldnotsubjectPOWstotransferconditionslessfa�orablethanthosetowhichitsownforcesaresubjected .Inallcircum-stances,theDetainingPowermustconsidertheinterestsoftheprisonerssoasnottomakerepatriationmoredifficultthannecessary,andshouldpro�idefood,water,shelterandmedicalattention .Thesickandwoundedshouldnotbetransferredifitendangerstheirreco�ery,unlessmandatedbysafetyreasons .
136 . TheEthiopianPOWdeclarationsconsistentlyrecounthoursanddaysoftra�elono�ercrowdedmilitarytrucksorbuses,o�erroughroads,inextremesofheatandcold,withfewifanytoiletbreaksandlittleifanyfoodandwater .Inrebuttal,Eritreapresentede�idencethatitsownforces,atleasttosomeextent,enduredthesesamedifficulttransportationconditions,particularlygi�-enthelackofpa�edroadsinEritrea .TheCommissionedrecognizesthatdrasti-callylimitedEritreanresourcesandinfrastructuremadetransferofprisonersinthisconflictuna�oidablymiserable,but,again,onlytosomeextent .
137 . Howe�er,thee�idencealsoreflectsthat,toacertainandcriticalextent,EritreadidnotdoallwithinitsabilitytomaketransferofthePOWsashumaneaspossible .Thee�idenceindicatesthattransferswereoftenaccom-paniedbydeliberatephysicalabusebyguards,andthatEritreapro�idednoeffecti�emeasurestopre�entsuchmisconduct .TheCommissionistroubledbyaccounts,fortunatelyfew,ofpurposefullycrueltreatment;onedeclarationdescribesEritreansoldierspouringfuelonthebedoftransporttruckbeforeatwel�e-hourtripinopensun .Ofe�engreaterconcernistheclearandcon-�incinge�idencepresentedbyEthiopiathatEritreansoldiersfrequentlybeatPOWsduringtransfer .Particularlyseriousisrepetiti�ee�idenceofEritreansoldiersbeatingthesickandwounded .Inonecase,twodeclarationsrecountedthedeathofonesickEthiopianprisonerwhowasthrownfromatruckonthetransferfromAfabettoNakfaandlefttodie .
138 . In theabsenceofeffecti�erebuttalbyEritrea, theCommissionfinds Eritrea liable for permitting unnecessary suffering of POWs duringtransferbetweencamps .
9. Treatment of the Dead
139 . Ethiopia,unlikeEritrea,brought separate clams foralleged�io-lationsofcustomaryinternationallawrequirementsfollowingthedeathofaPOW .SpecificallycitingArticles120and121ofGene�aCon�entionIII,Ethio-piaallegedthatEritreafailedtopro�idemedicalexaminationanddeathcertifi-catesforPOWswhodiedincapti�ity,toin�estigatepotentialnon-naturalcausesofdeath,ortoensurehonorableburialwithreligiousritesinmarkedgra�es .
140 . Thereislittlee�idenceintherecordconcerningtreatmentofthedead .OnlyasmallnumberoftheEthiopianPOWdeclarationsaddressthisissue,andtheydosoinaninconsistentfashion .Forexample,althoughallofthedeclarantswereinternedatNakfa,onlythreerecountthatprisonerswerenotallowedtoburytheirdead(forsomeperiodoftime)atNakfa .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 111
141 . Intheabsenceofclearandcon�incinge�idencefromEthiopia,theCommissiondoesnotfindEritrealiablefor�iolatinginternationallawobliga-tionsconcerningtreatmentofEthiopiaPOWswhodiedincapti�ity .
10. Failure to Post Camp Rules and Allow Complaints
142 . As noted pre�iously, Gene�a Con�ention III establishes anextremelydetailedregime .EarliersectionsofthisAwardaddressEthiopia’sclaimsalleging�iolationsofcoreelementsofthisregimein�ol�ingkillings,physicalormentalabuseofPOWs,ormatters�italtoPOWs’sur�i�al,suchasfood,housingandmedicalcare .
143 . ThisfinalsectionaddressesEthiopia’sclaimsin�ol�ingtwosetsofobligationsofasomewhatdifferentcharacter .Ethiopiaclaims�iolationsofrequirementsto(a)postcampregulationsand(b)ha�ecomplaintprocedures .Thesepro�isionsestablishadministrati�eorproceduralrequirementspartlyaimedatprotectingPOWs’rightsoratremedyingdeficiencies .TheCommis-siondoesnotmeantominimizetheirroleinthetotalschemeofprotectionundertheCon�ention .Ne�ertheless,theseclaimsloomlesslargethanmanyothersconsideredpre�iously .
a. Camp Regulations
144 . Article41ofGene�aCon�entionIIIrequirese�eryPOWcamptopostboththeCon�entionand“regulations,orders,noticesandpublicationsofe�erykind,”whereprisonersmayreadthemintheprisoners’language .PriortoAugust14,2000,theGene�aCon�entionwasnotinforcebetweentheParties;theCommissionseesnobasistoholdthatcustomarylawrequiresthepostingoftheCon�entionbeforethatdate .Howe�er,theCommissionfindsthatthereisacustomaryobligationtopostcampregulationsinaclearandaccessiblelocationandotherwisetoensurethatPOWsareawareoftheirrightsandobligations .
145 . Ethiopia adduced little e�idence to support this claim . It citedresponsesonafewofitsclaimsformsregardingtheallegedlackofpostedreg-ulationsatEritrea’sthreeinitialcamps,buttheCommissionheldearlierthatitisunabletorelyontheclaimsformsgi�enthecircumstancesoftheircollec-tionandtheuncertainreliabilityoftheinformationtheycontain .Accordingly,theclaimastothesethreecampsmustfailforlackofproof .EthiopiacitesonegenerallyphrasedwitnessdeclarationconcerningAfabet,andcitesaseconddeclarationtoshowthelackofpostedregulationsatNakfa .Eritreapresentedunrebuttede�idencethattherewerecamprulesande�idencesuggestingthatthoseruleswerereadouttoprisoners .Howe�er,itdidnotdirectlyrepresenttotheCommissionthattheruleswereposted .146 . Gi�enthesparsee�idencesupportingEthiopia’sclaimsregardingthesituationsatallfi�ecampsandtheCommission’srequirementthatclaimsmustbeestablishedbyclearandcon�incinge�idence,thisclaimmustberejectedforfailureofproof .
112 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
b. Complaint Procedures147 . EthiopiaalsoclaimedthatEritreadidnotpro�ideeffecti�ecom-
plaintprocedures .Article78ofGene�aCon�entionIIIassuresPOWstherightto“makeknown”tothemilitaryauthoritiesholdingthem“requests”regard-ingtheirconditions .Requestsandcomplaintscannotbelimited,cannotbepunished,andmustbetransmittedimmediately .
148 . Takingaccount,forinstance,ofthepracticeduringWorldWarIcitedbyEthiopia43andtheinclusionofthisconceptinthe1929Con�ention,theCommissionfindsthatbothcustomarylawandtheCon�entionguaranteePOWsarighttocomplainabouttheirconditionsofdetentionfreefromretri-bution .Ethiopia’se�idence,althoughnotasextensi�easonsomeothermorefundamentalissues,establishesthatthisrightfrequentlywasnotallowedandthatcomplainingprisonersweresubjectedtose�erepunishments .
149 . Here,asinthepre�iousclaim,Ethiopiacitesse�eralclaimsformsdiscussingtheallegedlackofcomplaintprocedures .Asnotedabo�e,theCom-missionisnotpreparedtorelyontheseformsbecauseoftheiruncertainrelia-bility .Howe�er,Ethiopiaalsocitedanumberofconsistentwitnessdeclarationspro�idingcumulati�esupportforitsclaim .Ethiopia’se�idencesuggestedthatprisonerssometimescomplainedtoseniorcampofficers,althoughwithouteffect .Howe�er,accountsofcomplainingprisonersbeingbeatenorharassedbylower-rankingpersonnelweremuchmorecommon .TheseincludedtwoformerPOWswhocomplainedofbeingbeatenatBarentu;allegationsthatcomplaintstothecampcommanderandtomedicalpersonnelatEmbakalawereineffecti�e;andaccountsofthelackofcomplaintproceduresandofbeat-ingofcomplainingprisonersatDigdigtaandatAfabet .Conditionsappeartoha�ebeenparticularlyharshforcomplainingprisonersatNakfa .
150 . Basedonclearandcon�incinge�idence,theCommissionfindsthatEritrea,in�iolationofitsobligationsunderinternationallaw,didnotallowEthi-opianPOWsheldatanyofitscampstocomplainabouttheirconditionsandtoseekredress .Further,thee�idenceshowsthatinallofthecamps,butparticularlyinNakfa,prisonerswhoattemptedtocomplainwereoftensubjectedtohea�yandunlawfulsanctions,includingsegregationfromtherestofthecamppopula-tionandbeatingsbyguards .Consequently,Eritreaisliableforthese�iolations .
V. awardIn�iewoftheforegoing,theCommissiondeterminesasfollows:
a. Jurisdiction1 . TheCommissionlacksjurisdictiono�erclaimsthatwerenotfiledby
December12,2001 .TheclaimassertedbytheClaimantforthefirsttimein
43 Transcriptp .103 .
PartIII—prisonersofwar ethiopia’sclaim4 113
itsMemorialconcerningdelayedrepatriationofPOWsbytheRespondentisdismissedforlackofjurisdiction .
2 . Allotherclaimsassertedinthisproceedingarewithinthejurisdic-tionoftheCommission .
b. applicable law
1 . WithrespecttomatterspriortoEritrea’saccessiontotheGene�aCon�entionsof1949,effecti�eAugust14,2000,theinternationallawappli-cabletothisclaimiscustomaryinternationallaw,includingcustomaryinter-nationalhumanitarian lawasexemplifiedbytherele�antpartsof thefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949 .
2 . Whene�ereitherPartyassertsthataparticularrele�antpro�isionofthoseCon�entionswasnotpartofcustomaryinternationallawattherele�anttime,theburdenofproofwillbeontheassertingParty .
3 . WithrespecttomatterssubsequenttoAugust14,2000,theinter-nationallawapplicabletothisclaimistherele�antpartsofthefourGene�aCon�entionsof1949,aswellascustomaryinternationallaw .
C. evidentiary issues
TheCommissionrequiresclearandcon�incinge�idencetoestablishtheliabilityofaPartyfora�iolationofapplicableinternationallaw .
d. findings of liability for Violation of international law
TheRespondentisliabletotheClaimantforthefollowing�iolationsofinternationallawcommittedbyitsmilitarypersonnelandbyotherofficialsoftheStateofEritrea:
1 . Forrefusingpermission,fromMay1998untilAugust2000,fortheICRCtosenddelegatesto�isitallplaceswhereEthiopianPOWsweredetained,toregisterthosePOWs,tointer�iewthemwithoutwitnesses,andtopro�idethemwithreliefandser�icescustomarilypro�ided;
2 . ForfailingtoprotectEthiopianPOWsfrombeingkilledatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;
3 . ForpermittingbeatingsorotherphysicalabuseofEthiopianPOWs,whichoccurredfrequentlyatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;
4 . Fordepri�ingallEthiopianPOWsof footwearduring longwalksfromtheplaceofcapturetothefirstplaceofdetention;
114 ERITREA/ETHIOPIA
5 . ForpermittingitspersonneltothreatenandbeatEthiopianPOWsduringinterrogations,whichoccurredfrequentlyatcaptureoritsimmediateaftermath;
6 . ForthegeneralconfiscationofthepersonalpropertyofEthiopianPOWs;
7 . Forpermittingper�asi�eandcontinuousphysicalandmentalabuseofEthiopianPOWsinitscampsfromMay1998untilAugust2002;
8 . For seriously endangering the health of Ethiopian POWs at theEmbakala,Digdigta,AfabetandNakfacampsbyfailingtopro�ideadequatehousing,sanitation,drinkingwater,bathingopportunitiesandfood;
9 . Forfailingtopro�idethestandardofmedicalcarerequiredforEthi-opianPOWs,andforfailingtopro�iderequiredpre�enti�ecarebysegregatingprisonerswithinfectiousdiseasesandconductingregularphysicalexamina-tions,fromMay1998untilAugust2002;
10 . ForsubjectingEthiopianPOWstounlawfulconditionsoflabor;11 . For permitting unnecessary suffering of POWs during transfer
betweencamps;and12 . ForfailingtoallowtheEthiopianPOWsinitscampstocomplain
abouttheirconditionsandtoseekredress,andfrequentlypunishingPOWswhoattemptedtocomplain .
e. other findings1 . ClaimsbasedonallegedbreachesbytheRespondentofthejus ad
bellumaredeferredfordecisioninasubsequentproceeding .2 . Allotherclaimspresentedinthiscasearedismissed .
DoneatTheHague,this1stdayofJuly2003,
[Signed]PresidentHansvanHoutte
[Signed]GeorgeH .Aldrich
[Signed]JohnR .Crook
[Signed]JamesC .N .Paul
[Signed]LucyReed