Contentious Cases Research Articles

The Amicus Curiae in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1982-2013)

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) received approximately 500 amicus curiae briefs in its first 35 years. This number is particularly striking, taking into account that the IACtHR issued only about 275 judgments and decisions in that same time period, as well as twenty advisory opinions. This means that, in its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has received more briefs from non-parties than from parties actually litigating a case. Despite these numbers, statistical and analytical research on the participation of such "friends of the court" in written and oral proceedings before the IACtHR is relatively scarce in academic literature. This article aims to address this gap in the literature. Drawing upon all of the Court’s contentious jurisprudence -- from 1988 up to the end of 2013 -- this article provides a comprehensive analysis of more than 400 amici curiae briefs submitted in almost 100 contentious cases. It also relies on more than 100 amici briefs submitted in the Court’s advisory jurisdiction from 1982 through 2013.The purpose of this article is to contribute to the institutional historical memory of the IACtHR; highlight and provide a critique of the development of procedural norms and practices that regulate amici curiae submissions before the Court; provide suggestions and recommendations for greater clarity, consistency, and transparency concerning the participation of amicus curiae in the Court’s proceedings, and encourage a broader debate and discussion about the proper role of amicus curiae participation before the IACtHR.

Advisory jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: a magic bullet for dialogue and docket-control?

Protocol 16 ECHR will provide for an extension of the advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), enabling highest national courts to request advisory opinions on questions of principle concerning the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or its protocols. This extension of the ECtHR's advisory jurisdiction aims to achieve two goals: a reduction in the ECtHR's excessive docket, and the enhancement of dialogue between the ECtHR and (highest) national courts. While the aims of this reform initiative are laudable, we argue that Protocol 16 is likely to fail to achieve its objectives. Our analysis suggests that rather than facilitating the Court's adjudicatory function, extended advisory jurisdiction has the potential to impact on the Court's constitutionalist function in a manner that can be better achieved through the Court's contentious cases. The burden that this procedure will place on the Court's already overstretched resources would risk delays to contentious cases and potentially undermine judicial comity should requests for advisory opinions be declined. Furthermore, evidence of ‘constructive’ dialogue between highest national courts and the ECtHR is emerging in contentious cases without the need for a reformed advisory opinions mechanism. Rather than achieving its objectives, Protocol 16 risks exacerbating the Court's backlog and nullifying the positive effects of advisory opinions on dialogue.

Pharmacy Students’ Interpretation of Academic Integrity

To explore pharmacy students' recognition and interpretation of situations constituting breaches of academic integrity. A survey instrument comprising 10 hypothetical student(s) scenarios was completed by 852 students in the bachelor of pharmacy program at an Australian university. The scenarios were relevant to current modes of assessment and presented degrees of ambiguity around academic integrity. Identification of the hypothetical student(s) at fault, particularly in the deliberately ambiguous scenarios, was not related to the respondents' year of study or sex. Students with fewer years of postsecondary education were more definitive in their interpretation of contentious cases. Respondents from all 4 years of study reported witnessing many of these behaviors among their peers. This study provided novel insight into the ambiguity surrounding academic integrity and students' perceptions relating to the deliberate or inadvertent involvement of other parties.

La Carta Democrática Interamericana y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

El presente trabajo, después de analizar los orígenes y características esenciales de la Carta Democrática Interamericana, indaga su uso en las sentencias (casos contenciosos) de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Se concluye que a pesar del origen político de este instrumento regional y teniendo como fin primario la defensa colectiva de la democracia, este tribunal la ha posicionado como un documento relevante en la interpretación de los derechos políticos reconocidos en la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. En este sentido, existe una relación benéfica entre la CDI y la CADH que ha contribuido a un entendimiento más amplio de estos derechos, favoreciendo nuevos desarrollos.

The latitude of logic in legal hermeneutics

Legal hermeneutics (the interpretation of law] has always taken a highly significant place in general hermeneutics. The interpretation of laws involves an intricate task of determining the real meaning or rationale of legal norms. Considering the complexity of this goal, the most frequent classification of legal hermeneutics is based on the interpretation instruments. In traditional theory, the most widely recognized instruments for the interpretation of legal norms are language, logic, legal system, history and purpose of a legal norm. Under the influence of general analytic philosophy, the particular interest in language as the basic instrument for the interpretation of law may be found in mid-20th century. The interest in the language of law is closely related to the study of legal logic and legal argumentation. In theory, there is no dispute about the logical interpretation in a narrow sense which is based on drawing true conclusions by applying the basic rule of formal reasoning. Yet, it has given a head start to argumentation as 'a problem-based reasoning skill' which provides answers to the questions raised in contentious cases. Argumentation is closely associated with the dialectic method of reasoning (which has been widely recognized since the Ancient Greece], where conclusions are based on probable premises. One of the most significant goals of the argumentation theory is to locate the sources or common grounds for developing arguments; these basic argumentative patterns are generally known as 'topoi' or 'loci, sedes argumentorum'. On the other hand, 'topica' is part of rhetoric art dealing with the theoretical explanation of the basic argumentative patterns (topoi] and how they are structured, including the location of new topoi and arguments. The most significant proponents of the topical reasoning are Chaïm Perelman and Theodor Viehweg. Perelman relates topical reasoning to judicial reasoning and considers that specific legal topoi may lead to the perception of law as ars aequi et boni. According to Viehweg, 'topica' is a technique of problem-based reasoning which is fully different from the deductive-systematic reasoning. Interpretation or construing meaning is part of 'topica' which enables flexibility of practical argumentation by expanding and reducing the catalogue of 'topoi'. In legal hermeneutics, the new quality of argumentation and topical reasoning stems from the fact that the classical methods of interpretation are substituted by a far more extensive number of arguments (Giovanni Tarello recognizes 15 legal topoi and Gerhard Struck as many as 64 legal topoi]. It ultimately points out to the creative role of the interpreter's rhetoric research and decision-making processes.

The Intervention Procedure in Whaling in the Antarctic: A Threat to Bilateralism?

The decision of the International Court of Justice in 'Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan, New Zealand Intervening)' is expected to engender much scholarly and analytical interest in scientific permit whaling under the 'International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling'. However, it is its Order of 6 February 2013 accepting New Zealand's Declaration of Intervention which raises systemic issues of interest concerning the conduct of judicial proceedings and the role and status of third parties before the International Court of Justice. The basic assumption underlying the Statute and the Rules of the Court is that there are two parties in contentious cases which agree to resolve their dispute through bilateral adjudication. By accepting New Zealand's intervention under Article 63 of its Statute, the International Court of Justice has raised the possibility that there will be a resurgence of the intervention procedure in international litigation in the interests of the wider international community.

Why Equal Protection Trumps Federalism in the Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Federalism is once again at the forefront of the Supreme Court’s most contentious cases this Term. The cases attracting most attention are the two same-sex marriage cases that were argued in March. Facing intense public sentiment on both sides of the issue and the difficult questions they raise about the boundary between state and federal authority, some justices openly questioned whether to just defer to the political process. And while this is often a wise prudential approach in review of contested federalism-sensitive policymaking, it’s exactly the wrong course of action when the matter under review is an individual right.This very short essay is a federalism scholar’s take on why federalism isn’t the defining issue when it comes to the same-sex marriage cases. It shows how the federalism and equal protection issues are intertwined, and why the equal protection should issues trump by reference not only to federal civil rights supremacy but also to the underlying rights-protective function of structural federalism.

The Social Media Effect: Examining Usage in Contentious Healthcare Cases

Background: In healthcare, social media is a powerful online communication tool used by patients, families and organisations to share perspectives and engage in dialogue. It has the ability to affect change and eliminate barriers in healthcare. However, it also has the ability to raise the profile of negative news and can compromise therapeutic relationships, public trust in organisations and call into question privacy issues. Methods: A symposium was held to address ethical issues in contentious healthcare cases that involve social media. The symposium consisted of panelist presentations, full group discussion, and small audience breakout groups and a full group facilitated concluding discussion. Discussions were summarised and key themes abstracted. Results: Three main discussion points arose: 1) what are the relevant distinctions in cases that become “viral”; 2) good practices for navigating contentious cases; and 3) considerations for managing cases in the social media domain. Improved literacy and clear definitions were recommended to help understand how different mediums influence the delivery and dissemination of messages. Support for staff and methods for dealing with the aftermath of cases involving social media were examined. Conclusion: This forum promoted understanding of the evolving issues and role of social media in contentious cases. Improved engagement with patients must be realised to understand these cases and stymie their development when possible. Organizations need to consider which policies need to be updated or created to deal with new scenarios. More conversations on the topic would create improvements in the area of contentious cases in social media.

Canada and the Inter-American Human Rights System

INTRODUCTIONWhen Canada became a Member of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1990, most of Latin America was at a crossroad in a post-cold war transition from authoritarian regimes to democracies. The Canadian government played a fundamental role in the creation and development of the organization's unit for the promotion of democracy, as well as of other similar initiatives, in this period. This mark of leadership would have an important impact on the organization later on, including regarding the adoption of the 2001 Inter- American Democratic Charter, which attests to the importance of human rights for democracy and vice-versa. In fact, the promotion of democratic processes and the consolidation of democratic institutions, as well as the promotion and protection of human rights, are certainly among the OAS's most significant successes in the institution's recent history.1By joining the OAS,2 Canada also joined the inter-American human rights system. While Canada has certainly been an important ally of the system, it has often been criticized for its timid membership. This article will discuss Canada's policy towards the OAS human rights regime, touching upon the regime's successes and weaknesses. It will also try to contextualize the discussion in light of Canada's broader policy towards human rights and Latin America.THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEMThe inter-American system of protection of human rights is generally considered to be composed of the norms and institutions created by the OAS to promote and protect human rights within the hemisphere. The main normative instruments dealing with human rights are the OAS charter, several human rights treaties, including the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of other instruments, including the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.3The inter-American commission on human rights, composed of seven elected independent experts (commissioners), is the principal organ of the OAS charged with ensuring the protection of human rights in the hemisphere. It also serves as a consultative organ of the organization on this matter. It promotes human rights in the region, formulates recommendations to member states, observes human rights situations, including via in loco visits. It publishes reports on thematic issues or the human rights situation in a specific country, etc. In recent years, the commission's main activity has been to process petitions lodged against member states by individuals and groups alleging violations of inter- American human rights norms. (In order to do so, complainants must first exhaust domestic remedies nationally, or be unable to do so). The inter-American commission on human rights can refer cases to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and, in serious and urgent cases that may cause irreparable harm to persons, it can adopt precautionary measures. The commission reports annually to the OAS general assembly.The Inter- American Court of Human Rights, composed of seven elected independent judges, rules on contentious cases between the commission and member states regarding allegations of violations of the rights contained in the inter- American instruments that grant it jurisdiction to do so. To be subject to the court's jurisdiction, a state must first have ratified the convention and expressly recognized the jurisdiction of the court. The court can issue an order or judgment, which is binding for states as a matter of public international law. The court can also adopt advisory opinions regarding the interpretation of the convention, or any other instrument related to human rights in the Americas, at the request of the commission or any member state. The court can also be consulted by member states regarding the compatibility of one of its laws with the convention. In serious and urgent cases, the court can also adopt provisional measures. The court reports annually to the OAS general assembly. …

Digital signal processing in forensic acoustics cases

Forensic acoustics typically considers speaker identification, authenticity analysis, audio enhancement and transcript verification by analyzing and processing audio or speech signals. Other applications in forensic acoustics include different analyses of non-speech audio signals. This presentation will discuss three contentious litigation cases in which various digital processing techniques formed the foundation of scientifically-based conclusions. The first is a products liability case involving the death of a firefighter and his Personal Alert Safety System. When movement of a firefighter ceases, a high-pitched audible alert is emitted. When numbers of these devices were recorded, the task was to determine if the deceased firefighter’s device was included within the multiple devices examined. In the second case the order of the discharges of various caliber weapons based on a 9-1-1 call was determined via digital signal processing. The third study utilized processing techniques to differentiate and identify the type of sounds produced in a number of murder trials. These cases represent the varied challenges in forensic audio and acoustics investigations, and show the difficulty of applying broad theory to practice, the necessity for innovation in the field and the basis for establishing scientific reliability in order to secure admissibility into the courtroom.

Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes Assignment

The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN; its function is to decide in accordance with international law, disputes that are submitted to it. UN member States are not under any obligation to submit their disputes to the ICJ however; they are obliged under Art.33 to resolve their disputes by peaceful means, of which the ICJ is one. Unlike domestic Courts, the jurisdiction of the ICJ in contentious cases is based on the consent of the parties to the dispute to submit their dispute to the ICJ for adjudication. This requirement of consent has posed a great challenge to the ICJ and has led to the conclusion by many writers that the ICJ is not an effective mechanism for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Does the consensual nature of the jurisdiction of the ICJ prevent it from playing any meaningful and effective role in the peaceful resolution of international disputes? An attempt shall be made to answer this question by initially discussing the jurisdiction of the ICJ, why it is based on the consent of parties, how this consent is given and the nature of disputes settled by the ICJ; by also discussing the role of the ICJ in the settlement of disputes: how meaningful it is; and finally by discussing the effectiveness of the ICJ in the peaceful resolution of disputes.

A Primer on ICJ Procedure: A Commentary on Article 43 ICJ Statute

The procedure before the International Court of Justice is governed, first and foremost, by Article 43 of the Court`s Statute, the Rules of Court, the Practice Directions and by the practice of the Court. The term ‘procedure’ describes the mode of conducting proceedings before the Court. In combining both oral and written phases of procedure the Court ‘marries the key features of the common and civil law systems’ thus allowing States, according to their own legal traditions, to lay greater emphasis on either of the two phases of the proceedings. The combination of the two phases is the basis for the sound administration of international justice. The Court’s procedure in contentious cases is characterized by the equality of the parties, the duality of the proceedings, the simplicity of the procedural rule and the flexibility in its application. The paper provides a detailed commentary on the rules governing the written and oral phase of the proceedings in contentious cases and the incidental proceedings on preliminary objections.

Some Challenges of International Litigation

I first studied international law 35 years ago. As a candidate for what was then Section D of the LL.B. (the public international law papers) at Cambridge, I attended lectures and seminars on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and on international, that is inter-state, arbitration. It was a wonderful time to be a student of these subjects, not least because we were studying case law when there were comparatively few cases to study, which left plenty of scope for the enjoyment of other aspects of student life. The ICJ, whose reports for 1977 are only four pages long, had only one case pending before it (over which it would soon decide that it lacked jurisdiction).1 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was then the only functioning human rights court and its entire jurisprudence could still fit into a single volume of law reports, although the European Commission of Human Rights, to which at that time all applications had to be made, had decided many more cases. Investor-state arbitration was largely unknown. There were no international criminal courts or tribunals and almost no serious discussion of the possibility of creating such bodies. Moreover, it would be difficult to argue that the proceedings which did take place at that time occupied a central place in international relations. Although some of the judgments given by the ICJ during the 1970s were to have an important effect on the development of the law, they had less obvious impact at the time. Between 1971 and 1980 only nine contentious cases were brought before the Court. One of those was withdrawn2 and one was still pending at * Judge, International Court of Justice. 1 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1978, p. 3. 2 Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v India), Interim Protection, Order of 13 July 1973, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 328. An Order officially recording the discontinuance of the proceedings was issued on 15 December 1973.

Place de la chirurgie dans le traitement des cancers superficiels sur endobrachyœsophage

The indication of surgical resection for early cancer in Barrett's esophagus is based on the risk of lymph node extension, which is conditioned by the depth of the lesions. Even if the high resolution endosonography is more sensitive than conventional endosonography for differentiating mucosal from submucosal lesions, it may be lacking for intermediate lesions (m3 and sm1). Macroscopic criteria are useful for identifying high-risk lesions. In contentious cases, endoscopic resection may be considered as a biopsy to determine the further treatment. The endoscopic resection is indicated for mucosal lesions in selected patients. Surgery remains the standard treatment for early cancer in Barrett's esophagus. The transhiatal resection is indicated for high-risk T1a mucosal lesions. The transthoracic resection is indicated for submucosal lesions.

Safe Harbours in Merger Guidelines: What Should They Be?

Safe harbours in mergers and acquisitions guidelines define post-merger market concentration or concentration change thresholds below which proposed mergers are unlikely to pose competition concerns. Their role is to screen out competitively benign mergers, thereby allowing competition agencies to focus on the more contentious cases. Yet despite the almost universal adoption of the “substantial lessening of competition” test, agencies use significantly different safe harbours. This may reflect the lack of strong theoretical bases for alternative specifications. We attempt to fill this gap by using the PCAIDS and other merger simulation models to run many merger simulations involving a wide range of market structure settings and merger-induced aggregations. By estimating the post-merger unilateral price increases in each scenario, we can gauge what the safe harbours should be using a 5% (or, alternatively, a 3%) price increase threshold of anti-competitiveness. Our simulation results suggest that the safe harbours commonly based on market HHI, merged entity market share and HHI-increase thresholds are typically too restrictive, in that they fail to screen out mergers that are almost certain to be competitively benign.

Relationship between classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Separate entity or biologic continuum

Cases of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma observed after therapy for Hodgkin lymphoma have been reported. However, occurrence of non-Hodgkin's lymphomas in such settings at a previously uninvolved site is extremely rare. The mechanism behind this remains obscure thereby presenting diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma for the treating physician. We report a case of a 62-year-old woman who developed a large B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma at a different anatomic site six months after receiving high dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for her relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma. We treated her with conventional combination chemoimmunotherapy following which she achieved durable complete remission. This case highlights the intriguing relationship between classical Hodgkin lymphoma and B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with respect to pathogenesis and its impact on therapeutic decisions and outcomes in such contentious cases which a clinician must face.

Dispute Settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2010

AbstractThis is the seventh of a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea both under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. The main developments during 2010 were the commencement of four new, and very different, cases—a request for an advisory opinion in the Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area case and three contentious cases, the Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), the M/V Louisa (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Kingdom of Spain) and Dispute concerning the ‘Marine Protected Area’ related to the Chagos Archipelago (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) cases—and an order by the ITLOS declining to prescribe provisional measures in the M/V Louisa case.

Creating a Working Vocabulary of Sovereignty: Language at the International Court of Justice

“What is sovereignty?” If there are questions international legal and political scholars ought to be able to answer, this is certainly one. State sovereignty is arguably the basis of all political and legal international relations. And, yet, what it means remains elusive. As we discuss whether we are witnessing the demise of the Westphalian system, it is critical to understand state sovereignty today. Despite the resurgence in sovereignty scholarship, there has been little empirical work done that combines political and legal theory. This project addresses that gap in the current literature between political science and international legal research by providing an empirical study of how sovereignty is conceptualized in international legal discourse. The theoretical basis for this paper is largely informed by international relations theory of binding states and the variability of sovereignty. The methodological approach is legal case analysis. Because sovereignty is such a slippery concept, the question of how to study it is tricky. This paper will follow Jens Bartelson’s approach and avoid the direct question “what is sovereignty?” and instead ask the question “how do we discuss sovereignty?” The project provides an analysis of advisory opinions and contentious cases before the International Court of Justice over the last fifteen years. The results of the research contribute to a general understanding of contemporary sovereignty in two main ways: Firstly, the study provides a framework of “ideal types” which suggests that contemporary notions of sovereignty fall into three main categories: (1) as the final and supreme power of the state requiring no justification (“The Prince”), (2) as a supreme power justified by the state’s ability to protect its citizens from both internal and external threats (“The Protector”), and (3) as a privilege granted by citizens of the state and the international community in return for accepting certain norms and fulfilling certain responsibilities (“The Citizen”). Secondly, the paper suggests that with a viable working vocabulary, legal and political scholars can then address questions concerning how the legal discussion of sovereignty interacts with international relations structure.

A Look Back at the Dred Scott Decision

A Look Back at the Dred Scott Decision STEPHEN G. BREYER Thank you for inviting me to deliver the 2009 Annual Lecture of the Supreme Court Historical Society. I am a great admirer of the Society’s commitment to preserving the history of the Supreme Court and to increasing the public’s awareness of the Court’s contributions to our nation’s history. This is an especially interesting time for the Society to be meeting because the Court, for the third time in the past fifteen years, is about to have a change in its membership. As soon as my friend and colleague Justice Souter announced his intent to retire, public specula­ tion began as to whom President Obama would nominate to replace him. And as soon as the Presidentput an end to the speculation with his announcement that he had selected Judge So­ tomayor, commentators began discussing and debating her legal views and how her presence will affect the Court’s decisions. The public’s interest in a change in the Court’s membership reminds us that the Court, for all the technical cases it decides, also can decide controversial, contentious cases that raise questions that lie at the heart of contemporary political debates. Today, I shall re-examine one such case: the Dred Scott decision, a case that many be­ lieve is the Court’s worst mistake. By examin­ ing the case in detail, I hope to find something of value for our present-day judicial institu­ tion. The case I have chosen stands at the in­ tersection of law and politics. Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has decided cases containing legal issues that have a significant political impact. And how the Court can, or should, make its decisions in such cases is a topic ofabiding interest. Alexander Hamilton, one of the Framers of our Constitution, ar­ gued that a court is better suited than a leg­ islative or executive body to insist that the Constitution be followed—particularly in an instance where doing so is politically unpop­ ular. But he did not explain how we know in such instances that the public—or the other branches of government—will do what the Court says. And while we now assume as a matter ofcourse that the Court’s decisions will be followed, that was not always the case. For A LOOK BACK AT THE DRED SCOTT DECISION ill example, despite an 1834 Court determina­ tion that the Cherokee Indians owned northern Georgia, President Andrew Jackson evicted the Indians, supposedly saying that ChiefJus­ tice John Marshall “has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Americans have gradually, over time, de­ veloped customs and traditions that lead them to accept and follow Court decisions. But how that has come to be is a complicated ques­ tion, a question that itself touches on politics. The answer, in part, has something to do with the way in which the Court has responded to legal issues that have political impact. This afternoon I hope to illustrate the relation by speaking about Dred Scott. The Court decided Dred Scott in 1817 at a time when political tensions about slavery ran high. In that case, the Supreme Court held that no African Amer­ ican could be a citizen entitled to sue in federal court and that no African American could be­ come free simply because he was taken into a free state by his owner. Dred Scott was a legal and practical mistake. And for that very reason it can tell us something about the more general question: namely, it can tell us what courts cannot and should not do when politics and law overlap. Let us, then, look back to the mid­ nineteenth century, to the era of slavery in the United States. And let us consider the back­ ground, the issues, the reasoning, the imme­ diate consequences, and the topical lessons of Dred Scott. I. Background Three individuals play key roles in this story: Dred Scott, Roger Taney, and Benjamin Curtis. Scott was born a slave on a Virginia plantation in the early 1800s. His first owner, Peter Blow, took Scott with him to St. Louis, Missouri; he sold Scott to...

1. International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In 2010, the ICJ rendered judgments in three contentious cases, including the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay case in which the environment was a central issue, and issued one advisory opinion. In addition, at least four of the sixteen cases pending before the court at the end of the year include environmental components. The court delivered its first decision of the year, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), on 20 April, which regards the contested planning, construction, and commissioning of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay. This judgment is examined in detail in this report. The second case concluded in 2010, Certain Questions Concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v Brazil), was removed from the court’s list by order dated 12 May at the request of Honduras. The court issued its advisory opinion on the question of the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo on 22 July, responding that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17 February 2008 did not violate international law. Finally, the court delivered its judgment in the case of Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) on 30 November, dismissing a number of Guinea’s claims but, ultimately, holding that the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) had violated Mr. Diallo’s fundamental human rights in carrying out his arrest, detention, and expulsion in 1995-96 and that the DRC was under obligation to make appropriate reparation in the form of compensation. The case remains on the court’s pending docket because the court held that, failing agreement between the parties on the issue of compensation within six months of the judgment, the question would be settled by the court and, therefore, reserved the subsequent procedure for that purpose.