Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and the applicable rules of general international law has incurred responsibility
towards the United States. As a consequence, there is an obligation on the part of
the Iranian state to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States.
The court decided that the Islamic republic of Iran by its conduct, violated in several
respects and is still violating, obligations owed by it to the United States under
international conventions in force between the two countries as well as under long
established rules of general international law. The court further held that Iran must
immediately take all steps to redress the situation resulting from the events of 4
November 1979.
Uganda maintains that the Congolese troops stole property from the premises,
including four embassy vehicles. According to Uganda, on 23 November 1998 FAC
troops again forcibly entered the Ugandan chancery and the official residence of the
Ugandan ambassador in Kinshasa and stole property including embassy furniture,
household and personal effects belonging to the ambassador and to other diplomatic
staff. They also alleged that the Congolese troops occupied the chancery and the
official residence of the Ugandan Ambassador.
Uganda alleges that that the Congolese government permitted WNBF commander
Taban Amin to occupy the Ugandan Embassy in Kinshasa and establish his official
headquarters and residence at those facilities.
Judgment
The court held that the armed activities of Uganda in the democratic republic of
Congo between august 1998 and June 2008 violated the international prohibition
against aggressive use of force as well as international human and international
humanitarian law. It also held that as regards to the attacks on Ugandas diplomatic
premises in Kinshasa, the DRC has breached its obligations under Article 22 of the
Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations.
Acts of maltreatment by DRC forces of persons within the Ugandan Embassy were
necessarily consequential upon a breach of the inviolability of the Embassy premises
prohibited by Article 22 of the Vienna Convention diplomatic relations. This is true
regardless of whether the persons were or were not nationals of Uganda or Ugandan
diplomats. In so far as the persons attacked were in fact diplomats, the DRC further
breached its obligation under Article 29 of the Vienna Convention.
The court ruled in favour of Uganda on its counter claim that the DRC violated
obligations owed to Uganda under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations.
The court ordered Uganda to pay reparations.