|
|
[JUDGMENT]
In the city of Cartago, Costa Rica, at 12 at night of December 19, 1908. The
deliberations of the court having been considered to have been concluded, so
that it could proceed to render judgment on the suit begun by the government
of the republic of Honduras against the governments of El Salvador and
Guatemala, [435] on account of responsibility with which the former
government charges the latter two in connection with the revolution which
occurred in the former of said republics in July of this year, the honorable
presiding magistrate proposed the following set of questions to be answered
in rendering the judgment which was to decide the controversy:
1. Should we allow the exception of inadmissibility of the complaint, as
inter¬posed by the representative of the Guatemalan government on the
alleged ground that said complaint was filed without exhausting the means of
settlement between the respective chancelries?
Negative: all five judges.
2. Should we allow the exception, interposed by the same party, alleging
insufficiency of the petition to institute proceedings, owing to the
circumstance that it was not accompanied by the appropriate evidence when
the charge was first preferred?
Negative: all five judges.
3. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of
the republic of El Salvador has violated article 17 of the General Treaty of
Peace and Amity concluded at Washington on December 20, 1907, by not
arresting and trying the Honduran emigrants who were threatening the peace
of their country?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Boeanegra and Astua.
Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz.
4. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of
the republic of El Salvador violated article 2 of the Additional Convention
annexed to said Treaty, by protecting or encouraging the aforesaid
insurrectionary movement?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua. Affirmative: Ucles.
5. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of
the republic of El Salvador contributed toward the accomplishment of said
political offense by a culpable lack of diligence?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua.
Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz.
6. Should, consequently, the action begun against the government of El
Salvador be declared proper and the latter therefore sentenced to pay the
damages asked?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra and Astua.
Affirmative: Judges Ucles and Madriz.
7. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of
the republic of Guatemala violated article 17 of the General Treaty of Peace
and Amity concluded at Washington on December 20, 1907, by not arresting and
trying the Honduran emigrants who were threatening the peace of their
country?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles.
8. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of
the republic of Guatemala violated article 2 of the Additional Agreement to
said treaty by protecting or fomenting the said insurrectionary movement?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles. [436]
9. Is it demonstrated, and should it be so declared, that the government of
the republic of Guatemala contributed toward the accomplishment of the said
political offense by a culpable lack of diligence ?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles.
10. Should, consequently, the action begun against the government of
Guatemala be declared proper and the latter therefore sentenced to pay the
damages asked?
Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Affirmative: Judge Ucles.
11. Should the losing party or parties be sentenced to pay the costs of
trial? Negative: Judges Gallegos, Bocanegra, Madriz and Astua.
Judge Ucles answered that the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala
should be sentenced to pay the costs.
From the foregoing vote, as stated, it results that judgment is pronounced
rejecting the action brought against the high defendants, without sentencing
them to payment of the costs.
Jose Astua Aguilar
Salv. Gallegos
Angel M. Bocanegra
Alberto Ucles
Jose Madriz
Ernesto Martin, Sec. |
|
