Arrest Warrant Case of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Belgium). International Court of Justice (icj), 14 February 2002.

Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). International Court of Justice (ICJ). 14 February 2002.

In 1993, Belgium's Parliament voted a "law of universal jurisdiction", allowing it to judge people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. In 2001, four Rwandan people were convicted and given sentences from 12 to 20 years' imprisonment for their involvement in 1994 Rwandan genocide. There was quickly an explosion of suits deposed.

There was an in specie rejection of the argument based on the ‘clean hands’ doctrine, again based on the need to give the treaty a reasonable application. In the Arrest Warrant Case the Belgian judge ad hoc, Judge van den Wyngaert, dissenting, held that:

The Congo did not come to the Court with clean hands. In blaming Belgium for investigating and prosecuting allegations of international crimes that it was obliged to investigate and prosecute itself, the Congo acts in bad faith. ⁸

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Concerning_the_Arrest_Warrant_of_11_April_2000_(Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_v._Belgium)

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Uganda), I.C.J., 2005

On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) instituted proceedings against Uganda in respect of a dispute concerning acts of armed aggression perpetrated by Uganda on the territory of the DRC, in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity.

On 15 December 2005, the Court found that Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in international relations and of non-intervention, that it violated its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and that it violated other obligations owed to the DRC.

The Court additionally found that the DRC in turn violated obligations owed to Uganda under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/?id=2

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf

Asylum (Columbia V. Peru), Merits, 1950 I.C.J., 20 November 1950

In the Asylum Case (Colombia v Perú), judgement 20 November 1950 (General List No. 7 (1949–1950)), the ICJ recognised that Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice encompassed local custom as well as general custom, in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral and multilateral treaties. The Court also clarified that for custom to be definitively proven, it must be continuously and uniformly executed.

The Colombian Ambassador in Lima, Perú allowed Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, head of the American People's Revolutionary Alliance sanctuary after his faction lost a one day civil war in Peru on 3 October 1948. The Colombian government granted him asylum, but the Peruvian government refused to grant him safe passage out of Peru.

Colombia maintained that according to the Conventions in force - the Bolivian Agreement of 1911 on Extradition, the Havana Convention of 1928 on Asylum, the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on Political Asylum – and according to American International Law, they were entitled to decide if asylum should be granted and their unilateral decision on this was binding on Perú.

Both submissions of Colombia were rejected by the Court. It was not found that the custom of Asylum was uniformly or continuously executed sufficiently to demonstrate that the custom was of a generally-applicable character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_Case_(Colombia_v._Peru)

http://www.tjsl.edu/slomansonb/2.7_ColvPeru.pdf