aquiescencia

En anteriores posts (aquí y aquí) comenté, entre otros recursos jurídicos, la demanda de Georgia contra Rusia ante la CIJ y la petición de medidas provisionales. Ayer la CIJ decidió adoptar dichas medidas provisionales en una decisión partida, ocho votos contra siete. Esta es la parte dispositiva de la decisión de la Corte:

149. For these reasons,

THE COURT, reminding the Parties of their duty to comply with their obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

Indicates the following provisional measures:

A. By eight votes to seven,

Both Parties, within South Ossetia and Abkhazia and adjacent areas in Georgia, shall

(1) refrain from any act of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions;

(2) abstain from sponsoring, defending or supporting racial discrimination by any persons or organizations,

(3) do all in their power, whenever and wherever possible, to ensure, without distinction as to national or ethnic origin,

(i) security of persons;

(ii) the right of persons to freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;

(iii) the protection of the property of displaced persons and of refugees;

(4) do all in their power to ensure that public authorities and public institutions under their control or influence do not engage in acts of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions;

IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Judge ad hoc Gaja;

AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Tomka, Bennouna, Skotnikov;

B. By eight votes to seven,

Both Parties shall facilitate, and refrain from placing any impediment to, humanitarian assistance in support of the rights to which the local population are entitled under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor; Judge ad hoc Gaja;

AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Tomka, Bennouna, Skotnikov;

C. By eight votes to seven,

Each Party shall refrain from any action which might prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect of whatever judgment the Court may render in the case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve;

IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor; Judge ad hoc Gaja;

AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Tomka, Bennouna, Skotnikov;

D. By eight votes to seven,

Each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with the above provisional measures;

IN FAVOUR: President Higgins; Judges Buergenthal, Owada, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor; Judge ad hoc Gaja;

AGAINST: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Tomka, Bennouna, Skotnikov.

La decisión completa de la Corte completa puede consultarse aquí. Los siete jueces que votaron en contra adjuntan una opinión disidente conjunta en la que presentan argumentos muy bien articulados sobre la ausencia de las condiciones necesarias para adoptar medidas provisionales. Por último, hay una declaración del juez ad hoc Gaja, que expresa su desacuerdo con la inclusión de Georgia entre los destinatarios de las medidas adoptadas por la Corte. En realidad, la opinión disidente y la declaración del juez ad hoc son ilustrativas de la falta de concreción de las medidas adoptadas, en el sentido de que la parte dispositiva parece constatar la obligación de la Georgia y Rusia de respetar sus obligaciones según la Convención internacional sobre la eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación racial de 1965.