UNITED NATIONS Distr

UNITED NATIONS Distr. GENERAL SECURITY S/5452 7 November 1963 COUNCIL ENGLISH ORIGINAL: SPANISH

LETTER DATED 30 OCTOBER 1963 FROM THE CHAI~AN OF THE INTER-J\MERICAN PEACS COMMITTEE ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY-GENE&~L OF THE UNITED NATIONS

INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE

PAN AMERICAN UNION ~ashington 6, D.C.

30 October 1963 Sir, In accordance with the provisions of Article 54 of the United Nations Charter, I have the honour to transmit, for the information of the Security Council, copies in Spanish and English of the Report submitted. by the Inter-Affierican Peace Committee to the Council of the Organization of American States on 16 July 1963, on the termination of the activities of the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission. This Commission was set up on the initiative of the Inter-American Peace Committee in order to assist the two Governments in solving the problems that had arisen as a result of the implementation of the decision delivered by the International Court of Justice on 18 November 1960 on the subject of the frontier dispute between the two Central American Republics. I take the liberty to suggest that, for a better understanding of this report, reference should be made to part I of the Report submitted by the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Eighth ~eeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics, held at Punta del ~ste, Uruguay, in J~nuary 1962. In fact, Part I of this Report, of which I am also sending a copy, deals with the activities for~erly carried out by the Inter-American Peace Committee and the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission in connexion with this case, which has now been finally settled. I have the honour to be, Sir, etc. (eigned) Enrique Tejera Paris Ambassador, ReIresentative of VCLezuela Chairman of the Committee 63- 25110

.~_. __ .. _------INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE OEA/Ser. L/III/II. 9 (English) PAN AMERICAN UNION 16 July 1963 Washington, D. C. Original: Spanish

REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES ON THE TERMINATION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND 000•0••••••0••••••00••••••• 1

IIo VERIFICATION OF THE STARTING POINT OF THE NATURAL

BOUNDARY BETWEEN HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA 0 0 • • • 5 ill. INSPECTION OF THE PLACEMENT OF BOUNDARY MARKERS ON THE BOUNDARY LINE ESTABLISHED IN THE ZONE OF TEOTECACINTE 0.... 7

IV 0 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS 0 8

APPENDICES

1. Basis of Arrangement kcepted by the Governments of

Honduras and Nicaragua, March 1961 . 0••••••••••••• •• 13 2. Arbitral Award of His Majesty Alfonso XIII, King of Spain, on the Ouestion of Boundaries between the Re- publics of Honduras and Nicaragua, December 23, 1906 15 3. Report of the Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Boundary Com mission (Committee of Engineers) on the Studies Made at the Mouth of the Coco, Segovia, or Wanks River, July 14, 1962 24 4. Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the Honduras -Nicaragua

Mixed Commission on December 15, 1962 . 0 • • • • • • • 31

- iii - 5. Minutes of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Honduras Nicaragua Mixed Commission on December 19, 1962 32 6. Report of the Honduran-NicarGguan Joint Boundary Commission (Committee of Engineers) on the Place ment of Boundary Markers in the Zone of Teoteca cinte~ December 19, 1962 ...... 34 7. Note from the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Representative of Honduras on the Council of the OAS, January 23, 1963 . 39 8. Note from the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Representative of Nicaragua on the Council of the OAS, January 23: 1963 41 9. Other Documents Relating to this Case . 43

- iv - INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE

July 25, 1963

Mr. Chairman:

I have the honor to transmit to Your Excellency the report of the Inter-American Peace Committee on the final phase of the work done by the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission in accordance with the Basis of Arrangement accepted by the two governments in March 1961. ThE: said Basis was proposed by the Inter-American Peace Committee in con nection with the request by the Government of Nicaragua on February 16, 1961, that the Committee suggest methods and steps conducive to a set tlement of the questions that had arisen "about the execution of the judg ment of the International Court of Justice on November 18, 1960, delivered in the dispute between Nica:r'agua and Honduras concerr,ing the Arbitral Award made by His Majesty the King of Spain on December 23, 1906."

This report is being submitted to the Council of the Organization in accordance with Article 22 of the Statutes of the Inter-American Peace Com mittee, and therefore I should be grateful if Your Excellency would arrange for copies of it to be distributed to the members of the Council.

I also wish to point out that for a better understanding of this report it is well to read Part I of the Report that the Inter-American Peace Com mittee submitted to the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of For eign Affairs, which refers to the activities carried out previously in con nection with this case.

I avail my~el£ of the opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.

Emilio N. Oribe Chairl'nan Inter-American Peace Committee

His Excellency Gonzalo J. Facio Chairman of the Council of the Organization of American States Washington, D. C. 1. BACKGROUND

In its report to the Eighth Meeting of Consultation. of Ministers of 1/ Foreign Affairs, - held at Punta del Este, Uruguay in January 1962, the inter-American Peace Committee reported on the activities carried out up to that date in connection with the request of the Government of Nicaragua on

February 16, 1961, that the Committee suggest methods and steps conducive to a settlement of the questions that had arisen "about the execution of the judgment of the International Court of Justice on November 18, 1960, delivered in the dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras concerning the

Arbitral Award made by His Majesty the Kir:g of Spain on December 23,

1906".

As will be remembered, the Government of Honduras agreed to the action of the Inter-American Peace Committee and prepared a Basis of

Arrangeluent, whi.ch was submitted to the two governments for consideration and accepted by them with the changes ma.de during the negotiations held on the matter. This was reported to the Council of the Organization y at the meeting of March 13, 1961.

1. Report of the Inter -American Peace Committee to the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, January 1962, Pur~ta del Este, Uruguay (Doe. OEA/Ser. L/III, CIP/1/62).

2. See l ....1inutes of the Special Meeting of the Council on March 13, 1961 (Doe. OEA/Ser. G/ll: C -a-400).

------2 -

In accordance with the Basis of Arrangement (Appendix 1), the Honduras

Nicaragua Mixed Comrnission, composed of the Chairman of the Inter-American

Peace Committee and one representative from each of the two countries, was established. The Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee was to be the Chairman of the Committee. While the Committee was -in the I'territoryll, the Chairman could be represented by the official of the Pan Ame:Fican Union appointed for that purpose by the Secretary General who would also provide the Mixed Commission with the technical staff and secretariat needed.

It was established in the Basis of Arrangement that the Government of

Nicaragua would immediately withdraw its authorities from. the 'lterritoryll, which wa{5 understood to mean the region that, according to the Arbitral

Award of December 23, 1906, belonged to honduras and was at that time occupied by Nicaraguan authorities. An exception was made in the case of the zone of Teotecacinte where the withdrawal of authorities would proceed in conformance with the results of the demarcation of the sa.id zone and as the demarcation was carried out. It should be remembered in this connection that the boundary between the two countries, as determined by the Arbitral

Award of the King of Spain (Appendix 2) consisted, for the most part, of a natural boundary, and that only in the zone of Teotecante was it necessary to fix the boundary line on the ground, following the terms of the Award, which, in turn, referred to the demarcation of the SiUo de Teotecacinte made in

1720. - 3 -

The powers granted to the Mixed Commission were as follows:

a) To aid the two governments in their efforts to guarantee the inhab itants of the territory a choice between the two nationalities, and to permit those persons who may wish to do so to move to Nicaragua.

b) Under the terms of the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, to fix on the ground the boundary line from the juncture of the Bodega or Poteca River with the Guineo River as far as Portillo de Teote cacinte, as well as to verify the starting point of the natural bound ary between the two countries at the mouth of the Coco River.

c) To supervise the setting of landmarks for the boundary line laid out according to the preceding paragraph.

d) Any other powers that the two governments may confer upon it, at the suggestion of the Inter-American Peace Committee.

It was also established that. in exercising the powers set forth in (b), the

Mixed Commission would avail itself of the services of the Committee of Engi- neers already created by the two governments; and that, in the event of disagreement between the Representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua, the Chair- man would make the final decision, a power that could not be delegated.

Part Iof the report to the Eighth Meeting of Consultation outlined the work done up to that time by the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission in accordance with the powers conferred on it, listed above. It was stated that, thanks to the cooperation extended by both governments, the Commission was able to record, in the minutes of its sixth meeting, held on April 12, 1961, that, with the exception of the zone of Teotecacinte, all the -Nicaraguan authorities had been withdrawn; and that in May 1961, approximately 4,000 persons who chose to reside in Nicaraguan territory had been transferred. - 4 -

The report also describes how the Mixed Commission carried out the difficult task of demarcating the boundary line in the zone of Teoter.;acinte. This line is described in the minutes of the seventh and eighth meetings held in June and July 1961~ respectively, and in the decision pronounced on August 5 of that year by Ambassador Vicente Sanchez Gavito, who was at that time the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee and of the Mixed Commission.

Copies of the minutes of the meetings of the Mixed Commission, of perti nent maps and plans, and of the above-mentioned decision are found among the appendices to the report to the Eighth Meeting of Consultation. The final para~ graph of that report states that~ with the withdrawal of the Nicaraguan author ides from that part of the zone of Teotecacinte that remained under the sover ~ eignty of Honduras and with "the activities that the Mixed Commission has so far carried out, the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Basis of Arrangement have been fully complied with, and the functions assigned to the Commission in paragraph 4 of the same Basis have been carried to completion, with the exception of that contained in the last part of point (b) of that paragraph, 'to verify the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the

l mouth of the Coca River • It

This report refers precisely to the activities carried out by the Honduras

Nicaragua Mixed Commission with respect to verifying the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the mouth of the Coco River and to the inspection made by the Commission to confirm that boundary markers had been erected along the boundary line in the zone of Teotecacinte. ------

- 5 ..

lIo VERIFICATION OF THE STARTING POINT OF THE NATURAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA

The Arbitral Award pronounced by the King of Spain on Decem.ber 23?

1906 stated:

The extrem.e com.rnon boundary point on the coast of the Atlantic will be the m.outb of the River Coco, Segovia or Wanks~ where it flows out in the sea close to Cape Gracias a Dios, taking as the m.outh of the river its principal arm. between Hara and the Island of San Pio where said Cape is situated, leaving to Honduras the islets and shoals existing within said pr,incipal arll1. before reaching the harbour bar, and retaining for Nkaragua the southern shore of the said principal m.outh with the said Island of San Pio, and also the bay and town of Cape Gracias a Dios and the arm. or estuary called Gracias which flows to Gracias a Dios Bay, between the m.ainland and said Island of San Pio.

Among the powers conferred on the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Com.m.is-

sion in the Basis of Arrangem.ent was the following:

b) • 0 0 to verify the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the m.outh of the Coco River.

In order to have the technical data necessary to m.ake such a ver.:l.£icatwn, }j in Novernber 1961 the Mixed Com.mission asked the Com.m.ittee of Engineers,

rderred to in paragraph 5 of the Basis of Arrangem.ent, to go to the area

where the m.outh of the Coco or Segovia River is located in order to m.ake the

necessary studies and prepare a report on the result of its activities.

That report, accom.panied by an aerial photo m.ap of the area prepared

by the Committee of Engineers, was presented to the Mixed Commission on

July 14, 1962 (Appendix 3).

1 0 The official title of this Com.m.ittee is the "Honduran-Nicaraguan JOlnt

Boundary Com.m.i s sian" 0 - 6 ~

On December 13? 1962, the Mixed Commission, composed of Dr. Roberto

Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Honduras; Dr. Ignacio Roman Pacheco,

Representative of Nicaragua; and Dr. Roberto E. Quir6s, Representative of the

Chairman of the Commiss ion, met in Managua and then went to the area of the mouth of the Coca or Segovia River? accompanied by the engineers, Magfn Lanza of Honduras~ Crist6bal Rugama of Nicaragua? and Robert McIlwaine of the United

States, members of the Committee of Engineers.

The Mixed Commission examined the aerial photo map on the ground, and in order to do so~ went by boat down the three branches by which the Coco

River empties into the sea, flew over the entire area in a helicopter? and travel ed by land over the part of the coast where the town of Gracias a Dios is situat ed.

As a result of that inspection and on the basis of the technical data and other evidence contained in the report of the Committee of Engineers, on Decem ber 15, 1962, the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission verified that the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries was "at the mouth of the main branch of the Coco River, indicated on the map prepared by the Committee of Engineers as the 'Brazo del Este' a point situated at fourteen degrees? fifty-nine minutes, eight seconds (14 0 59' 8") North Latitude and eighty-three degrees, eight minutes, nine seconds (83 0 8' 9") West Longitude?

Greenwich meridian. 11

In addition, the Mixed Commission suggested to the governments of

Honduras and Nicaragua that it would be desirable to conclude a treaty on - 7 - navigation and the industrial and agricultural use of the waters of the Coco

Rjv~r to be applied to any situations that might arise in the future in connection with such matters. The minutes of this meeting are attached as Appendix

4 to this report.

EL INSPECTION OF THE PLACEMENT OF BOUNDARY MARKERS ON THE BOUNDARY LINE ESTABLISHED IN THE ZONE OF TEOTE CACINTE

On December 17, 1962, the Mixed Commission went to Jalapa1 Nicara- gua near the zone of Teotecacinte in order to inspect the placement of bound-

ary markers on the boundary line fixed by the Commission in that zone 1 in accordance with paragraph 4 (c) of the Basis of Arrangement, and as aLready stated, described in the minutes of the Seventh and Eighth meetings, and in the decision of Ambassador Vicente Sanchez Gavito. The Committee of Engi- neers had been engaged in erecting these boundary markers since September

1961.

The Mixed Commission, accompanied by the members of the Committee of Engineers, made a tour of the border area and verified that the boundary markers had been erected, and that they were placed exact~y on the lin.e described in the above-mentioned minutes and decision.

As stated.in the minutes of the Thirteenth Meeting (Appendix 5}J held in

Jalapa on December 19, 1962, the boundary markers were erecten as follows:

a) Type No. 1 corner markers were erected at the following vertexes:

Rincon de Murupuchi', Ahumaderas, Vigi'a hill, the Saquinll' house1 Plan Verde hill or Ceja de Montaf1a, the bank of the Muimuili' or Guineo River, and Cayancupa or Cayantii. hill, in addition, markers - 8 -

of the same type were erected as follows: as reference points, I on the left bank of the Lim6n River? to mark the intersection of the center of the bed of that river with the line that goes from Murupuchf along the western boundary of Sitio de Teotecacinte; 1 on either bank of the confluence of the GuayucaH and Agua Caliente watercourses; and I on the bank of the confluence of the Poteca River and the YupaiH or Estero watercourse.

b) Type No. 2 linear markers were erected as follows: 4 between the Lim6n River and Rinc6n de Murupuchl; 16 between Rinc6n de Muru puchr and the confluence of the GuayucaH and Agua Caliente water courses; 9 between Ahumaderas and the Vigfa marker; 4 between La Vigl'a and the SaquinH house; 6 between the Saquinlf house and Plan Verde; 4 between Plan Verde hill and the bank of the Guineo River; I between the bank of the Guineo RiveT and Cayantu hill; 36 between Cayantu hill and the confluence of the Poteca river and the Estero watercourse.

c) Eighty,~nine reference markers were placed alternately along the banks of the Lim6n River, between Portillo de Teotecacinte and the intersection of the center of the bed of that river with the lme that gees from the l'v1urupuchr marker along the western boundary of Sitio de Teotecacinte. Eight markers of this same type were also erected between the confluence of the GuayucaH and Agua Caliel1.te watercourses and the Ahurnaderas marker.

d) A monument~type marker was also p.!·",cPd. an 1:he 1111(.:' t.ha.t goes from the Lim.6n River to .:(inc6n de 1\1:ul·up'':'(~111J0;;:,id.e'~he ncri::l f:idl~ of the road that goes [rum. CjfU0!!tes to ~1:'f.l.JteCa(.ll1te.

A detailed descrlpti')l1o£ the ptal~e,ment of the bo'm.deny rnarkers, tLe

geogr,aphic coorcllnate3 01 the lUal'lr.erE constructed 3.r:~i 0.': '~he (l.clt.xr2.1 l11d.rkers,

the courses and distan-:ea uf the boundary line? and aL r"her pe;:';iE0nt i!:·j()Trna-

tion are contained in thr~ J:eport and rt'.ap 5ubmitted by t~'J:: C(I.":11"!uttee of El1gi.~.

neers (AppeIldlx 6;.

IV. FINAL CONSIDEr.: A.TJ.ONS

With thl~ dctivitj,f~8 de::..c.:dbe

n1isslon fully c::ornpHed with the dut~e;:: \1:i 1;h ',':1' 1.::1, il wa."' (;~1·.. r ,1e(~ ender the Basis

------._. __.- - 9 - of Arrangement approved by the two governrnents, and the controversy that existed between the neighboring republics of Honduras and Nicaragua concern~

ing the Arbitral Award pronounced by the King of Spain on December 23, 19069 was definitively settled. Accordingly, the Inter-American Peace Committee, through its Chairman, transmitted to the Representatives of Honduras and

Nicaragua on the Council of the Organization of American States the notes that ne included as Appendices 7 and 8.

The participation of the Inter-American System in the solution of this important problem goes back to the beginning of 1957, as can be seen on pages

219 to 292 of the Pan American Union publication entitled "Aplicaciones del

Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Rec!proca". Even though the action of the Inter-American Peace Committee has been related solely to matters that arose in connection with the execution of the judgment of the International Court of Justice, delivered on November 18, 1960, the Committee wishes to expres s the conviction that the success of the work carried out by it and by the other organs of the Inter-American System that have taken part in this case was due essentially to the genuine spirit of understanding of the parties and their sincere desire to resolve the controversy that existed between them.

The Inter-American Peace Committee wishes also to express its pro found gratitude to the members of the Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission and of the Honduran-Nicaraguan Committee of Engineers, as well as to those officials of the Pan American Union who lent their cooperation in this case, for their indefatigable efforts in carrying out the duties entrusted to them. - 10 -

The Gommitte wishes to make special mention of the important and deci.sive contribution to the solution of this problem made by Ambassador Vicente

Sanchez Gavito, Representative of Mexico on the Council of the Organization of American States and Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee and of the Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission until August 6, 1961.

July 16, 1963

Emilio N. Oribe Interim Representative of Uruguay Chairman of the Committee

Enrique Tejera Paris Ambassador, Representative of Venezuela

Alberto Zuleta Angel Ambassador, Representative of Colombia

deLesseps S. Morri-eon Ambassador, Repre-sentative of the United States of America

Arturo Calventi Ambassador, Representative of the Dominican Republic APPENDICES - 13 - APPENDIX 1

BASIS OF ARRANGEMENT ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA

1. The Government of Nicaragua will ilnnediately withdraw its authorities frem the territory*. The withdrawal of authorities from the zone of Teote cacinte will proceed in conformance with the results of the demarcation of the said zone, and according as this demarcation may be carried out.

2. There is hereby established the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commis sion, which will be composed of the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee, as representative of Honduras, and, as representative of Nicaragua. The Chairman of the Mixed Commission will be the Chairman of the Inter-Ameri can Peace Committee.

3. . The Mixed Commission will begin its meetings in the place and at the time determined by the Chairman; it will go into the territory as soon as pos sible and will remain there for as long as may be necessary to complete its task. It is understood that a part of this task will consist of supervising the orderly departure of those persons who wish to move to Nicaragua, and in this u.ndertaking the Commission will have the fullest cooperation of the two govern ments. During the time that the Mixed Commission is in the territory, the Chairman may be represented by the official of the Organization of American Sta.~es whom the Secretary General thereof appoints for the purpose.

4. The powers of the Mixed Commission are:

a.) To aid the two governments in their efforts to guarantee the inhait ants of the territory a choice between the two nationalities. and to permit those persons who may wish to do so to move to Nicaragua.

b) Under the terms of the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, to fix on the ground the boundary line from the juncture of the Bodega or Fbteca Rive:r with the Guineo River as far as Portillo de Teotecacin te, as well as to verify the starting point of the natural boundary be tween the two countries at the mouth of the Coco River.

c) To supervise the setting of landmarks for the boundary line laid out according to the preceding paragraph.

d} Any other powers that the two governments may confer upon it, at the suggestion of the Inter-American Peace Committee.

* liTerrit'Jryll is understood to mean the region which, according to the Ar bitral Award of December 23, 1906, belongs to Honduras and is now occupied by Nicaraguan authorities. - 14 ~

5. In exercising the powers set forth in paragraph 4 b. ~ the Mixed Com- mission will avail itself of the Committee of Engineers already created by t.he two governments .

6. In the event of disagreement between the Representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua on the Mixed Commission, the Chairman will make the final decision. This power may not be delegated.

7. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States will pro vide the Mixed Comm.ission with the technical staff and secretariat requested by'the Chairman. T:re latter will appoint the officials he feels would be useful to remain at thos.e plac~s withill the t.e l'ritor.y..that. the. M,ix~d. Comrn.i~I:'.:lG1".... .its&.l£ ... may decide upon.

8. Under the terms of Article 1 of its Statutes, the Inter-American Peace Committee will suggest measure.s and steps conducive to a settlement of all questions that may arise between the two governments in carrying Qut the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906~ and that are not submitted to the Mixed Commission in accordance with this Basis. Acquired rights to private prop perty in the territory will be respected, in conformance at all times with the constitution and laws of the Republic of Honduras.

Washington, D. C. March 13, 1961. - 15 - APPENDIX 2

ARBITRAL AWARD OF HIS MAJESTY ALFONSO XlII, KING OF SPAIN~ ON THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE REPUBLICS OF HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA

DON ALFONSO XIII

By the Grace of God and the Constitution King of Spain

Whereas the question of boundaries pending between the Republics ~f.fI911d\lri~.and ~ • N'icaragua has been submitted to me for my decision by virtue ...... ~ t ~,.,...... •• :>f Articles Ill, IV~ and V of the TreatyofTegucigalpa of 'the· 7tE"October~ 1894; and pursuant to the notes addressed by my Minister of State on the 11th Novem ber, 1904, to the Ministers of Foreign Mfairs for the said Powers:

Inspired by the desire to correspond to the trust equally vested by both the said Powers in the mother-country in submitting to my decision a matter of so great importance:

Inasmuch as for that purpose and by the Royal Decree of the 17th April, 1905, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the said question of boundaries in order that it might clear up the points in dispute and draw up a report preparatory to the arbitral finding:

Inasmuch as the High Parties interested presented in due course their respective allegations and replies together with the corresponding docu ments, in support of what each considered its right:

Inasmuch as the boundaries between the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua are now definitely settled by mutual consent of both Parties, from the coast of the Pacific Ocean up to the Portillo de Teotecacinte:

Inasmuch as according to the records of Amapala of 14th September~ 1902, and 29th August, 1904~ the: joint Honduras-Nicaragua Commission endeav oured to select a ·::Omrnon boundary point on the Atlantic Coast to continue thence the demarcation of the frontier up to the aforesaid Portillo de Teotecacinte, which could not be carried out aLS an understanding could not be arrived at:

Inasmuch as the territories in dispute cOIIlprised an extensive ZOne bounded by:

On the north side, starting from the Portillo de Teotecacinte, con tinuing along the crest of the range and following the watershed line terminat ing in the Portillo where the source of the River Frio originates, and following - 16 -

afterwards the course of said river up to where it unites with the Guayambre and afterwards by the source of the Guayambre up to wht:re this river unites with the Guayape? and from here up to where the Guayape and Guayambre take the common name of Rio Patuca~ following the water~course of this river until it encounters the meridian which passes by Cape Camaron and following this meridian up to the coast;

On the south from the Portillo de Te''JItecacinte from the headwaters of the River L5.mon~ following the course of this river and afterwards by the Poteca up to its confluence with the River Segovia~ continuing the watercourse of the latter un.:il it reaches a point situated 20 geographical miles in a straight and perptmdicular line· from the"Atlantic Coast tUl.'ning"southwards at "this point on an astroflomical meridian until the geographical parallel of latitude which crosses the mouth of the River Arena and the lagoon of San.dy Bay~ is intercept o ed~ said parallel being followed towards the east from the aboveQmentioned intersection up to the Atlantic Coast;

Xn:asmuch as the question which has given rise to this arbitration consists in fixing the dividing lines of both Republics comprised between a point on the Atlantic Coast and the aforementioned PortHlo de Teotecacinte:

Whereas? as agreed upon between both Parties in the third stipulaQ tion of the second Article of the Treaty of Tegucigalpa or Gamez Bonilla of l894~ by which thIS Arbitration is governed~ it is to be undertood that each of the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua possesses such territory as on the date of their independence form.ed·r·espettively the provinces of Honduras and Nicarag..la belonging to Spain;

Whereas the Spanish provinces ef Honduras and Nicaragua were gradually developing by historical evolution in such a manner as to be finally formed in:o two distinct administratlons {Intendendas) under the Captaincy~ General of Guatemala by virtue of the prescriptions of the Royal Regulations of Provincl,a] Intendants of New Spain of l786~ which were applied to Guatemala and under whose regIme they came as administered provinces till their eman~ cipation. from Spain in 1821:

Whereas by Royal Decree of 24th July~ l79l~ at the request of the Intendant Governor of Comayagua and in conformity with the decision of the High Co,unci! of Guatemala by virtue of the prescriptions laid down in Articles VIII and IX of the Royal Regulations of Intendants of New Spain~ the incorporaQ tion of the chief municipality {Alcaldia Mayor) of Tegucigalpa. with the Adminis tion Untendencia) and government of Comayagua (Hondura.s) with all the terri tory of its bishopric was decided upon~ by reason. of the fact that the said chief municipality was a neighbouring province to that of Honduras and united with it for ecclesiastical purposes as well as for collecting taxes: - 17 -

Whereas, by virtue of this Royal Decree the Province of Honduras was formed in 1791, with all the territories of the primitive province of Coma~ yagua, those of the neighbouring Province of Tegucigalpa and the territories of the bishopnc of Camayagua, thus comprising a region bordering on the south with Nicaragua, on the south-west and west with the Pacific Ocean,9 San Salva~ dol', and Gua.temala; and on the north, north-east, and east with the Atlantic Ocean, with the exception of that part of the coast inhabited at the time by the Mosquito, Zambos, and Payas Indians, &c.;

Whereas, taking as a precedent what is ordained in the Royal

Decree of 17917 regard should be had for the demarcation made by two other .. .Royal Decrees of the 23rd August, 1745~ by which Don Juan de Vera was appointed Governor and Commander-General of the Province of Honduras fo:::- the command of this province and the ramainder comprised within the Bishopric of Comayagua and district of the chief municipality of Tegucigalpa and of all the territory and coast comprised between the limit of jurisdiction of the province of Yucatan up to Cape Gracias a Dios; and the other Royal Decree appointed Don Alonso Fernandez de Heredia Governor of the province of Nicaragua and &>mmand~ er-General of same, of Costa Rica, of the district of Realejo and chief munici palities of Subtiaba, Nicoya and the rest of the territory comprised from Cape Gracias a Dios up to the River Chagre (River Chagre exclud,ed);

In said documents Cape Gracias a Dios is fixed as the boundary point of the jurisdiction assigned to the above-mentioned Govel"nors of Hondu ras and Nicaragua in the respective capacities in which they were appointed.

Whereas, furthermore, there is a precedent worthy of note, in the despatch of the Captain-General of Guatemala, Don Pedro de Rivera, addressed to the King on the 23rd of November, 11742, with reference to the Mosquito Indians, which states that Cape Gracias a Dios is situated on the coast of the province of Comayagua (Honduras);

Whereas, when by virtue of the Treaty with Great Britain in 1786 the British evacuated the country of the Mosquitos, at the same time that new Regulations were made for the port of Trujillo it was likewise ordained to raise four new Spanish sttlements on the Mosquito Coast in Rio Tinto~ Cape Gradas a Dios, Blewfields, and mouth of the River San Juan, although it is neverthE'~[ Sf' true that these settlements remained directly subject to the Captain-G!:;,,'. ':':-$.1 is command of Guatemala, both Parties agreed to recognise that this fact '!' LtO way altered the territories of the provinces of Nicaragua and Honduras~ 'i.~., ~·tter Republic having shown by means of certified copies of despatches and accounts that before and after 1791 the Intendant Governorship of Comayagua superintended everything appertaining to its competence in Tru jUlo, Rio Tinto, and Cape Gracias a Dios. - 18 -

Whereas Regulation 7 of Title 2 and Book 2 of the Code of the lndies in fixing the manner as to how the division of the discovered t~rritories was to be made, ordained that it should be carried out in such a manner that the secular division should conform to the ecclesiastical, and that the Archbish oprics should correspond with the districts of the Courts of Law, the Bishoprics with the Governorships and chief municipalities and the parishes with the districts and District Councils;

Whereas the Bishopric of Comayagua or Honduras, which prior to 1791 had exercised jurisdiction in territories which at the present nloment are in dispute, exercised beyond doubt such acts of jurisdiction from that date within the limits of the Governorship and Administrations of the same name, as would consist in the collection of tithes, matrimonial documents, appointments of church livings, and the settlement of ecclesiastical claims in Trujillo, Rio Tinto, anu Cape Gracias a Di os;

Whereas the settlement and township of Cape Gracias a Dios, situat ed slightly to the south of the cape of the same name and of the southern margin of the most important mouth of the river known at the present day as the Coco or Segovia, was, prior to 1791, included in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishopric of Comayagua, and continued under said jurisdiction until the old Spanish Province of Honduras was constituted into an independent State.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of Honduras of 1825, drawn up at the time it was united to the State of Nicaragua, and fonning with other States the Federal Republic of Central America, sets forth that its territory comprises all that corresponds and corresponded with the diocese of Honduras;

Whereas the demarcation fixed for the Province or District of Coma yagua or Hondl1ras, by virtue uf the Royal Decree of the 24th July, 1791, continued to be the same at the time when the Provinces of Honduras and Nicaragua achieved their independence, because though by Royal Decree of the 24th January, 1818, the King sanctioned the re -establishment of the chief municipality of Tegucigalpa with a certain degree of autonomy as to its administration, said chief municipality continued to form a district of the Province of Gomayagua or Honduras, subject to the political chief of the province; and in that capacity took part in the election, 5th November, 1820, of a Deputy to the Spanish Cortes and a suhstitute Deputy for the Province of Comayagua, and likewise took part together with the other districts of Gracias, Choluteca, Olancho, Yoro with Olanchito and Trujillo, Tencoc". and Comayagua, in the election of the Provincial Council of Honduras, said elec tion having taken place on the 6th November of the same year, 1820; · 19 -

Whereas en the organisation of the Government and Administra tion of Nicaragua in accordance w1th the Royal Adlninistrative Statute's of 1786 It consIsted of the five d5stnc:s of Leon, Matagalpa, El Realejo, Sub tlaba, and Nlcoya) not compnsing m this divislOn nor in that proposed in 1788 by the Governor and Intendant Don Juan de Ayssa terrItories to the north and west of Cape Gracias a Dies, wh:!.ch are at the present day claimed by the Republlc of Nicaragua, therE.' being no record either that the jurisdiction of the diocese of Nicaragua reached t.o that Cape) and whereas it is worthy of note that the last Governor and Lltendant of NIcaragua, Don Mlguel Gonza1ez Saravia~ in d,eSCrlbll1.g the prOVInce which had been under his rule in his book "Bosquejo Poli'tico Estadlstico de Nicaragua"~ pubhshed In 1824, stated that the divisionary lir..e of sad Provlnce on the north runs from the Gulf of Fonseca on the Pacif1c to the River FerIas in the Northern Sea (Atlantic) j

Whereas the Comnllsslon of inv'estigation has not found that the expanding mfluence of Nica,rag'..la has extended to the north of Cape Gracias a Dios, and therefore not reached Cape Camaron; and that in no map, geogra phIcal descnpLion or other document of those examined by said Commission is there any mer~tion that Nlcara.gua had extended to saId Cape Camaron~ and there is no reason, therefore, to select said Cape as a frontier boundary with Hon duras on the Atlantic Coast as IS claimed by NIcaragua;

Whereas, though at some time it may have been beheved that the jurisdiction of Honduras reached to the south of Cape Graciasa Dios, the Com mission of investlgahon finds that sald expansion of territory was never clearly defined, and 'in any case was only ephemeral be10w the township and port of Cape Gracias a Dios, whilst on the other hand the Influence of Nicaragua has been extended and exercised 111 a real and permane:-lt manner towards the afore~ mentioned Cape Gra<::as. a DlOS, and therefore It is not equitable that the common boundary on the Atlantlc Coast ehould be Sandy Bay as claimed by Honduras;

V/hereas 1U order to arnve at the designation of Cape Camaron or Sandy Bay 1t would be necessary to resort to artificial divisionary lines which in no wise correspond to well-defined natu:/:"al boundaries as recommended by the Gamez Bonilla Treaty.

Whereas all the maps (Spanish and foreign) examined by the Com m'.ssion appomted by the Royal Decree of April 1905, with reference to terri tories of Honcl.uras and N1caragua prior- to the date cof their independence, show the separation between both territories at Cape Gracias a Dios or to the south of this Cape, and that a'- a date subsequent to t.he Independence maps, such as those of SqUler (New York1 1854), Baily (London, 1856), Dussieux (prepared in the presence Cif Stieler} Kiepert., Petermann and Berghaus, Paris, 1868), Dunn

------20 -

(New Orleans, 1884), Colton Ohman & Co. (New York, 1890), Andrews (Leipzig, 1901), Armours (Chicago, 1901), define the limit at Cape Gracias a Dios;

Whereas only five of the maps examined with reference to the ques tion fix the limit between Honduras and Nicaragua on the Atlantic side to the north of Cape G!"acias a Dios, and these five maps are subsequent to the date of Independence and even to the date when the dispute arose between the two mentioned States, and that out of the five maps three are by Nicaragua and the other two (one German and another North American), though nevertheless placing the limit to the north of Cape Gracias a Dios, fix it at a point very near this Cape, that is, at the northern extremity of the delta of the River Segovia;

Whereas such geographical authorities as Lopez de Velasco (1571 1574), Thomas Lopez (1758), Gonzalez Saravia (Governor of Nicaragua, 1823), Squier (1856), Reclus (1870), Sonnenstern (1874), Bancroff (1890), have fixed the common boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua on the Atlantic Coast at the mouth of the River Segovia or Cape Gracias a Dios, or a point to the south of this Cape;

Whereas Cape Gracias a Dios has been recognised as the common boundary between Honduras and Nicaragua in several diplomatic documents from the latter State, such as Circulars addressed to foreign Governments by Don Francisco Castellon, Minister Plenipotentiary of Nicaragua and Honduras (1844), Don Sebastian Salinas, Minister for Foreign Affairs (1848), and Don Jose Guerrero, Supreme Director of the State of Nicaragua (1848), and by the instructions sent by the Government of Nicaragua to its Envoy Extraordinary to Spain, Don Jose de Marcoleta, for the purposes of recognition of the independ ence of the said Republic, 1850;

Whereas, from what is inferred from all the foregoing, the point which best answers the purpose by reason of historical right, of equity and of a geographical nature, to serve as a common boundary on the Atlantic Coast between the two contending States, is Cape Gracias a Dios for tre Atlantic Coast, and further, as this Cape fixes what has practiCally been the limit of expansion or encroachment of Nicaragua towards the north and of Honduras towards the south;

Whereas, once Cape Gracias a Dios has been fixed as the COmmon boundary between the two contending States, it is necessary to fix the frontier line between this point and the Portillo de Teotecacinte, which was the point reached by the joint Honduras -Nicaragua Commission;

Whereas close to Cape Gracias a Dios on the Atlantic there starts no important range of .mountains which by reason of the direction followed could serve as a frontier between both States starting from said point, and that on the - 21 -

other hand there exists in that very spot a perfectly defined boundary, that is to say, the mouth and bed of such an important and copious river as the Coco, Segovia or Wanks;

Whereas the course of said river, at least a good portion of it, owing to the direction in which it flows and to the conditions of its bed, offers the most precise and natural boundary which could be desired;

Whereas this same River Coco, Segovia or Wanks in a great part of its course has figured and figures on many maps, public documents and geog raphical descriptions as the frontier between Honduras and Nicaragua;

Whereas in the volume of the Blue-Book for the years 1856 and 1860 presented by Her Britannic Majesty's Government to Parliament, these docu ments appearing amongst the documents produced by Nicaragua, show that according to the Note of Great Britain's representative in the United States who took part in the negotiations to solve the question of the Mosquito territory (1852), Honduras and Nicaragua had mutually recognised as a frontier the River Wanks or Segovia; further, that Article II of the Agreement between Great Britain and Honduras of 27th August 1856, Her Britannic Majesty's Government recognised the middle of the River Wanks or Segovia, which flow::. out at Cape Gracias a Dios, as the boundary between the Republic of Honduras and the territory of the Mosquito Indians; and that, in Article IV of the Treaty with Great Britain and the United States of 17th of October of the same year, l856~ it was decided that all the territory to the south of the River Wanks or Segovia not included in the portion reserved to the Mosquito Indians, and without prejudging the rights of Honduras should be consldered within the limits and under the rule of the Republic of Nicaragua;

Whereas it is necessary to fix a point where the course of the River Wanks, Coco or Segovia should be abandoned before it turns to the south-west and enters the unquestionable territory of Nicaragua;

Whereas the point which best answers the purpose in view is the place where the said River Coco or Segovia receives on its left bank the waters of its tributary Poteca or Bodega;

Whereas this point of confluence of the sald River Poteca with the River Segovia has been likewise adopted by several authorities, and particu larly by the Nicaragua engineer Don Maximiliano V. Sonnenstern in his 'Geography of Nicaragua for use in the Elementary Schools of the Republic" (Managua, 1874); - 22 -

Whereas, continuing the bed of the Poteca up stream until the River Guineo or Namasli is reached, the southern part of the site of Teotecacinte is struck to which the document presented by Nicaragua, dated 26th August, 1720, refers, according to which said site appertained to the jurisdiction of the city of New Segovia (Nicaragua);

Whereas if the selection of the confluence of the Poteca with the Coco or Segovia be taken as the point where the bed of the latter river is to be abandoned, to look out for the Portillo de Teotecacinte, in the manner described, might give rise to doubts and controversy under the supposition that Honduras would be favoured in the narrow region of the northern valley of the Segovia, which thus remains within the frontier;' whilst, on the other hand, and as compensation for having taken the mouth of the Segovia in the manner previously mentioned, the bay and town of Cape Gracias a Dios remain within the domain of Nicaragua, which, according to facts beyond dispute and with a greater right, would correspond to Honduras; and lastly,

Whereas, though Regulation 4 of Article II of the Gomez Bonilla or Tegucigalpa Treaty provides that to fix the boundaries between both Republics due note will be taken of the territory held under undisputed sway, without giving any legal validity to the fact of possession alleged by one or the other Party, Regulation 6 of the same Article lays down that if considered convenient, com pensations can be effected, and even indemnifications made to bring about, if possible, well-defined natural boundaries;

Agreeing with the solution proposed by the Commission of investiga tions and concurring with the Council of State in full and with my Cabinet,

I do hereby declare that the dividing line between the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua from the Atlantic to the Portillo de Teotecacinte where the joint Commission of Boundaries abandoned it in 1901, owing to their inability to arrive at an understanding as to its continuation at their subsequent meetings, is now fixed in the following manner:

The extreme common boundary point on the coast of the Atlantic will be the mouth of the River Coco, Segovia or Wanks, where it flows out in the sea close to Cape Gracias a Dios, taking as the mouth of the river its principal arm between Hara and the Island of San Pio where said Cape is situated, leaving to Honduras the islets and shoals existing within said principal arm before :reaching - 23 - the harbour bar, and retaining for Nicaragua the southern shore of the said principal mouth with the said Island of San Pio, and also the bay and town of Cell)€' Gracias a Dios and the arm or estuary called Gracias which flows to Gracias a Dios Bay, between the mainland and said Island of San Pio.

Starting from the mouth of the Segovia or Coco the frontier line will follow the watercourse or thalweg of this river upstream without interrup tion until it reaches the place of its confluence with the Poteca or Bodega, and ther.~e said frontier line will depart from the River Segovia, continuing along the water -course of the said Poteca or Bodega upstream until it joins the River Guineo or Namasli.

From this junction the line will follow the direction which corre sponds to the demarcation of the site of Teotecacinte in accordance with the deman ation made in 1720 to terminate at the Portillo de Teotecacinte in such manner that said site remains wholly within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua.

Given in duplicate at the Royal Palace in Madrid, 23rd of December, 1906.

ALFONSO XIII

Minister of State, Juan Perez Caballero. - 24 - APPENDIX 3

REPORT OF THE HONDURAN-NICARAGUAN JOINT BOUNDARY COMMISSION ON THE STUDIES MADE AT THE MOUTH OF THE COCO, SEGOVIA, OR WANKS RIVER

The Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Bounda:ry Commission, pursuant to Article 5 of the Basis of Arrangement accepted by the two governments be fore the Coun.cil of the Organization of American States, and in order to assist the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission in its exercise of the power stip ulated in paragraph 4(b}, which is: Iito ve::rify the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the mouth of the Coco River, 11 decided at a meetin.g in the city of Jalapa on January 18, 1962" that all or part of the Commission should go to the region of Cabo Gradas a Dios to do the necessary work for the purpose stated,· and to· ask each" of' the ~OVeTIUll~nt~ fbl· th~· .... ,.-. inltial sum of one thousand dollars to cove!' whatever expenses might be incurr- ed on the trip.

Accordingly, the following members of the Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Boundary Co:m:mission: Robert R. McIlwaine, Co:mmission Chairma.n; Crist6 bal Rugama Nufiez and Roger GutH~rrez Herrera, Nicaraguan delegates; Magi'n Lanza and Sabino A. Mass, Honduran delegates; a.nd Mr. Luis Antonio Osorio, acting as Treasurer of the mission, went on May 16, 1962 by air from Managua to Waspan, a town located on the right bank of the Coca or Segovia River. From there, traveling on the Coco River in a motor boat belongmg to the Ministry of Public Educatlon of Nicaragua, they went to the San Bernardo farm of Mr. Cris t6bal Colomer on the left bank of the :river where they stayed while they were doing the work, because it was the only house in that area that had certain con veniences and because it was only an hour by small rn.otor boat frorrl there to the

:mouth of the Coca RlveI' 0

The work done was as follows:

I) InspectlOn of the mm..1th of the Coco or 8egovia River.

Il) Estabhsh..Tllent and :measurement of a base line by means of stadia rods to fix the scale for the aenal photographs and compute the bearings for the aerial photo ma.p of the region that was to be prepared.

Ill) Mal'ki!1g of poi::1ts on the ground so that they could be identified in the aerial photographs.

IV) Making soundings m the beds of the va:ious branches of the mouth of the Coca River to locate the thalweg.

V) Dete:!:minatio:'l of the diffe;r8:':lCeS between the wate!" levels at high tide and low tide a.nd t~e t:unes at wInch. they occur' in order to take aerial - 25 -

photographs at the highest and lowest tide and also to correct the soundings taken.

VI.) Preparation of an aerial photo map of the region where the mouth of the Coco or Segovia River is located, using, in order to determine its geographic position, the Sunbeam triangulation station, located on the island, because it is the nearest triangulation station in the Nicaraguan Section of the Inter-American Geodetic Survey to the mouth of the Coco River.

1. INSPECTION

The inspection was made by navigating down the various branches of the river and walking along their banks and along the eastern seacoast, as a result of which the following was established; a) The Coco River empties into the sea through three branches: One, about 30 meters wide~ rises on its left bank at the town of Gracias a Dios in Honduras (better known by the local name of Twibila) and, flowing northward, empties into the sea; b) Another branch, known locally as the Canal Roman, rises down stream from the preceding one on the right bank of the River at the point where the Nicaraguan customhouse at Cabo Gracias a Dios is located, is 90 meters wide, flows southward, and empties into Sunbeam Bay; c) And the third branch, which flows in an easterly direction, is general ly about 160 meters wide, but at certa.in points as much as 500 meters wide, and empties into the sea. It was noted that there are no islets in this branch; d) There are two islands. One is north of the Brazo del Este and is sur rounded by it, the Lranch flowing northward, and the sea. The southern shor~ of this island forms the left bank of the Brazo del Este. The other island is located south of the Brazo del Este, is separated from the mainland by Canal Roman and Sunbeam Bay south of the same island. The north shore of this island forms the right bank of the Brazo del Este; e) On the northeastern tip of the island, which is south of the Brazo del Este, is a narrow strip of land that extends to the sea, or in geographic ternlS, a cape, at which point the seacoast shifts abruptly; and f) We inspected the vertex of the Sunbeam triangulation, which is compos ed of the center of a small triangle cut in a brass plate attached to a concrete block, bearing the inscription: ISunbeam-1955" which is sunk in a narrow strip of land that extends several kilometers in a rather southwesterly direction, between Sunbeam Bay and the open sea, and is a continuation of the island sit uated south of the Brazo del Este. - 26 -

H. THE MEASUREMENT OF A BASE LINE USING STADIA TO DETERMINE APPROXIMATELY THE SCALE FOR THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE CALCULATION OF ITS AZIMUTH TO FIX THE BEARINGS OF THE AERIAL PHOTO MAP

Since in that region (where the aerial photographs were taken) there was no known distance on which to base the scale for the aerial photographs that were taken later, a base line was measured at the TWlbila airfield by means of stadia rods, a method that was preferred because it was easier and faster and met the desired conditions of accuracy. The base hne was measured twice, each time by two engineers, one from Honduras and one from Nicaragua. The difference between the two measurements was 17 centimeters, and the average was l, 357.97 meters. At either end of this line a cast iron pipe ten centimeters in diameter and approximately one meter long was placed. The two ends are marked precIsely by iron rods attached to the upper end of the pipes and extend ing two centimeters out of the concrete.

For the pur-pose of establishing the bearings for the aenal photo map that was prepared) the azimuth of the base line was calculated by takmg obser vations on the North Star at the eastern end of the said line, which gave an astronomical bearing toward the west end of N 53 0 40' 58" w. It was also found that the magnetic declination was 3 0 36'5 E.

Ill. MARKING OF POINTS ON THE GROUND FOR INDENTIFICATION ON THE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

At either end of the base line mentioned and at the Sunbeam triangula tion station signs were made in the form of a T and a cross fronl white canvas, each arm measuri1l1.g one meter wide by approximately 20 meters long, to identify these points in the aerial photographs.

IV. SOUNDINGS TO LOCATE THE THALWEG

Navigating in a motor boat, the depths of the three branches by which the Coco River empties into the sea were measured by the Commission, using an electronic sound (Fathometer), an apparatus for recording the depth of a liquid mass. It was found that the Brazo del Este, which flows between the two islands, was the deepest, and, as has been stated, it is also the wldest.

The depths recorded in the soundings taken are found on the map enclos ed with this report. They were recorded in feet. - 27 -

V. DETERMINATION OF THE HIGH TIDE AND LOW TIDE LEVELS

Two measuring points were established from which to observe the varia tions between the high tide and low tide levels and time of occurrence. One of the points was opposite the Nicaraguan customhouse at GraciaG a Dios on the right bank of the river and the other near the mouth of the Brazo del Este on the left bank. For that purpose, metric rules were placed in the water near the banks of the river at these two points, where the depth was app:roxim.ately the same at the same tim.e, and the variations in the tide line were noted every 15 minutes. These appear on separate sheets enclosed herewith.

VI. PREPARATION OF AN AERIAL PHOTO MAP OF THE REGION OF THE MOUTH OF THE COCO RIVER

The aerial photo map that was prepared of the region where the mouth of the Coco or Segovia RIver is located covers an area of appoximately 200 square kilometers. The photographs~ totaling 63, were taken from an airplane of the Nicaraguan Geodetic Office with a K-17 cam era from an altitude of between =>,000 feet and 10,000 feet above sea level. At an altitude of 10,000 feet, four strips parallel to the north coast were taken. The first strip shows the sea and part of the coast, and the last one shows the southern tip of the Bay of Gracias a Dios. There is a vertical overlap of 75 per cent and a horizontal overlap of 40 per cent in these photographs. In addition, a transversal strip was taken on the eastern coast with the same vertical overlap of 75 per cent. These pho tographs were used to make a contact mosaic.

At an altitude of 5,000 feet, three strips of photographs parallel to the east coast were taken, which provided better interpretation of the details that appeared very small on those t.aken at 10,000 feet.

The mosaic and the fiz-st map, which was produced by tracing directly from the mosaic to a sheet of transparent plastic, were made under the direc tion and supervision of Mr. Robert R. McIlwaine. The scale of the photograph ic mosaic and the first map was 1:20,747. After marking the meridians and parallels on the map, using the base line and the Sunbeam triangulation station as reference points, this map was reduced to a scale of 1:25,000 by means of a reproduction camera.

The official map prepared by Mr. Sabino A. Mass was traced from that photographic copy, with the exception of the markings showing the bar and vestiges of certain old stream beds, which were added from the photographs.

The geographic positions of the following points: the intersection of the thalweg of the Brazo del Este with the seacoast; the point where the iron - 28 -

tower is, formerly a lighthouse; and the tip of the cape adjacent to the mouth of the Brazo del Este, which appear on the official ma.p, have been expressed to the second, which is more preclse than the old maps, expressed only to the min 'ute.

REMARKS

In comparmg this map with that prepared by the British Navy for the area of Cabo de Gracias a Dios, and with that of Maximiliano Sonnenstern--but espe cially with the former, which a~pears to have been prepared more carefully and in greater detail--it is noted that the topography of this area has under gone constant changes throughout the years, some caused by the closing of secondary channels and the appearance of new ones, while others resulted when part of the Gracias a Dios Bay filled up and Sunbeam Bay appeared. In general, it has been noted that in this region of the mouth of the Coco River, the land has been advancing toward 'Che sea. On the British map mentlOned, there are various notes that indicate topographical changes in the years 1883, 1886, and 1912. The numerous changes in the topography of the region through the years can be seen very clearly in the aerial photographs taken.

Enclosed is an aerial map of the area showing the mouth of the Coco or Sego via River and profiles of the soundings taken.

Jalapa, July 14, 1962

' .-, 1 R N' Ma.gin Lanza Robert R. McIlwaine C rlstoaa... ~ugama L unez Chalrman

Sabmo A. Mass Roger Gutier:rez Herrera

Before me:

Dr. Manuel Castillo Jarquln Secretary - 31 - APPENDIX 4

MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING OF THE HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

1. The Honduras - Nicaragua Mixed Co:mmission held its twelfth meeting at 3: 00 p. m. on Dece:mber 15, 1962, in the town of Tuibila, Gracias a Dios De partment, Honduras. Those present were: Dr. Roberto E. Quiros, Represent ative of the Chairman; Dr. Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Hon duras; and Dr. Ignacio Ro:man Pacheco, Representative of Nicaragua.

2. The purpose of the meeting was to comp~y with the last part of paragraph 4 (b) of f;}",- Basis of Arrangement accepted by the govern:ments of Honduras and Nica:::,agua, which confers on the Mixed Commission the power "to verify the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the :mouth of the Coco River. I1

3. To carry out that duty, the Mixed Commission availed itself of the lierv- ices of the Committee of Engineers referred to in paragraph 5 of the Basis of Arrangement. The Committee of Engineers made all the technical studies pertinent in the area of the mouth of the Coco River, and as a result present ed a written report and drew up a map of the region based on their own obser vations and the aerial photographs taken for that purpose. The report and the map are attached as Appendices to these minutes. J:../

4. The Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission went to the area in question and traveled over the entire region that comprises the mouth of the Coco River, verifying that the starting point of the natural boundary between HDn du:r.as and Nicaragua was at the mouth of the main branch of the Coco River, indicated on the map prepared by the Committee of Engineers (Appendix 2) as "Brazo del Este, " a point situated at fourteen degrees, fifty-nine minutes, 0 11 and eight seconds (14 59'8 ) North Latitude and eighty-three degrees, eight minutes, !C.ine seconds (83 0 8'9") West Longitude, Greenwich meridian.

5. The Mixed Commission takes the liberty of recommending that the two govern...-rnents conclude a treaty on navigation and the industrial and agricul tu.ral us~ of the waters of the Coco River to be applied to any situations that ma.y arise in the future in connection with these matters.

Tu:i.b:.J.a, December 15, 1962

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto E. Quiros Ignacio Ro:man Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of Repre sentative of Nica.ragua the Chairman

1. The above-mentioned report and map are Appendix 3 to this report, appearing on pages 24-29. - 32 .- APPENDIX 5

MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING OF THE HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

1. The Thirteenth Meeting of the Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission was held at 8:00 p. m. on December 19, 1962, in the town of Jalapa, Nicaragua. Those present were Dr. Roberto E. Quir6s, Representative of the Chairman; Dr. Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Honduras; and Dr. Ignacio Roman Pacheco, Representative of Nicaragua.

2. To carry out the provisions of paragraph 4 (c) of the Basis of Arrange- ment and paragraph 3 of the Minutes of the Eleventh Meeting, the Commission went to the zone of Teotecacinte where it inspected the area and verified that the Committee of Engineers had completed the mission entrusted to it, which consisted in erecting boundary nlarkers on the boundary line fixed under the terms of the Arbitral Award of the King of Spain and described in the Minutes of the Seventh and Eighth Meetings of the Commission, and in the decision of Ambassador Vicente Sanchez Gavito, Chairman of the Commission, on August 5, 1961.

3. The placement of boundary markers consisted of the following operations:

a) Type No. 1 corner markers were erected at the following vertexes: Rinc6n de Murupuchl, Ahumaderas, Vigfa hill, the Saquinll house, Plan Verde hill or Ceja de Montai'ia, the bank of the Muimuilf or Guineo River, and Cayancupa or Caycmtu hill. In addition, markers of the same type were erected as follows: as reference points, I on the left bank of the Lim6n river, to mark the intersection of the center of the bed of that river with the line that goes from Murupu chf along the western boundary of Sitio de Teotecacinte; I on either bank of the confluence of the GuayucaH and Agua Caliente water courses; and 1 on the bank of the confluence of the Poteca River and the YupaiH or Estero watercourse.

b) Type No. 2 linear markers were erected as follows: 4 between the Lim6n River and Rinc6n de Murupuchf; 16 between Rinc6n de Muru puchf and the confluence of the GuayucaH and Agua Cliente water courses; 9 between Ahumaderas and the Vigfa marker; 4 between La Vigfa and the Saquinll house; 6 between the SaquinH house and Plan Verde; 4 between Plan Verde hill and the bank of the Guineo River; 1 between the bank of the Guineo River and Cayantu hill; 36 between Cayantu hill and the confluence of the Poteca River and the Estero watercourse.

c) Eighty-nine reference markers wel"e placed alternately along the banks of the Lim6n River, between Portillo de Teotecacinte and the - 33 -

intersection of the Genter of the bed of that river with the line that goes £ron~ the Murupuchl marker along the western boundary of Sitio de Teotecacinte. Eight markers of this san"le type were also erected between the confluence of the G1.1ayucall and Agua Caliente watercourses and the Ahunladeras marker.

d) A m.onument-type marker was also placed on the line that goes 1'rom the Limon River to Rinc:on de Murupuchl, beside the north side of the road that goes froHl Cifuentef' to Teotecacinte.

4. A detailed description of the placement of the boundary markers, the geographic coordinates of the nlarkers constructed and of the natural markers, the courses and distances of the boundary line, and all other pertinent informa tion are contained in the report and map submitted by the Committee of Engi neers, attached hereto as Appendices 1 and 2. y

:". With these operations, the work of supervising the placement of boundary n~arkers entrusted to the Commission in the Basis of Arrangement was com pleted.

Jalapa, December 19, 1962

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto E. Quiros Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of the Representative of Nicaragua Chairman

1. The above-mentioned report and nlap are Appendix 6 to this report, appear ing on pages 34-37. - 34 - APPENDIX 6

REPORT OF THE HONDURAN-NICARAGUAN JOINT BJUNDARY COMMISSION ON THE PLACEMENT OF BOUNDARY MARKERS IN THE ZONE OF TEOTECACINTE

The Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Boundary Commission, pursuant to Arti cle 5 of the Basis of Arrangement, accepted by the two governments before the Council of the Organization of American States, and in order to assist the Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission in the exercise of the power stipulat ed in paragraph 4 (b), which states: "Under the terms of the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, to fix on the ground the boundary line from the juncture of the Bodega or Poteca River with the Guineo River as far as Portillo de Teo tecacinte .... "; pursuant to the minutes of the Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission1s meetings on June 20, 1961, in the city of Managua and July 26, 196J., in the Pan American Union, Washington; and the decision of the Commis sion Chairman, Dr. Vicente Sanchez Gavito, on August 5, 1961, proceeded to survey and erect u1arkers on the boundary line in reference. Starting from the end and going backwards, the description of the boundary line is as follows: From Portillo de Teotecacinte, the termination of the demarcation made by the Mixed Commission in 1900-1901, which was inspected and accepted by the present Honduran-Nicaraguan Joint Boundary Commission in Minutes No. 41, signed by its members at San Marcos de Co16n on September 1, 1960, and whose geographic position is 14°02'53.61 11 North Latitude and 86 °08'09.0 I" West Longitude, the boundary line continues downstream along the center of the channel of the headwaters of the Lim6n River, which rises at Portillo, and the channel of the river itself, to the intersection of its center with the bound ary of Sitio de Teotecacinte that passes from Rinc6n de Murupuchf to Cruz Sin Brazos. The geographic position of the above -mentioned intersection is 14°03'43.73" North Latitude and 86°04'37.77" West Longitude, and the straight line from Portillo to the intersection runs for a distance of 6, 522. 3 meters in a direction N. 76 °20 '0411 E. Eighty-nine intermediate, intervisible type No. 3 markers were placed alternately on the banks of the Lim6n River, numbered consecutively 69 -1 to 69 -89. At the intersection, the boundary line leaves the Lim6n River and continues along the above-mentioned limit in a direction N. 08°31 1 30" E., arriving at the type No. 1 concrete marker reading "Marker No. 7 l-Rinc6n de Murupuchf, " a distance of 719.4 meters. The geographic position of this marker 1S 14°04'07.46 11 North Latitude and 86°04'34.12 11 West Longitude. On this line a type No. 1 marker was placed on the left bank of th~ Lim6n River, 18 meters fron. the center of its channel, reading "Marker No. 70 -Lim6n River" as well as five other linear, inter visible markers numbered consecutively 70-1 to 70-5, all of type No. 2 except 70-4, which i.s of the special type. From the Murupuchf marker, the bound ary line runs in a straight line toward the confluence of the Agua Caliente and

GuayucaH watercourses, bearing S. 89°41 i 14" E. for a distance of 3,549.0 meters. The geographic position of this confluence is 14°04 106.82" North Latitude and 86°02'35.83" West Longitude. On this line 16 linear, intervisible - 35 -

type No. 2 markers were placed, numbered consecutively 71-1 to 71-16, and since it was not possible to place a marker at the confluence itself, a type No. 1 marker was placed 23.40 meters before reaching that point, which

reads: "Marker No. 72, Agua Caliente and GuayucaH watercourses. 11 Frorn that confluence, the boundary continues upstream along the right bank of the Guayucall watercourse beside a savanna covered with pine until it reaches a type No. 1 marker reading "Marker No. 73-Ahumaderas," whose geographic position is 14°04-32.67" North Latitude and 86 °02'21. 73" West Longitude. Between the confluence of the abovementioned watercourses and Ahumaderas, 9 intervisible markers were placed, numbered consecutively 72-1 to 72-9. 72-1 is a type No. 1 marker and reads "Junction of the Agua Caliente and Gua yucali' watercourses, 28 meters, " and the other 8 are type No. 3. The 28 meters refers to the distance to the junction itself. The straight line that goes from the confluence tn the Ahumaderas marker bears N .28 °02' 03" E. for a distance of 900 meters. From the Ahumaderas marker the boundary line continues in a straight line N. 85°37'38 11 E. to the Vigi'a hill, crosses the Guayucali' watercourse and arrives 1,991.9 meter s later at a type No. 1 marker reading "Marker No. 74-Vigi'a, " whose geographic position is 14 ° 04'37.6r'North Latitude and 86°01'15.53" West Longitude. Between the Ahu maderas and the Vigi'a markers nine intervisible type No. 2 markers were erected, numbered consecutively 73-1 to 73-9. From Vigi'a, the boundary ::ontinues in a straight line N. 76°30' 33" E. for a distance of 1,03,0.6 meters and arrives at the type No. 1 marker, reading "Marker No. 75 the Saquinli' house, " whose geographic position is 14 °04'45.43'1 North Latitude and 86 0- 00 '42 .12" West Longitude. Between the Vigi'a and the Saquinll house markers, 4 intervisible linear type No. 2 markers were erected, marked consecutively 74-1 to 74-4. From the Saquinll house marker, the boundary line continues in a straight line S. 37 °23' 51 "E" toward the Plan Verde hill or the Ceja de Montar1a, arriving at the type No. 1 marker erected at that place reading "Marker No. 76-Plan Verde hill," a distance of 1,417.6 meters. The geo graphic position of this marker is 14°04'08.78" North Latitude and 86°00'• 13.42" West Longitude. Between the two above-mentioned corner nlarkers, 6 linear intervisible type No. 2 markers were erected, numbered consecu tively from 75-1 to 75-6. From the Plan Verde hill marker, the boundary line continues in a straight line in a direction S. 38 °36'54" W. to the type No. 1 marker on the bank of the Guineo or Mumuiull River, reading "Marker No. 77 -Guineo River Bank" for a distance c.lf 1, 331. 4 meters. The geographic position of this marker is 14 °03'34.93" North Latitude and 86 °00 '41. 12" West Longitude. Between the two above-mentioned corner markers, 4 linear type No. 2 markers were erected, numbered consecutively 76-1 to 76-4. From the marker on the bd.nk of the river, the boundary line continue s in a straight line S. 28°11'22" E., t:l'osses the River, and arrives at a type No. 1 marker on the Cayantu hill' reading "Marker No. 78-Cayantu Hill, " a distance of 613.3 meters. The geographic position of this marker is 14 °03'1 7.34" North - 36 -

Latitude and 86°00'31. 46" West Longitude. Between these two corner markers one linear type No. 2 marker was erected, ITlarked 77 -1. From Cayantu, the boundary line continues in a straight line S. 28°43'00" W. until it reaches the confluence of the MumuiuH River with the Yupaill watercourse, now called the Poteca and Estero rivers, respectively, a distance of 7, 529.0 meters. The geographic position of the above confluence is 13 ° 59'42.47" North Latitude and 86°02'32.00" West Longitude. Along this line, 36 linear intervisible type No. 2 markers were erected, numbered consecutively 77 -1 to 77 - 36, and one type No. 1 marker reading "Marker No. 79-Confluence of the Poteca and Es tero Rivers", 26.50 meters from the confluence itself.

A map is attached to this report showing the boundary line demarcated and all the markers herein described.

Jalapa, December 19, 1962.

Robert R. McIlwaine

Magfn Lanza Crist6bal Rugama N.

Gonzalo Deras Vidal Roger Gutierrez H.

Sabino A. Mass Emilio Molina E.

Before Ine:

Manuel CasLillo Jarquln Secretary ------

- 39 -

.i.~PPENDIX 7

NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HONDURAS ON THE COUNCIL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

January 23, 1963

Mr. Arnbassador:

At its meeting on January 11, 1963, the Inter-American Peace Com mittee was informed by its Executive Secretary, Dr. Roberto E. Quir6s, that at recent meetings of the Honduras -Nicaragua Mixed Commission, establi shed by the Basis of Arrangement accepted by the two governments in March 1961, the startmg point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the mouth of the Coco RiveT was verified, and the placement of boundary markers along the boundary line in the zone of Teotecacinte was inspected. Minutes of those meetings were drawn up and signed by the members of the Commission (Appen dices).

As Your Excellency knows, these activities, in whlch Dr. Roberto E. Quir6s participated as a member of the Mixed Commission pursuant to par agraph 3 of the Basis of Arrangement, constituted the final phase of the work entrusted to the Mixed CommisslOn in the above-mentlOned Basis of Arrange ment, a,ld consequently it can be stated that the judg ment delivered by the InternatlOnal Court of Justice on November 18, 1960 to settle the controversy between the two countries concerning the Arbitral Award pronounced by the King of Spain on December 23,1906, has been fully carried out and executed.

Accordingly, the Inter-Amencan Peace Committee wishes to ex press to the ilustrious Government of Honduras, through me, its sincere ap preciation for the confidence it placed in the Committee when, inspired by the noble sentiments of hemispheric solidarity and strict respect for international law, it accepted the action of the Committee in this important case. The Inter American Peace Committee also wishes to thank Your Excellency especially for your invaluable cooperation during the negotiations held to reach agreement on the final text of the Basis of Arrangement.

His Excellency Dr. Celeo Davi1a Ambassador, Representative of Honduras Washington, D. C. - 40 -

The Inter-American Peace Committee would also like to make known its deep satisfaction with the successful results obtained by the Honduras -Nicara gua Mixed Commission in the difficult mission with which it was entrusted and its appreciation for the indefatigable efforts to achieve those results made by His Ex cellency Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Represent ative of Honduras on the Commission.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.

Emilio N. Oribe Representative of Uruguay Chairman of the Inter -American Peace Committee ~------

~ 41 -

APPENDIX 8

NOTE FROM THE CRAm,MAN' or THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE TO THE REPRESENTA'ITI[~OF NICARAGUA ON THE COUNCIL OF THE ORGAN~,ZATIONOF Al\1ERICAN STATES

January 23, 1963

Mr. Ambassador~

At its meeting on January ll~ 1963~ the Inter-A'merican Peace :;om mlttee was lnformed by lts Executive Secretary, Dr. Roberto E. QUH6s 7 that at recent meetings of the Honduras -Nlcaragua Mixed COlnnussion, established by the Basis at' Arrangement accepted by the two govel'nnlcnts lE March 1961, the startlng point of the natural bounda.ry between the two countries at the m,outh of the Coco River was veri:fied~ c.nd the placement of boundary markers along the boundary line in r:w zone of T~otecacinte was inspected, Mlnutes of those meeilngs were drawn up ar..d s:igl~ed by the rnembers ofthe CommisslOn (Appen., dices) ,

As Your Excellency knows, these activities, in which Dr, Roberto E, Quir6s participated as a m·~mher of the Mlxed Comm.ission pursuant to par agraph 3 of the Basis of Arrangernent, constituted f:he final phase of the work entrusted to the Mixed Commission in the above-mentioned Basis of Arrange~ ment, and consequently} it caXl be stat.ed that the jl.ldg ment delivered by the International Court of Justice on Novenlber 18, 1960 to settle the controversy between the two countries concerning the ArbitraJ Award pronounced by the King of Spain on December 23, 1906 has been fully carried out and executed.

Accordlngly, the Inter-American Peace Comrnittee wishes to ex press to the ilustrious Government of Nicaragua, through me, its sincere appreciation for the confidence it placed in the Committee when, inspired hy the noble sentiments of hemispheric solidarity and strict respect for interna~ tional law, it accepted the action of the Committee in this irnportant ca~)e, 'I'he Inter-American Peace Committee also wishesto thankYour Excellency espe cially for your invaluable cooperation during the negotiations held to reach agreement on the final text of the BaS1S of Arrangement"

His Excellency Dr. Guillermo Sevllla Sacasa Ambassador, R~presentative of Nicaragua Washington~ D. C. - 42 -

The Inter -American Peace Committee would also like to make :·mown ltS deep satisfaction with the successful results obtained by the Honduras -Nica ragua Mixed CommisslOn in the difficult mission with which it was entrusted and its appreciation for the indefatigable efforts to achieve those results made by His Excellency Ignacio Roman Pacheco, Minister of the Interior and Representative of Nicaragua on the Commission.

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Ex.cellency the assurances of my highest and most distinguished consideration.

Emilio N. Oribe Representative of Uruguay Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee ------

- 43 -

APPENDIX 9

OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS CASE

Publications of the Pan Am.erican Union

1. Aplicaciones del Tratado Interamericano de Asistencia Redproca, 1948-1960, Tercera Edici6n, "Honduras y Nicaragua, 1957", paginas 219-292.

2. Report of the Inter-Am.erican Peace Committee to the Eighth Meeting of Con sultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs 1962, Part I and Appendices, Doe. OEAySer. L/III~ CIP/1/62.

Publications of the International Court of Justice

1. Affaire relative a. la sentence arbitrale rendue par le roi d lEspagne le 23 decembre 1906 (Honduras c. Nicaragua). 9 vols.

2. Case Concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on 23 Decem ber 1906, Judgment of 18 November 1960, I·.C~J. Reports 1960, p. 192. ANNEX I

Report tof the Inter-An::.erican Peace Committee to the Eighth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 1962

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

PART I

Request Presented by the Government of Nicaragua on February 16, 1961 .••...•...... •.. 3 Trip by the Committee to Honduras and Nicaragua 8 Activities of the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission 11

APPENDICES TO PART I 1. Note from the Representative of Nicaragua to the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee,February 15, 1961 . 1 2. Statement of the Representative of Nicaragua to the Inter-American Peace Committee, February 16, 1961 2 3. Memorandum from the Representative of Honduras to the Inter- American Peace Committee, February 24, 1961. 5 4. Note from the Representative of Honduras to the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee, March 1, 1961 .. 8 5. Note from the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Representative of Nicaragua, MaTch 1, 1961 9 6. Basis of Arrangement Proposed by the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua ... 10 7. Note from the ChairWBn of the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Representative of Nicaragua, March 1, 1961. .. 12 8. Note from the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Representative of Honduras, March 1, 1961 . 14 9. Note from the Representative of Honduras to the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee, March 4, 1961 16 10. Memorandum from the Representative of Nicaragua to the Inter-American Peace Committee, March 7, 1961 17 11. Map showing the territory in dispute ...... 19 12. Inter-American Peace Committee Press Release, March 21, 1961 20 13. Minutes of the Meetings Held by the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission ...... 21 14. Decision of the Chairman of the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission, August 5, 1961 ...... 39

- i - - 1 -

Introduction

In conformity with the provisions of Article 22 of its statutes, the Inter-American Peace Committee has the honor to present to the Eighth

Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs this report on the work it has carried out from the end of the Seventh Meeting of Consultation, held in San Jose, Costa Rica, in August 1960, to date.

This work has been c~rried out, principally, in connection with its action in three specific cases that have been presented to the Committee during the period mentioned, and for this reason it has been considered ad visable to divide this report into three parts.

The first part refers to the activities carried out until now in con nection with the request presented to the Committee by the Representative of

Nicaragua on the Council of the Organization of American States, on February

16, 1961; the second part contains information with regard to the request pre sented by the Representative of Mexico on June 2, 1961; and the third part re fers to the request presented by the Representative of Peru on November 27,

1961.

With respect to the report that, in accordance with paragraph 3 of

Resolution IV of the Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign

Affairs, it must present to the Eleventh Inter-American Conference, the Com mittee states that because of diverse circumstances it has not been able to continue the preparation of the preliminary report that, in conformity with the same paragraph, should be presented to the American governments in advance.

Among these circumstances the fact may be mentioned that, in the opinion of the Committee, those reports -- the preliminary and definitive ones -- would -2- only be really useful to the governments and to the Eleve~th Inter-American Conference if they were based not only on study of the situation of interna tional tension in the Caribbean region as it was when it was considered by the Fifth Meeting of Consultation, but also on study of the development of that situation up to the date of the opening of that conference. Since that date has not yet been set, the Committee will continue to carry out pertinent studies and will present its preliminary report at the appropriate time. PART I

REQUEST PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA ON FEBRUARY 16, 1961

On February 15, 1961, the Representative of Nicaragua on the Council

of the Organization of American States addressed a note to the Chairman of

the Inter-American Peace Committee (Appendix 1 to this part) in which he asked

to appear before it in order to explain "the questions that have arisen about

the execution of the judgment of the International Court of Justice on Nove~

ber 18, 1960, pronounced in the controversy between Nicaragua and Honduras with

regard to the Arbitral Award made by His Majesty the King of Spain on December

23 $ 1906." In the same note he stated that his government reiterated its

"firm desire to carry to completion the execution of that judgment."

The Committee heard the Representative of Nicaragua at the meeting

held on the 16th of the same month and received a statement (Appendix 2) in

which the said Representative, after mentioning, by way of example, some of

the questions that had been discussed in the negotiations that had been carried

on between the two governments, requested action by the Inter-American Peace

Committee, in suggesting methods and steps conducive to a settlement of these

questions 0

The Chairman of the Committee informed the Charge d'Affaires ad inte-

rim of Honduras of the request of the Government of Nicaragua and asked him

to inform the Committee whether his government accepted its a~tion in the matter.

On February 24, the Representative of Honduras appeared before the

Committee. He expressed the points of view of his government and submitted a memorandum (AppendiX 3), in which he stated that his government accepted the action of the C"nunittee on the condition that, "as a prior requisite, Ni- caragua should withdraw ~nmediately and unconditionally all its military, civil, and administrat.iva authorities who are in territory' that rightfully belongs to Honduras o "

Once it had heard the positions of both parties, the Committee au- thorized its Chairman and the Representative of Venezuela to communicate with the Representatives of the two countries, in order to explore the pos~ si.bilities of suggesting to them some step that would have a likelih.ood of success o The Representative of Nicaragua insisted that the Co~tttee tell him whether Honduras had accepted the action of the Committee and maintained that the setting of conditions was equivalent to not consenting to the action referred too

After conversations with the Representative of Honduras, the latter addressed to the Co:nmittee, on ~~rch l~ 1961, a note (Appendix 4), in which he said the following:

Consequently, acting on express instructions from my govern ment, I state to the Inter-'funerican Peace Committee that Honduras, faithful to its desire, so many times proven by concrete deeds, to exhaust aJl me~~s of settlement within its rea~h~ accepts the sug gestion of the Comrllittee and 'withdraws the conditi_on referred too

That same day, the Committ.ee informed the Representat.ive of Nicara- gua that Honduras had withdraml the condition referring to the inmlediate withdrawal of the aforemeut,ioned authorities (Appendix 5).

As a result of. its exchanges of impressions with the Representatives of the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua, the Committee prepared a draft

Basis of Arrangement (Appendix 6), which it submitted to the consideration of

'ooth Representat.ives vlith its notes 125 and 126 of }1ar(::h 1, 1961 (Appendices ~ 5 -

The Representative of Honduras s in a note that he addressed to the Committee on March 4$ 1961 (Appendix 9), stated that his government accepted the Basis ot Arrangement proposed by the Committee and that it was appoint- ing Dr. Roberto Perdomo Paredes as Representative of Honduras on the Honduras-

Nicaragua Mixed Commission provided for in paragraph 2 of that Basis.

On March 7$ 1961$ the Committee received a memorandum (Appendix 10)

from the Representative of Nicaragua$ in whioh he made observations on, and

proposed amendments tOy the Basis of Arrangement. After hearing the Repre-

sentatives of both countries, the Conunittee prepared a new draft Basis of Ar-

rangement$ which was accepted by the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua

through their Representatives on the Council.

That Basis of Arrangement reads as f'ollows ~

1. The Government of Nicaragua will immediately withdraw its

authorities from the territory..~ The withdrawal of authorities from

the zone of Teotecacinte will proceed in conformance with the results

of the demarcation of the said zone, and according as this demarcation may be carried out.

2. There is hereby established the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed

Conunission, whi.ch will be composed of the Chairman of the Inter-

American Peace Committee, as represen-

tative of Honduras, and as represen-

tative of Nicaragua. The Chairman of the Mixed Commission will be

the Chairman of the Inter-American I'eace Committee.

3. The Mixed Commission will begin its meetings in the place and at the time determined by the Chairman; it will go into the

* "Territory" is understood to mean the region which, according to the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, belongs to Honduras and is now

occupied by Nicaraguan authorities Q I - 6 -

territory as soon as possible and will remain there for as long as

may be necessary to complete its task. It is understood that a

part of this task will consist of supervising the orderly departure

of those persons 'iho wish to move tu Nicaragua~ and in this under--

taking the Commission will have the fullest cooperation of the two

governments. During the time that the Mixed Commission is in the

territory~ the Chairman may be represented by the official of the

Organization of American States whom the Secretary General thereof

appoints for the pQrpose. 40 The powers of the Mixed Commission are: a. To aid the two governments in their efforts to guaran tee the inhabitants of the territory a choice between the two nationalities~ and to permit those persons who may wish to do so to move to Nicaragua.

b. Under the terms of the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, to fix on the ground the boundary line from the juncture of the Bodega or Poteca River \\fith the Guineo River as far as Portillo de Teotecacinte, as well as to verify the starting point of the natural boundary be tween the two countries at the mouth of the Coco River.

Co To supervise the set.ting of landmarks for the bO'.lndary linl~ laid out according to the preceding paragraph.

do Any other powers that the two governments may confer upon its at the suggestion of the Inter-American Pe3.ce Committee.

5. In exercising the powers set forth in paragraph 4 b.j> the

Mixed Commission will avail itself of the Committee of Engineers

already created by the two governments. 6. In the event of disagreement between the Representatives of

Honduras and Nicaragua on the Mixed Conmri.ssion~ the Chairman will make

the final decisior.o This pc)\ver ma:y not be delegatedo - 7'"

7. The Secretary General ~f the Organization of American

States will provide the Mixed Commission with the technical staff and secretariat requested by the Chairman. The latter will appoint the o.fficials he feels would be useful to remain at those places within the territory that the Mixed Commission itself may decide upon. 8. Under the terms of Article 1 of its Statutes, the Inter American Peace Committee will suggest measures and steps conducive to a settlement of all questions that may arise between the two go vernments in carrying out the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, and that are not submitted to the Mixed Commission in accordance with this Basis. Acquired rights to private property in the terri tory will be respected$ in conformance at all times with the consti tution and laws of the Republic of Honduras.

At a meeting of the Council of the Organization of American States held on March 13, 1961, the Chairman of the Committee, in compliance with

Article 22 of the Statutes of the Inter-American Peace Committee~ and in its name~ reported to the Council on the results of the activities the Committee had carried out up to then. He read the P~sis of Arrangement quoted above and stated that it had been accepted without any kind of reservation b~- the Govern ments of Honduras and Nicaragua. He likewise reported that~ in accordance with paragraph 8 of the Basis, the Committee would continue to act in the case and that, by virtue of that authority, it would immediately enter into discussions with the Representatives of both countries in order to draw up its travel plan, since the Presidents of Honduras and Nicaragua had invited it to visit the two countries at such time as it deemed ".ppropriate. -8-

Trip by the Committee to Honduras and Nicara~

On March 16, 1961, the Committee left Washington for Honduras and Ni~ caragua, for the purpose of conver~ing with President Villeda Morales and Pre- sident Somoza Debayle about the execution of the Basis of Arrangement and the manner of setting up the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission.

The following persons traveled as representatives of the mEmber states of the Committee:

Ambassador Vicente Sanchez Gavito of Mexico, Chairman of the Committee; Ambassador Jose Antonio Mayobre of Venezuela; Minister Santiago Salazar Santos of Colombia~ Mr. Jose Carlos Ruiz of El Salvador; Mr. Pablo Oscar Guffanti of Uruguay. The following officia.ls of tr.e Pan Americ'an Union accompanied the representatives:

Dr. Roberto Eugenio Quir6s~ Mr. Modesto Lucero; Miss Joan Hetzel.

The Committee arrived at Tegucigalpa on March 17 and at ~tanagua two days latero The presidents of both republics and the high officials with whom the Committee established contact during its stay in those capitals offered their fullest cooperation so that the Basis of Arrangement would be complied with completely in the shortest possible tim8 e President Villeda Morales confirmed the appointment of Dr. Roberto Per- domo Paredes as Representative of Honduras on the Mixed Commission and info~med the Inter-American Peace Committee of the appoi,ntment of Lt. CoL Roberto Palma

G~lvez as Alternate Representative. President Somoza Debayle appointed Dr. Ig- nacio Roman Pacheco and Lt. Col. Armengol MartL~ez as the titular and alternate

Representatives of Nicaragua. In the course of the interviews with the Presidents of the two re

publics~ it was agreed that the centers of operation of the Mixed Commis

sion in the "territory" "l!ould be the towns of Puerto Lempira, in Hondurasl/ and Waspam, in Nicaraguao On March 21, the members of the Inter-American Peace Committee left Managua for Waspam. They were accompanied by the following persons: Dr. Ignacio Rom!n Pacheco, Representative of Nicaragua on the Mixed Commission; Dro Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Honduras on the same Commis

sion3 Lt. Colo Armengol Martinez, Alternate Representative of Nicaragua on the Mixed Commission3 Messrs. Mag1n Lanza of Honduras, Cristobal Rugama of Nicaragua, a.nd Robert McIlwaine of t.he United states of America, engineers and members of the Honduran'-Nicaraguan Committee of Engineers; Dr. Roberto E. Quiros, Representative of the Chairman of the Mixed Commission; Mr. Modesto

Lucero, Secretary of that Commission~ and the following offi.cials of the Pan

American Union whom9 in accordance with paragraph 7 of the Basis of Arrange

ment, the said Commission could appoll~t to remain in certain points of the

"territory~" namelyg Messrs. Carlos Ruibal, Frank Monisera, Orlando Busch,

Rodolfo S~nchez, Hernan Laso, and Cesar Camarena. During this trip, the party flew over part of the Co co River and its mouth 0 Immediately after their arrival at Waspam y the members of the Commit tee traveled by land over the region of the iiterritoryfl located between Leymus and Awasbila (see map, Appendix 11)0 They returned to Waspam the same day and

at lOgOO pom., in the presence of the members of the Inter-American Peace Co~ mittee, the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission was installedo The Inter American Peace Committee thereupon issued a press release (Appendix 12), in which it recounted the act~vities ~arried out during its visit to the border region of the Coco River.

-- -_._-~------10-

On March 22, Ambassador Jose Antonio Mayobre, Representative of Ven~ zuela, and Messrs. Jose Carlos Ruiz and Pablo Oscar Guffanti, Representatives of El Salvador and Uruguay, respectively, returned to Managua en route to Wash ington. Ambassador Vicente Sanchez Gavito, who, ~l accordance with the Basis of Arrangement was Chairman of the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission, and

Minister Santiago Salazar Santos, Representative of Colombia on the Inte~Ameri can Peace Committee, remained in Waspam. Messrs. Perdomo Paredes and Rom!n Pa checo, Representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua, respectively, on the ~tlxed

Commission, also remained there, as well as Messrs. Quires, Lucero, and the other officials of the Pan American Union.

With the aforementioned trip and the installation of the Honduras-Nica ragua Mixed Connnission, the action of the Inter-American Peace Conmli.ttee in this important matter was practically completed. In fact, the cooperation that has existed between the two governments in the fulfillment of the Basis of Arrangement and the effectiveness with which the Mixed Commission has car ried out its work have made unnecessary, so far, the aplication of paragraph 8 of that Basis, since no question regarding the execution of the Arbitral Award has arisen that has required the exercise of the power given in the aforesaid par~graph to the Inter-American Peace Committee, and it is not considered lik~ ly that such a question will arise in the little that remains to be done to complete that execution. In addition, while it is true that the problem regard~ ing the acquired rights to private property in the "territory," referred to in the same paragraph 8, remains to be settled, the conversations that are now be ing held between the two governments seem to indicate that that probLem will be solved without the need for participation by this agency. In any case, the => 11 ~

ragua to give t.hdCll such C00pej~~t~.o.c. ".H t.h~.i' d.3i'lL't useful.

and Nicaragua for the settlement of the problem of the execution of the Arbitral

Award of 1906~ if it did not :~ll(;J.Uc'lE.l Cl. h:r:x.ef f"'C.CI.I~l'lt of l;he "rin(';~r.:3.1 a.ctivities

carried out so far by the Hondura3-Ni.caragua Mixed COffimisslon,. establi.shed pur-

pu:('~.g:raIh ;.~ Ba~d.r:. Arr.g.ngemE·~rt suant to of the :.:.f' 0 The said Gommissions through

inform.ation..

As was mentio:1ed abo'..-e9 the Honduras-Ni,-;Bragua. }fJix,c;:d CoiIll'lrl.ssion was in-

S~ ~z bassador Vicente Gavito of Mexi'::0 ll then Chairman of the Inte:r··American

Undersecretary'..,! F·orei.gn Af'fe.i.rs of that cOI.mt.ry·" 11'he Re.presentative of Nic:a" ragua is Dr. Ignacio Roma.n Pa/~heco~ PriYate Sec.retar;y tc thB President of the

Republic. 'fhe alt,(Htnatf~ Representatives aI"e~ :::'esp0~t.1.·\ieJ,1" LL Co:'. Robert.o

Palma Galvez and Lt. Col o Armengol MaI"tlnez o Dr o Robert0 Eo Quiros acts as

Representa.tive oi.' t.he Cha:t~nc-m" in 3.ccord.n.n.ce with parag'nph 3 of the Basis of

Arrangement) and Mr. HCtdest.o Lucero as Secretary ef the Cvn:rnissioo c - 12 ~ in order to aid the two governments in the settlement of the problems relat ing to the execution of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of November 18, 1960, which declared the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on December 23, 1906, to be valid and obligatoryo To give an idea of the importance of these activities, it is appropriate to point out that the ~egion from which the Nicaraguan authorities were to with draw, since, in conformity with the Arbitral Award, it belonged to Honduras, a~ mounted to approximately 8,700 square kilometers. The border between the two countries, through the territory that was the object of the litigation, can be divide~in accordance with the Arbitral Award cited, into two sections. The first is approximately 500 kilometers in length and is made up of natural boundaries that extend from the mouth of the

Coco or Segovia River, at the Atlantic Ocean~ to the zone of Teotecacinte. The second section corresponds to that zone. In it, the boundaries cease to be na~ tural ones for a distance of approximately 20 kilometerso For this reason~ the distinction that was made in paragraph 1 of the Basis of Arrangement, between the zone of Teotecacinte and the rest of the territory that had been in litiga~ tion, proved to be very helpful, since the problems that the Mixed Commission had to solve in that zone were different from those that presented themselves along the natural border, where the Conmri.ssion's principal mission consisted in overseeing the withdrawal of the Nicaraguan authorities and assisting the two governments to carry out in an orderly fashion the transfer to Nicaragua of the inhabitants who decided to establish th~selves in territory of that countryo This task constituted the first stage of the activities of the Mixed Commission, since the aforementioned paragraph 1 of the Basis of Arrangement provided that, - 13 -

except in the zone of Teotecacinte~ the withdrawal of the Nicar&guan authori~~~s

should be effected immediately.

The Commission carried out this f5.rst part of its activities 'in app,'.=,x,

imately one month and a half, during which time the titular Representatlve~ en the Mixed Commission, or their alternates, remained in the region of the Co·::,;;

River, which they traveled through almost in its entiretyo The principal agr€8= ments that the Commission adopted with regard to the activities carried out J.n

that region appear in the minutes of the six meetings held during t.hat. stage"

Copies of those minutes, as well as those corresponding to the five otner ~es~~ ings that the Commission had held so far, are included as Appendix 13 to t.~:.~

part of this report.

Thanks to the cooperation extended by both governments, the M~x-::d G,~m= mission was able to state, in the minutes of its sixth meetlng, held on AF.r~':"

12, 1961, that, with the withdrawal of the Nicaraguan aut.horities fro:n the '.::..:..~ lage of Bocay, the last place in the Coco Rive: region in which such duthor:'~' ties were located, point 1 of the Basis of Arrangement had been fulfilJ.6djl in

"all of the VterritoryV lying between the confluence of the Poteca and Guine0 rivers and the mouth of the Coco River" ii that is, all the "territory" with thE.t exception of the zone of Teotecacinteo In addition, by the middle of May of

1961, the transfer of all the persons who chose to live in Nicaraguan "!;.er'y,·it..():"y had been carried out. It is estimated that approximat.ely 4,000 persons wer·a transferred.

In relation with these activitiesjl we must point out the importance 'YL the contribution to the success of the work of the Mixed Commission made by the officials of the Pan American Union wh0.9 on the decision of the Chairm.an c,f' t:18 Commission, Ambassador Sanchez Gav~L't.o~I ~)r •.)f hi~ H.ep:tesentati;re., Mr. Quir6s, we:-e commissioned to reIlV'l.in in t.he pl-=tce~ lf~~re N:.:.caraguan authorities were

st.ill found 01' in which there was th," J~'l.""W'St. migr".t.\Jry nl,Jvement,. Thus, Messrs.

:Jarlos Ruiba' and Orlando Busch were ct'l!U"~i.sG'Lone'i. to st.ay jn the "Village of Ca- bo Gl"acias a Dios; H.!.~. Fr.lnk Monisr-':"£i. :in Lr~~~us; 'Mr. Hernan laso i.."1 Sujij and

1-fessrs. Rodolfo Sanchcz and Cessr Ci:\.n1.~r:ma l.Yl .4:wa-:;bj.la. Mr. Honj.Bera also spent several days in the vUlage of Boca~r.

The principal mission of these o.ffi,:5.&..l!:: \o(as to witness the withdrawal of t.he Nicaraguan authorities and th13 :.. ""riVB.1 of t.he H..:mduran authorities, as well as to live with the i.nhabitants 01 the regior.. during the b-rief period in ll'hic}:, incidents nLight have occurred. "1hile they nat.urally did not ped'orm acts of authorit.y, their presence and the moderating influence these officials exert- ed in various cases undoubtedl;y contr·ibuted to the fact. t.hat no serious incident occurred. They remained L~ the places indicated un~il t.he tr@1sfer of the jnhabitants was complet~"d ..

Mixed Conunission have consisted in acco:<"dan:;e .dt.h the powers t.ha.t were granted it in paragrarhf3 4.b and 4.,C of th.:- B':lsi,,,) of Al"rangement ._ .., in fixing on the ground, in the terms of the Arbitral Awnrd of. the King of Spain, the bound- ury line from (,he JWlct-ton of' the B:xL>.gi-l.. or P (1'1- e::ll River -,.rtth the Guireo River to the Portillo of Teotecacinte J and in overseeing tIle erect ion (,If perr.lahenr, boundary markers along that lin8.

The terms of that Arbitral Award ,w:\.th 1'p.'3[Jec:1:. to that. :i.(1.c, a£e cHi follows:

From t,hit~ ,iD.net,ion (the 0ne juz t, me:n, iO{l(!.:! a'bo",re) the ::.. ine w1.11 foll()w the eUrectJ.oll which c()rre"'pcn.":~; t.e t-he cC:Jlc.\i:'(.I3.':,io:l c·f the Sitio de Teoteca.cinte in accol'::la.r:.-::e ~(-:.Lh t::~: demrJ.2'ca:c,ion (l'l...1.J.e in 1720to t:';;;mi~t;";:t··the P.QLt:L1:1o c!2...'I~.Q&(?~.~i.nt§. ir.. su.:::h ma.rmer that the said ~it:l.o rem.2.ir.:: wi:~11y withln "the jurjsdict.i,on ot Ni caragua. On June 13, 1961, the members of the Commis~ion met in the village of

Jalapa, Nicaragua, which served as their center of operations l~til the 17th of the same month. During those days, they traveled through the zone of Teo't.e- cacinte and, with the study of a map of this zone, which includes the Sitic at • Teotecacinte mentioned in the Arbitral Award, they began conversations for the purpose of fixing the boundary lineo This map was prepa~ed by the Hondu.:0.3~

Nicaraguan Committee of Engineers, mentioned in parag:i.~aph 5 .:,f the Basi.s ot

Arrangement, which has given and continues to give the Mixed Commission tte benefit of its valuable technical collaborat10no

Despite the difficulties raised by the i."1ter-pretation of ::Ollch an old. and often inexact document as the said demarcation of 1720, which, as has been stated, constituted the basis for the fj~ng or the boundary Ijne~ the Mixed

Commission, thanks to the good will of the national representatives~ W&S ab:e to fix the western and northern boundaries of the said Sit~oj up to a point called Murupuchi. The boundary line up to this point is descr~bed in the nti.u" utes of the seventh and eighth meetings, held in Managua and at. t.he Pan Amer:l."~ can Union, respectively, on June 20 and July 26, 1961 (see Appendix 13)0

The only disagreement that arose between the ~wo national reFreBs,lta= tives, which the Chairman of the Mixed Commiesion~ AmbassadcT Sanchez Gavitc~ had to decide in accordance with paragraph 6 of the Basi.s ,:et Arrangement, w:su the question of how the Arbitral Award sh0uld bE: in-r.e.rpret.ed in regard. to ~:·re connection between the western bou.."1da:;:y of the Siti.o and the s(I··"called POl'tillC' de Teotecacinte, located seven kilometers aflayo This is the place where t.h<9 boundary that was the subject of the litigation brought before the King of Spain ends, since from that point to the Paeif'ic: Oc;:ear. the boundary E.ne has bee.n completely defined ever since 1901. The different pasitJ.fms taken ------~------

- 16- by the Representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua appear in the minutes of the ninth meeting, held at the Pan American Union on July 27, 1961 (see Appendix

13). The Chairman handed down his decision on August 5, 1961 (Appendix 14).

By examining the minutes of the ninth meeting and the sketch appended to the decision of the Chairman, it will be seen that the Representative of

Honduras maintained that the boundary line should be the line connecting points

ACB, while the Representative of Nicaragua alleged that it should be the straight line AB. The territory between the two lines amounts to 17.5 square kilometers.

In his decisio~AmbassadorSanchez Gavito fixed the boundary as the line

AC only from A to the point where this line intersects the center of the bed of the Lim6n River, and thence upstream through the center of that bed to Point B, or the Portillo de Teotecacinte.

The decision was accepted by the two governments and the Committee bf

Engineers thereupon began the work of erecting boundary markers on that part of the boundary which is artificial. Messrs. Rodolfo Sanchez and Frank Moni sera were again sent to oversee this placing of boundary markers, and they re mained in the Teotecacinte zone approximately two months. In mid-November, the Mixed Commission, made up of the Representative of the Chairman and the na tional representatives, met in the said zone, where it could observe the pro gress of the work of erecting boundary markers, and it confirmed the fact that the Nicaraguan authorities had already been withdrawn from the part of that zone that, in accordance with the dscision of the Chairman, was to be under the jurisdiction of Honduras.

With that withdrawal and the activities that the Mixed Commission has so far carried out, the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Basis of Arrangement have been fully complied with, and the functions assigned to the Commission in ------

- 17-

paragraph 4 of the same Basis have been carried to completion, with the excep tion of that contained in the last part or point (b) of that paragraph, "to verify the starting point of the natural boundary between the two countries at

the mouth of the Coco River." When this survey is made and the decision is ta~ ken on the "acquired rights to private property in the territory," mentioned in paragraph 8 of the Basis of Arrangement, on both of which questions conversa tions between the two governments have been started, this important problem will

be completely solved o APPENDICES TO PART I

REQUEST PP.ESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF NICARAGUA

ON FEBRUARY 16, 1961 PART I APPENDIX 1

NOTE FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE CONMITTEE

February l5~ 1961

No. UP-J-4

Mr. Chairman: Upon instructions from my government and representing it and in its name I desire to set forth to the Inter-American Peace Committee the ques tions that have arisen about the execution of the judgment of the Interna tional Court of Justice on November le, 1960, delivered in the dispute be tween Nicaragua and Honduras concerning the Arbitral Award made by His Majes ty the King of Spain on December 23, 1906. Reiterating once again its firm desire to carry to completion the exe cution of that judgment without disturbing the harmony and cordiality between Nicaragua and Honduras, my government has deemed it fitting to request action by an inter-American agency of such prestige as the Inter-American Peace Com mittee in the hope that through its participation those questions can be re solved. For this purpose I have the honor to request you to be so kind as to indicate to me the date on which the Committee will be able to receive me to hear the statement that I am to make to it. Accept, Sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa Ambassador, Representative of Nicaragua on the Council of the Organization of American States

Dro Vicente Sanchez Gavito Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee Washington, D.C. PART I - 2- APPENDIX 2

STATEMENT OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA TO THE INTER-ANERICAN PEACE CONMITTEE

Honorable Corr~ttee:

In compliance with instructions from my govenlffie~t ~)d in its name and representing it I have the honor of making to you the follow.ll1g state ment. Under the auspices of the Organization of American States, on June 21 and 22, 1957, the Chiefs of State of Nicaragua and Honduras agreed to submit to the International Court of Justice the dispute concerning the Arbitral A ward made by the King of Spain on December 23, J.906. This agreement is to be seen in the resolution of the Council of the Organization of American States acting provisionally as Organ of Consultation, dated July 5, 1957~

Subsequently, on July 21, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua and Honduras signed, in the Pan American Union in the presence of the members of the Council, an agreement concerning the procedure for submitting the said dispute to the International Court of Justice.

The procedure in the case having been completed, t.he International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on November 18, 1960, and in it de clared that the Award made by the King of Spain on December 23, 1906, was va~ lid and binding and that Nicaragua was under an obligation to give effect to it ..

The Government of Nicaragua has nev.er for a moment vacillated in ac cording full and complete respect to the judgment of the International Court of Justice. On the contrary, that respect was manifested in the message that His Excellency Luis A. Somoza Debayle, President of Nicaragua, sent that same day to His Excellency Ramon Villeda Morales, President of Honduras. This man- ifestation was reiterated three days later by the Hinister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua in a message that he sent to the Secretary General of the Organi zation of American States, and by myself at the meeting held by the Council of the OrganizCltion last November 23.

Desiring to carry out the decision of the Intel~ational Court of Jus tice in full agreement and harmony with the Government of Honduras, the Go vernment of Nicaragua took heed of the invitation of the President of Honduras to send a delegation to Puerto Lempira on December 4, 1960, to confer with him and other Honduran officials. The delegation of Nicaragua was made up of the NJ.nisters of Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Education. Su.bs equently the saJr,e r!icaraguan officials held a meeting in El Espino and San Marcos de Colon with members of the cabinet of the Government of Honduras.

On last Ja.nuary 10 the Presidents of Honduras and Nir.aragua rr.et at El Espino, accompanied by their respective cabinets and other high officials, with the foreign Diploma.tic Corps accredited to each country and the Secretar ies General of the Organization of American States and the Organization of CBntral American States, PART I - 3 - APPENDIX 2

Having agreed upon ~ppointing a High Commissioner for each party to proceed to take the steps leading to the execution of the judgment~ the said officials~ together ~dth their advisors, held meetings in Tegucigalpa and Ma nagua in the course of the month of January. In each and everyone of the aforesaid meetings the complex question of executing the judgmen~ of the In ternational Court of Justice of November IS, 1960, was discussed thoroughly, taking into due consideration the related problems of a juridical~ technical, social~ and humanitarian nature, such as the constituent and not declarative character of the Arbitral Award of December 23~ 1906~ since territorial co~ pensation had been granted; the variations in the courses of the Coco and Poteea rivers subsequent to the Arbitral Award; respect for acquired private property rights; the transfer to Nicaraguan territory of the inhabitants who do not desire to come under Honduran jurisdiction, and others.

Likewise the negotiations for the execution of the judgment of the In· ternational Court of Justice were the subject of the note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, dated December 7, 1960~ addressed to the Embassy of Nicaragua in Tegucigalpa and of the answering note from that embassy da.ted December 30.

Such was the status of the negotiations when the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua received the note, dated the eighth of this month, ad dressed to him by the }tinister of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, in which the im~ediate withdrawal of the Nicaraguan authorities from the territory t~at the Arbitral Award of the King of Spain awarded to Honduras is demanded.

It is a question of reducing the matter of the execution of the judg ment of the International Court of Justice and of the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain to the simple and immediate withdrawal of the aforementioned authorities. That new position of the Government of Honduras renders vain all the meetings noted and the discussions carried out in them) it does not take 2nto consideration the indefiniteness of the border line of the territory awarded to Honduras by the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain and contra~ diets the acknowledgement previously made by Honduras concerning the need for a reasonable period of time for the withdrawal of the Nicaraguan authorities.

The aforementioned note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hon= duras has caused my Government to doubt that the continuation of direct nego tiations between Nicaragua and Honduras, whether through the Foreign Minls~ trles or through the High Commissioners, will achieve a result satisfactory to both parties. Under these circumstances the Government of Nicaragua re iterates once again its respect for the authority of the International Court of Justice and its desire to carry to completion the execution of the judg~ ment of November lS~ 1960~ without disturbing the harmony and cordiality between Nicaragua and Honduras and, inspired by those sentiments, it has the honor to resort to the Inter-American Peace Committee to request its action to suggest methods and steps that may be conducive to a settlement of the questions that have arisen concerning the execution of the said judgment. PART I -4- APPENDIX 2

I take pleasure now in expressing the assurance my government has that, through the action of this honored agency of the American regional system» mu tually acceptable formulae will be found to bind and strengthen the friendship and cordiality of the Governments and brother peoples of Nicaragua and Honduras and to eliminate all causes of future friction. I shall forward to the Secretariat of the Committee the documents per taining to this matter and whatever information it may see fit to request of me.

Washington» D.C 0 February 16» 1961 PART I - 5 - APPENDIX 3

NEMORANDUH FROH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HONDURAS TO THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE CO~1HITTEE

The Representative of Honduras on the Council of the Organi~ation of American States$ in reply to the question that has been put to him a0 to whe ther he consents to action by the honorable Inter-American Peace Committee with regard to the situation created by Nicaragua by leaving unexecuted the Arbitral Award made by His Majesty the King of Spain$ which involves non-co~ pliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice, takes the li~ berty of setting forth here the following, upon special instructions from his government:

1. In conformity with the ~lashington Agreement of July 21$ 1957, Hon~ duras and Nicaragua submitted to decision by the International Court of Justice the dispute concerning the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain~ of Decem ber 23~ 1906. The International Court of Justice, in a judgment delivered on November 18, 1960$ resolved that dispute ence and for all~ declaring: "that the Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 is valid and binding and th~t Nicaragua is under an obligation to give effect to it." In confor mity with Article 4 (read !13 ft ) of the aforementioned Agreement, that judgment, duly pronounced and officially announced to the parties$ should have been car'~ ried out without delay.

2 0 The Government of Honduras, notwithstanding its perfect awareness that the obligation of Nicaragua to give effect to tne Arbitral Award gives it the correlative right to occupy the territory that two international decisions have recognized as belonging to it~ before proceeding to occupy its first re-- quested and then demanded of the Government of Nicaragua the immtldiate withdrawal of all the Nicaraguan civil, military, and administrative authorities who are occupying Honduran territory. Those authorities are endeavoringp even after November 18, 1960, to continue to exercise a jurisdiction that since its incep tion has been and is manifestly 'unlawful, in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Honduras. Although it declares its intention to abide by the judgment of the International Court of Justice, the Government of Nica ragua has opposed a whole series of delaying actions. The Government of Hon duras cannot but view with increasing and just alarm any further ma~ntenance ef that illegal occupation. All states are obliged to defend their national so vereignty and the integrity of their territory.

3. Already more than three months have elapsed since the judgment of the International Court of Justice (November 18, 1960) vlaS announced to the parties, without Nicaragua's having to date taken any step of a posit~ve na·~ ture toward giving effect to the Arbitral Award such as would, fundamentally, be the immediate withdrawal of its authorities who are in the illegally occu pied territory. This fact, added to the past conduct of the administrations of that republic with respect to the Arbitral Award, lead to the conclusion that such delaying actions only involve a disguised intention not to carry out the Arbitral Award. This is tantamount to leaving unexecuted the judgment oP the International Court of Justice.

_._._------PART I "" 6 - APPENDIX 3

4. The Government of Honduras, in the greatest good £aith~ wished to give the sister republic of Nicaragua the opportunity to comply with the judg ment of the Court in a cordial manner and thus to raise itself in the opinion of the American community; but, un fQ rtUl1ately, the Government of Nicaragua has not seen fit to act in harmony with that Central American-oriented attitude.

5. The Arbitral Awa.rd ma.de by the King of Spain, like all Arbitra.l Awards co~cerning boundaries, is a decision that fixes jurisdictions and sove:r-. eignties. By recognizing the binding force of the Award made by His Majesty the King of Spain, the International Court of Justice consequently recognized that the boundary line indicated by the Arbitral Award also definitely esta blished the boundary between the sovereignties of the two countries. Therefore Nicaragua, confronted with a boundary line that. is a well-marked, natural boun dary for most of its length, as is the boundary line with Honduras, and that in its minor portion requires only simple operations of placing boundary markers~ should immediately and unconrl.itionally cease to occupy the territory that right-· fully belongs to Honduras.

The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by an~ other state, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. This right, like the others on which the life of a state is based, is not subject to encroach ment in any formo Its violation constitutes, as the Rio de Janeiro Treaty es tablishes, a typical case of aggression. 6. The current situation brought about by Nicaragua with its non compliance with the judgment of the International Court of Justice is provided for in a special international instrument, the Agreement of June 21 and 22, 1957, joined into by both countries with the intervention of an ad hoc committee appointed by the Council of the Organization of American States, and in other international inscruments o

The attention of the honorable Inter-American Peace Committee is called especially to the fact that the longer the Nicaraguan aggression is prolonged, the more the just patriotic indignation of the Honduran people increases. A dangerous situation has now been created in which not only the peace of the hemisphere but also the good name and prestige of our regional system may be wrecked n

Despite what has been stated above Honduras is willing to accept action by the honorable Inter-American Peace Committee, if and when the following con ditions are accepted~

First~ As a prerequisite, Nicaragua must withdraw immediately and unconditionall~r all the military, ciV'i~~ and administrative authorities who are in territory that rightfully belongs to Hondurass and, I

PART I APPSNDIX 3

Sp.cond: In accepting t:h~ action of the Inter-American Peace Committee, Honduras especially reserves f~ll right to have recourse to the other agencies of the Organization of' Am.er.tcar.. States, in conformitJ• vdth the provisions of the Agreement of June 21 a.nd ;~2, 1957? incorporated in the resolution adopted by the Council of the Organizat·ioll of American States acting pro'risionally as Organ of Consultation on July 5 of ~.be sarr.e jrear; to the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance; and finally, to the Securit3T C.)unci1 of the United ~ations, should such a step be necessaryw

Washington, D.e., February' 24, 1961 PART I APPE~mIX 4

NOTE FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HONDURAS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE Cm-1MITTEE

l-1arch l~ 1961

Mr o Chairman~ I am pleased to refer to the conversations that I have held with you in the last few da;)"s concerning the efforts of the Inter-American Pea.ce Com mittee to find a solution to the questions that have arisen over giving effect to the Arbitral Award of December 23~ 1906~ the validity and binding nature of which the International Court of Justice confirmed in its judgment of November 18~ 1960"

In the course of those exchanges of impressions~ you have expressed to me the hope entertained by the Inter-American Peace Committee that its action in this matter may achieve positive results in a short period of timeo Like wise you have seen fit to express to me the opinion of the Committee that its action would be facilitated if the Gov~rnment of Honduras would withdraw the condition it set when~ on February 24~ it consented to renewed action~ in accordance with the provision of Article 15 of the Statutes o

In this connection I wish to make it clear that~ like the Committee~ my government has faith that that honored agency of our regional system will see its efforts rewarded by positive and beneficial results o

Therefore~ upon express instructions from my government~ I inform the Inter-American Peace Committee that Honduras~ true to its desire~ so often proven through concrete facts~ to exhaust all means within its reach for a solution~ accepts the suggestion of the Committee and withdraws the said con~ dition, Naturally~ the Inter-American Peace Committee should take into con= sideration that the contents of the memorandum of February 24~ 1961, that I delivered personally to you~ have been ratified by my governme~~ in all pare ticulars~ with the exception of the first paragraph on page 40 dJ

Accept~ Sir~ the renewed assurance of my highest considerationo

Celeo Davila Ambassador of Honduras

His Excellency Ambassador Vicente S!nchez Gavito Chairman of the Inter=American Peace Committee Washington~ DoCo

1 0 This refers to the last paragraph of page 6, Appendix 30 PART I - 9 - APPENDIX 5

NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA

March 1, 1961

No. 124

Mr. Ambassador: With reference to the conversations that you and I have been holding during the last few days, I am particularly pleased to inform you that the Government of Honduras has consented to action by the Inter-American Peace Committee in order to enable that body to suggest means and steps that may lead to the solution of the problems that have arisen concerning the execu tion of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of November 18, 1960.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

Vicente Sanchez Gavito Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee

His Excellency Dr. Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa Ambassador, Representative of Nicaragua Washington, D.C. PART I .. 10 ". APPENDIX 6

BASIS OF ARRANGEl-lENT PROPOSED BY THE INTER-AMEHICAN FEACE COHMITTEE TO THE GOVERNl-!ENTS OF HONDURAS AND NICJ\RA':}UA

L The Government of Nicaragua will inune'.ii~t.ely withdraw its authori ties from the territory.*

2. There is hereby established the Hon(illrc.s-Nicaragua Mixed Cormnission~ which will be composed of the Chainnan of the Inter-~Ar:lerica..'1 Peace Cormnittee~ as Representative of Honduras, and as Representative of Nicaragua. The Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Com mittee will be the Chairman of the l-1ixed ComrUlssion.

30 The M1.xed ComnussJ.on wlll begin its meetings in the place and on the date determined by the Chairman~ it will go to the territory as soon as possible and will remain there for 0.3 long as 1ll8.;Y be necessaryo During the time that the Mixed Comnussion 15 in the territ.ory j lhe Chairman may be repre= sented by the official of the Organizatlon of American States whom the Secre tary General thereof appoints for the purpose.

4. The powers of the Mixed Commission areg

a. To aid the two governments in their efforts to guarantee the inhablt3.nts of the territory a r..hoice between the two nation allties, and to permit those persons who may wish to do so to move to Nicaraguao

b. Under the terms of t.he Arbitral Axald of December ~23, 1906, to f1:': on the gro1.md the boundary Line from the junctlon of the Bodega or Poteca River wEh the Guineo River as far as Porhllo de Teotecacintej/ as well as to determine the start ing point of the natural boundary between the two countries at the mouth of the Coca River.

Co To supervlse the setting of markers for the boundary line laid out according to the preceding ;Jaragq.phe

5. In exercislng the pm'lers set forth in paragraph 4, b.~ th(·~K.ixed Conunlssion will avail .Ltself of the Conunission of Engineers already created by the two governments e

60 In the event of dlsagreemC'{'T, between t.he Representatives of Hon duras and Nicaragua on the Mixed Cormnission, the Chairman will make the final decision. This power may not be delegated.

* "Territ.ory" lS understood to mean the region ''It'.} ch~ according to the Arbitral Award of December 23 ~ 1906. belongs :·0 Hondur:'ls" and which Ni caraguan authoritles have oc,;;upied for several years o PART I - 11- APPENDIX 6

7. The Secretary General of the Organization of American States will provide the Mixed Commission with the technical staff and secretariat request ed by the Chairman. 8. Under the terms of Article 1 of its Statutes, the Inter-American Peace Committee will suggest measures and steps conducive to a settlement of all questions that may arise between the two governments in carrying out the Arbitral Award of December 23, 1906, and that are not submitted to the Mixed Commission in accordance with this Basis. PART I - 12 - API-'ENDIX 7 NOTE FRm1 THE CHAIRNAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COHNITTEE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA

March 1, 1961

No. 125

Mr. Ambassadorg I have the honor to refer to the statement made by you before the Inter American Peace Committee on February 16, 1961, in which you requested action by the Committee in order to try to solve the questions that have arisen concern ing the execution of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of No vember 18, 1960.

Ambassador Jose Antonio Mayobre, Representative of Venezuela on the Co~ mittee, and I have informed our colleagues of the exchanges of impressions held with you and with the Ambassador, Representative of Honduras on the Council. The Inter-American Peace Committee desires, in the first place, to ex press its profound gratitude for the cooperation that you and the Ambassador of Honduras have extended to it in this matter, in which the Organization of Ameri can States has put forth so many efforts with such good results.

Taking into consideration all the factors in the case, the Co~~ttee has arrived at the conclusion that it is urgent that the Nicaraguan authorities who are in Honduran territory be withdrawn immediately and that the two govern ments, likewise immediately, establish a Mixed Commission that would proceed to the border region in question for the primary purpose of solving problems of a material nature and preventing additional difficulties from arising in the coming weeks.

With these ideas in mind, the Committee has drawn up the Basis of Arrange ment that I take the liberty of forwarding to you as Enclosure 1 with this co~ municationo As you will kindly note, paragraph 8 of the Basis provides that the Inter-Americ&~ Peace Committee continue seeking methods that may lead to the set tlement of such aspects of the case as would not be submitted to the Mixed Corn mission o

His Excellency Dro Guillermo Sevilla Sacasa Ambassador, Representative of Nicaragua Washington, D.C o -~--~------

PART I - 13 - APPENDIX 7

The Committee believes it is doing honor to the high aims that the member states of the Organization pursued when they established it in ex horting the Government of Nicaragua -- as it has exhorted the Government of Honduras in a note, a copy of which I am sending to you as Enclosure 2 with this communication -- to accept this Basis of Arrangement.

Finally, because of the special circumstances that the matter in volves, the Committee is convinced that its action can be fruitful only if it achieves positive results within a short period of time, and therefore it informs you of its intention. to inform the governments of the member states of the Organization, in the form provided for by article 18 of the statutes, of the result of the proposal to which this note refers, not later than March 8 of this year.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

Vicente Sanchez Gavito Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee

Enclosures PART I - 14 - APPENDIX S

NOTE FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HONDURAS

March 1,1) 1961

No. 126

Mr. Ambassador~ I have the honor to refer to the procedure that the Inter=American Peace Committee has been observing for the purpose of trying to solve the questions ~hat have arisen concerning the execution of the judgment of the In~ ternationa~ Court of Justice of November lS,I) 1960. Ambassador Jose Antonio Mayobre, Representative of Venezuela on the Committee,l) and I have informed our colleagues of the exchanges of impressions held with you and with the Ambassador,l) Representative of Nicaragua on the Coun cil.

The Inter-American Peace Committee desires,l) L~ the first place~ to express its profound gratitude for the cooperation that you and the Ambassador of Nicaragua have extended to it in this matter, in which the Organization of American States has put forth so many efforts with such good results. Taking into consideration all the factors in the case,l) the Committee has arrived at the conclusion that it is urgent that the Nicaraguan authori ties who are in Honduran territory be withdrawn inunediately and that the two governments,l) likewise immediately,l) establish a Mixed Commission that would pro ceed to the border region in question for the primary purpose of solving pro blems of a material nature and preventing additional difficulties from arising in the coming weeks. With these ideas in mind,l) the Committee has drawn up the Basis of Arran gement that I take the liberty of forwarding to you as Enclosure 1 with this communication. As you will kindly note, paragraph 8 of the Basis provides that the Inter-American Peace Committee continue seeking methods that may lead to the settlement of such aspects of the case as would not be submitted to the Mixed Commission.

His Excellency Dr. C~leo D£vila Ambassador,l) Representative of Honduras Washington, DoG. ------~------_._._-

PAHT I ~ 15 - APPENDIX 8

The Committee believes it is doing honor to the high aims that the member states of the Organization pursued when they established it in ex horting the Government of Honduras -- as it has exhorted the Government of Nicaragua in a note, a copy of which I am sending to you as Enclosure 2 with this comrnlli~ication -- to accept this Basis of Arrangemento

Finally, because of the special circumstances that the matter involves, the Committee is convinced that its action can be fruitful only if it achieves positive results within a short period of time, and therefore it informs you of its intention to inform the governments of the member states of the Organi zation, in the form provided for by article 18 of the statutes, of the result of the proposal to which this note refers, not later than March 8 of this year.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

Vicente Sanchez Gavito Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee

Enclosures PART I APPENDIX 9

NOTE FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF HONDURAS TO THE CHAIllL"'1AN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE

March 4, 1961

Mr.. Chairman:

I have had the honor of rece~v1ng your kind note dated the first of this month, and the Basis of Arrangement that the Inter-American Peace Commit tee has drawn up with a view toward putting an end to the questions that have arisen between Honduras and Nicaragua concerning the execution of the judgment of the International Court of Justice of November 18, 1960.

I have read the Basis of Arrangement with the care and attention it de serves, and find it completely satisfactory.

The Government of Honduras, in a sincere desire to facilitate a prompt and just solution to this distressing matter and as one more demonstration of its devotion and adherence to the principles that guide the Pan American regio nal system, has given me precise instructions to accept all of the proposed basis of arrangement.

At the same time I have the honor to inform you that the Government of Honduras has appointed Dr. Roberto Perdomo Paredes as its representative to make up the Mixed Commission provided for in Article 2 of the proposed arrang~M ment.

This is a fitting occasion to make note here of the deep gratitude of the Government of Honduras for the important steps carried out by the Inter American Peace Committee for the purpose of finding a prompt and satisfactory sO]~ltion to the situation that has been created by the delay on the part of Nicaragua in giving effect to the Arbitral Award made by his Majesty the King of Spain. At the same time I desire to reaffirm the faith and confidence Hon duras has in the action of that honorable Committee, whose future efforts it sincerely hopes to see crowned with success.

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurance of my highest consideration.

CHeo Davila Ambassador of Honduras His Excellency Dr. Vicente Sanchez Gavito Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Co!pmittee Washington, D.C. PART I - 17 - APl-ENDIX 10 l.ffiHORANDUIvl FROH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF NICARAGUA TO THE INTER-AlvlERICAN PEACE COl>1HITTEE

The Government of Nicaragua has carefully studied the basis of arrange ment proposed by the Inter-American Peace Committee to the Governments of Hon duras and Nicaragua, which appears in the document transmitted by the Chairman of the Committee to the Ambassador of Nicaragua on March 1, 1961.

The Government of Nicaragua, recognizing the effort that the Committee has put forth, presents the following observations and amendments and reiterates to the Committee its firm intention to arrive at an agreement that will harmo niously solve the difficulties that have arisen:

OBSERVATIONS:

1. Withdrawal of the Nicaraguan authorities constitutes only one of the phases of giving effect to the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on December 23, 1906, declared valid and binding by the judgment of the International Court of Justice of November 18, 1960.

2. There are Honduran authorities in the Sitio de Teotecacinte which, in accordance with the Arbitral Award, remains wholly within the ju risdiction of Nicaragua.

3. Since it is a question of withdrawing from territories as yet not defined~ it is necessary that the inhabitants who are to be displ~ced be fully guaranteed while this withdrawal is being carried out and that the governments give all the cooperation that the case may re quite in order to facilitate the operation pertaining to the transfer. 4. It is necessary that the parties agree to respect the acquired real property rights, for just as the exercise of property rights must be subject to the laws of the country in which the property is located, it would not be logical or just to apply laws to that prop erty with retroactive effect. 5. The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission should be invested vuth greater authority and competence in order to be able to perform its mission ~dth greater success and, in addition, it should have authori ty to determine the course of the Coco, or Segovia, River and that of the Poteca, or Bodega, River. AHENntvIEN TS :

10 The Government of Nicaragua deems it advisable that the Inter American Peace Committee, a Subcommittee ~hereof, its Chail~jOr a member vlhom it may designate travel quickly to Managua and Te,5uci galpa for the rurpose of conferrinG with the respective Chiefs of State about the various aspects of the matter in dispute.

------PART I - 18 .,. APPENDIX 10

2. The Government of Nicaragua proposes the following as Article 1 of the Basis of Arrangement~ "The Governments of Nicaragua and Hon duras will withdraw their respective authorities who are in the territory of the other country. The withdrawal of the authorities in the zone of Teotecacinte shall be effected irrmed~ately upon con clusion of the demarcation of that zone. On the rest of the border the withdrawal shall be begun immediately and should be completed by the last day of July of this year at the latest."

3. To add to the draft two more bases, reading as follows~ "The Governments of Nicaragua and Honduras will prescribe the meast:.res necessary so that acquired real property rights may be respected in the territory that passes under the jurisdiction of the other co~~try. facilitating the registration of the respective titles in the corres~ ponding registers." "The Inter-American Peace Committee will suggest methods and steps to Nicaragua and Honduras in order to reach agreements that, even though they may not be directly related to the execution of the Arbitral Award, may contribute toward developing closer relations between the two countries."

4. The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission should be invested with greater authority and competence in order to perform its mission with greater success and, in addition, it should have the authority to determine the course of the Coco, or Segovia, River and that of the Poteca, or Bodega, River.

5. It should be added to subparagraph a. of paragraph 4 that the emigrants will be able to take with them their livestock and movable property.

The note to the first paragraph is illlacceptable. The Ambassador of Nicaragua desires to appear before the Committee to give additional explanations.

March 7, 1961 o c EA N o

12" III -\:

p A c I I c o

--- Boundary line requested by NlcCTogua before the King of Spain 11°_ - Boundary line requested by Honduras befare the King of Spain •••• Baundary Iine established by the Arbitral Award made by the King ·of Spain in 1906 ..., W/////~Territory in possession of Nicaragua up to the time of action by the Inter.Amerlcan ~ Peace Committee ... o lookm I CO Sf A R,C ~ , , B9° 8.8° 87° 85° PART I .. 20 .. APPENDIX 12

INTER-AMERICAN PEACE COMMITTEE Press Release

From the town of Waspam, Nicaragua, the Inter-American Peace Committee reports that it has visited the frontier region of the Co co River for the pm pose of aiding the Governments or Honduras and Nicaragua in their efforts to bring to a happy conclusion the carrYing out of the Arbitral Award of Decem ber 23, 1906.

In this way it has had the opportunity to ascertain that the authori ties of the two countries are succeeding in reaching agreement on all matters relating to the points they had been discussing during recent weeks. Conse quently, the Inter-American Peace Committee is leaving the territory and re turning to Washington convinced that the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua have overcome the main causes of disagreement. Aside from this, the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission, presided over by the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee, is remaining in the region of the Coco River. It will shortly go to Managua and Tegucigalpa for the purpose of assisting in solving rapidly and in a friendly way all the differences of opinion that might arise. Upon leaving Central America, the Inter-American Peace Committee wishes to express to the press of Honduras and Nicaragua its gratitude for the full cooperation accorded it. Through the press, the Committee sends a greeting of fraternal affection to the Honduran and Nicaraguan people.

Waapam, Nicaragua, March 21, 1961 ------_.- --

PART I "" 21 - APPENDIX 13

MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS HELD BY THE HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

HONDURA~NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

First Meeting ~ March 21~ 1961

~o In the town of Waspam~ Nicaragua~ at lO~OO pomo on Marc:h 21;, 1961~ the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Corrmdssion~ composed of Mro Vicente S~nchez Gavi~

t0.\l Chauman of t.he Inter-American Peace Committee Q Dro Roberto Perdomo Pare

des" Representat,lve of Honduras ll and Dro Ignac:io Roman Pacheco.Q Representative Nica.ragua~, of held its first meetingo Dr o Roberto Eo Quir6s.\l of the OAS 9 Colo nel Armengol Martfnez 50.\1 Alternate Representative of Nicaragua; and Mro Modesto Lucero.~ Secretary.o we::'e also presento

2 0 At the request of the national representatives$ the ChairmancoIlF missioned two officials of t.he OAS to remain in 'the town of Awasbila"

3 0 At. the request of the national representati'\res,l\ the Chairman com missioned one official of' the OAS to remain in the town of Leymus o

43 In Viel'1 of the fact that the town of Santa Isabel is in the pro=

cess of construction on the right bank of the Coco River.\l acr6ss from Awasbila ll the national representat1.ves agreed that passage of' labor a.'1d construction ma= terials would be permitted on the road that links Leymus and Awasbilao 50 The national representatives were agreed that there will be no difficulty of any kind for all those inhabitants of the left bank of the Coca River who may desire to cross over to Nicaragua to be able to do so without complying with the immigration requirements" These persons will be able to take their possessions with theme

Waspam~ March 21.\1 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Vicente S~nchez Gavito Ignacio Roman Pache00 Representative of Honduras Chairman Representative of Nicaragua ------

PART I '"" 22 ... APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMNISSION

~ Second Meeting Friday March 24 j 1961

1 0 The Honduras~Nicarar,ua ~:i}~ed Cormninsion held its second meeting at 9~OO Romp on March 24. 1961> in the town of Cabo Gracias a Dios o

2 0 At 9~OO aom. today the Government of Nicaragua withdrew its mili tary authorities from the tOvffi of Cabo Gracias a Dioso The Commission puts on record the fact that, with this withdrawal> all the Nicaraguan military authori ties who were in the part of the "territory" lying between the mouth of the Coca River and Bocay have now been evacuated c 30 As for the part of the territory between Bocay and the confluence

of the Poteca or Bodega River and the Guineo Riverll at the request of the Repre sentative of Nicaragua there is transcribed below the text of the telegram :Jhat he received yesterday from His Excellency the President of his countrYll t.o witg

IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DESIRES OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION WE HAVE GIVEN ORDERS TO IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW AUTHORITIES FROM BOCAY TO POINT INDICATED BY YOU, WITHOUT INCLUDING PLACES IN WHICH THE BOUNDARY LINE HAS YET TO BE DRAWN AS SOON AS I RECEIVE

CONFIRMATION OF THAT WITHDRAWAL I SHALL ADVISEo CORDIALLY 0 LUIS A. SOMOZA D

The said representative added that the point referred to in the trans cribed message is precisely that of the confluence of the Pateca and Guineo riverso

40 The national representatives put on record the agreement they have reached to the effect that entrance into the "territory" will be permited to the t.!ic2.rQ.guan civil representativ8S responsible for the transfer of those of their compatriots who desire to establish themselves in Nicaraguao

50 It is likewise recorded that the Mixed Commission visited the fol 21~ 24~ lowing points in the IIterritoryll on March 22" 23 11 and

1 0 Leymlls

2 0 Rus Hus 3. A\'I[.s[nla 40 SU,if. 5. Cabo Gracias a Dios

Cabo Gracias a Dios~ March 24, 1~6l

Roberto pprdomo Paredes Vl(;cnLe Sanchez Gavito Ignacio Hornan Pacheco Representativf' of Honduras Chai rr'1an Representative of Nicaragua PART I = 23 - APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED CO}lliISSION

Third Meeting ~ Friday~ March 24s 1961

1 0 The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its third meeting at 11~OO pom o on March 24~ 1961s in the town of Waspamo

2 0 The first point taken up was the document by virtue of which the officials and employees of the Nicaraguan program for the transfer of its na= tionals will be able to enter Honduran territoryo The national representatives agreed that the proper thing to do would be to extend to them a borde~crossing pass drawn up in the following termsg

To Whom it May Concern:

The undersigned certifies that a commission related to the transfer of the nationals of Nicaragua to the right bank of the Coco River has been entrusted to the citizen o

(Nicaraguan Authority)

The Honduran authorities permit the entrance of the bearer and will grant him the necessary facilities so that he may carry out his cornmissiono

(Honduran Authority) 30 The Commission understands that in cases of great need the border residents have the right to cross over to the border town of the other countrY9 and it recommends to the two governments that~ as soon as possibles they take the necessary steps so that this situation may be regularized by the issuing of border-crossing passes similar to the one transcribed in the preceding para~ graph 0 By cases of great need the Commission means not only those of medical attention but also those of food provisioning and others of an urgent nature o

40 At the request of the national representatives the Chairman com missioned two officials of the OAS to remain in the town of Cabo Gracias a Dioso

Waspam~ March 24~ 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Vicente Sanchez Gavito Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Chairman Representative of Nicaragua PART I - 24- APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED CO~IMISSION

Fourth Meeting - Thursday, April 6, 1961

1 0 The Honduras~Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its fourth meeting at 12:00 noon on April 6, 1961, in the city of Managuao Dr. Roberto E. Quiros, Representative of the Chsirman; Dr. Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Honduras; and Dr. Ignacio Roman Pacheco, Representative of Nicaragua, attended. Mr. Madesta Lucero served as Secretary,

2. The national representatives took cognizance of the communication dated March 26 sent by the Chairman of the Commission, Ambassador Vicente S£n chez Gavito, to his representative thereon, Dro Roberto E. Quiros. They ex pressed their thanks for the ideas it contains and offered to present at an op portune moment, in memorandum form, the points of view of their respective go verrun~nts with regard to the matters taken up in that documento 3. The Mixed Commission decided to make a trip through the border zone between Bocay and the confluence of the Poteca and Guineo Rivers beginning to morrow, April 7; 1961. 40 The national representatives stated that their respective alter nates on the Mixed Commission have the same powers as the representatives them= selves, and that their jurisdiction comprises the whole border zone with res pect to matters related to the carrying out of the Basis of Arrangement accept ed by both governments.

5. With respect to point 3 of the Minutes of the third meeting, held on }furch 24, 1961, in the town of Waspam, the national representatives put on the record that the two governments have reached an agreement that border re sidents will have the right to cross aver to the border town of the other coun try in the cases of great need to which the said point 3 referso

Managua, April 6J 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto Eo Quir6s Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of Representative of Nicaragua the Chairman PART I - 25 - APPENDIX 13

HONDURA~NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Fifth Meeting - Tuesday~ April ll~ 1961

1 0 The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its fifth meeting at 19OO p.m n on April ll~ 1961~ in the city of Managuao Dr. Roberto E. Quir6s~ Representative of the Chairman; Dr. Roberto Perdomo Paredes$ Representative of Honduras; and Dr. Ignacio Roman Pacheco~ Representative of Nicaragua$ attendedu Mr. Modesto Lucero served as Secretary.

2. On April 7 and e$ the Mixed Commission made flights over the bor der zone between the confluence of the Poteca and Guineo rivers and the town of BocaY9 which place it visited. The Mixed Commission was able to verify that all the Nicaraguan authoritie~ have been withdrawn from the left bank of the Co co River with the exception of those who are in the place called BocaY$ who are still in the proces~ of being transferred. The Representative of Nicaragua stated that the proper orders have already been issued so that the transfer may be completed by tomorrow at the latest.

3. At the request of the national representatives~ the Representative of the Chairman has commissioned an official of the OAS to remain in the town of Bocayo By agreement of the said representatjves~ his stay there will not be extended beyond Saturday April 150

40 On Sunday April 9 the national representatives agreed that since the presence of the officials of the OAS was no longer necessary in the town of Cabo Gracias a Dios they should be transferred to the town of Waspam~ where they would await new instructions from the Representative of the Chairman.

5. In view of the fact that the operations of transferring the Nica~ raguan population to the right bank of the Coco River and the occupation of the left bank by the Honduran authorities will oblige both governments to ex tend to their nationals special assistance in order to satisfy their urgent needs not only for food but also for medicines~ seed~ farm implements~ and the like~ the Mixed Commission recommends tn the Governments of Honduras and Nica ragua that they agree on taking the necessary steps to permit the free entry of the aforementioned articles from one country into the other in the border regiono

6. In view of the fact that the inhabitants of the border zone~ both Hondurans and Nicaraguans~ must do their planting at the beginning of next May~ the Mixed Commission recommends to the two governments that~ as soon as PART I ... 26- APPENDIX 13

possible3 they agree that the inhabitants of both banks of the Coco River may cultivate3 during the present farm year3 the same lands they have been previ= ously cultivating3 in whichever territory they may be located3 and that in the same manner there may be no difficulty in the transfer of their harvests from one bank of the river to the othero

Managua 3 April 113 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto Eo Quiros Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of Representative of' Nicaragua the Chairman PART I - 27 - APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Sixth Meeting - Wednesday~ April 12~ 1961

1 0 The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its sixth meeting at 6~OO pomo on April 12~ 1961~ in the city of Managuao

2 0 The national representatives stated that they had received reports from their respective governments to the effect that the transfer of the Nica raguan authorities who were in the town of Bocay to the right bank of the Co co River was completed today.

3. The Mixed Commission puts on record the fact that~ with the trans fer noted in the previous paragraph~ Nicaragua has complied with point 1 of the Basis of Arrangement in the entire "territory" between the confluence of the Poteca and Guineo rivers and the mouth of the Coco Rivero 4. The Mixed Commission herewith concludes its second period of meet= ings. The national representatives stated that they will reach an agreement with the representative of the C~airman to set the date on which the third period of meetings will begino

Managua, April 12~ 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto E. Quiros Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of Representative of Nicaragua the Chairman PART I .., 28 - APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Seventh Meeting - Tuesday~ June 20~ 1961

1. The Honduras--Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its seventh meeting at 7~00 p.m o on June 20~ 1961~ in the city of Managuao Messrs. Vicente Sanchez Ga vito~ Chairman~ Roberto Perdomo Paredes~ Representative of Honduras~ and Igna cio Rom£n Pacheco~ Representative of Nicaragua~ attended. Mr. Modesto Lucero served as Secretary. The purpose of this meeting was to carry out the function set forth in paragraph 40 b of the Basis of Arrangement as a result of the sojourn of the Mixed Commission in the zone of Teotecacinte from June 13 to 170

2. In conformity with the provisions of paragraph 5 of the said Basis~ the Mixed Commission has received the fullest cooperation from the Commission of Engineers~ which made the required topographical survey and presented to the Mixed Commission the map dated the tenth of this month (Appendix 1)0 The se ven members of the Cormnission of Engineers accompanied the Mixed Commission du.roe ing the trip throu.gh the zone of Teotecacinte o

3. In order to fix on the ground~ under the terms of the Arb~tral A= ward of December 23~ 1906~ the boundary line in the zone of Teotecacinte)) the Mixed Commission proceeded in the following manner~

It started from the junction of the Poteca or Bodega River w~th the Guineo or Namasli River following the direction that corresponds to the dema~ cation of the Sitio de Teotecacinte in accordance with the demarcation made 1.n 1720~ thus arriving at the confluence of the Yupaili water~ourse and the Mumu iuli River~ now respectively known by the names El Estero and Poteca or Bodega. According to the aforementioned demarcation. this confluence is where the east ern boundary of the Sitio de Teotecacinte begins,!) 'and consequently the -::-:.~st boundary marker will be placed there o From this pOl.nt the d:Lvidlng lil. is a straight line to the highest crest of the hill of Cayantu j formerly called Caiancupa~ where it goes off in the direction of La Vl.g1.,a hill untl.l the point where this line crosses the Guineo River (MumuiuH) ~ at which po~.nt it changes direction and follows a straight line to the highest crest of the hl.ll that is identified by the name Plan Verde adjoining the plain of the same namej from this point it follows a straight line to the house located on the edge of the trail between the Calabaza and Saquinli watercourses; at that point the line again changes direction, going straight to the hill of La Vigi.a)l WhlCh has an altitude of 743 meters above sea level and is located 340 meters southeast of the geodetic control point in the place called La Vigiaj from t.ha't hl.ll it fol~ lows a straight line to the place called Las Ahumaderas at a pOlnt locat ed on thG right bank of the watercourse of Guallucall. 900 meters 1n a straight lJ.ne from the confluence of this watercourse and the Agua Call.ente watercourse; from there it follows along the right bank of the said watercourse of Guallucali. to the aforesaid confluenceo PART I - 29 .., APPENDIX 13

4a All the points described are clearly specified in Appendices 2 and 3 signed by engineers Magin Lanza~ of Honduras~ and Crist6bal Rugamal' of Nicaragua 0 These points have been identified by the national representatives with the advice of Mr. Robert R. McIlwaine~ advisory member of the Commission of Engineers"

5. Chairman Sanchez Gavito suggested that the Mixed Commission agree that the placing of the boundary markers on the dividing line fixed in para graph 3 above be undertaken forthwith o The national representatives agreed to this~ and therefore the Commission of Engineers will be able to begin immedi ately the placing of boundary markers in thp. sector that has now been demarca ted.

6 0 As the Commission of Engineers carries out the demarcation on the ground~ the Government of Nicaragua will withdraw its authorities from all of the "territory" that lies to the east and to the north of the line drawn as far as the confluence of the Agua Caliente and Guallucali riverso

70 The Mixed Commission will meet again to continue the tasks refer red to in point 1 of these minutes.

Managua~ June 20 j 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Vicente Sanchez Gavito Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Chairman Representative of Nicaragua K~-"·O<>O

H.... Ah

Nlt.5S6.D':;

690_ ~ COM'SfiNMI>

,.OPOtiRA!1A: Jas. A ~OD""\uw.'ZT ,.".011'0 S.c ..~a DIBUJO:: 1"'4 5.''''0 l~P"'DO1<\."".

/Ju;,;..I'£-:-. C!c:7Cjama.~;;'5~ ,.--~{Z.IJ\,J)8k./ _ 6"?o ~ Nil.

ANEXO3 ..."'0 o °i .. ~ 0: Q ~ ... l

"II. SS,," '1••

CUSf1..ItJ.""AS ALTA £Mr. 7"'.) " CAlANCUPA

f:i 1'I.5511.8$D PART I - 32- APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Eighth Meeting - Wednesday~ July 26~ 1961

1. The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its eighth meeting at 6:00 p.mo on July 26~ 1961, at the Pan American Union~ Washington~ DoC. Messrs o Roberto E. Quir6s, Representative of the Chairman of the Commission; Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Honduras; and Ignacio Roman Pacheco, Repre sentative of Nicaragua, attended. Mr. Modesto Lucero served as Secretary. The purpose of this meeting was to continue the work referred to in point 1 of the minutes of the seventh meetingo

2. From the confluence of the Agua Caliente and Guallucali watercour ses, the point that the demarcation reached in the minutes of the seventh meet~ ing, the dividing line continues as a straight line to the point located in the Rincon de Murupuchi on the left bank of the Arenal watercourse and in the extreme north of the plain that forms the said Rinc6n and approximately 740 meters from the confluence of the said watercourse with the Limon Rivero 3. The points described in the preceding paragraph are clearly speci fied in Appendices 1 and 2 to the minutes of the seventh session~ signed by engineers Magfn Lanza of Honduras and Cristobal Rugama of Nicaragua o Those points have been identified by the national representatives with the advice of Mr. Robert Ro McIlwaine, advisory member of the Commission of Engineers. 4. The Representative of the Chairman suggested that the placing of the boundary markers on the dividing line fixed in paragraph 2 of these min utes be undertaken forthwith. The national representatives agreed to this, and therefore the Commission of Engineers will be able to continue placing the boundary markers in the sector already demarcated.

5. As the Commission of Engineers carries out the demarcation on the ground the Government of Nicaragua will withdraw its authorities from the "te~ ritory" that lies to the north of the line drawn.

Washington~ D.Co, July 26, 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto Eo Quiros Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of Representative of Nicaragua the Chairman PART I ... 33 - APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Ninth Meeting - Thursday~ July 27, 1961

1. The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its ninth meeting at noon on July 27, 1961, at the Pan American Union, Washington~ D.C. Messrs. Roberto E. Quir6s, Representative of the Chairman of the Commission; Roberto Perdomo Paredes, Representative of Honduras; and Ignacio Rom!n P,.checo, Repre sentative of Nicaragua, attended. Mr. Modesto Lucero served as Secretary. The object of this meeting was to continue the work referred to in paragraph 1 of the minutes of the seventh meeting beginning at the point located in the Rinc6n de Murupuch1 specified in paragraph 2 of the minutes of the eighth meet ing. 2. The Representative of Honduras said precisely the followingg That in accordance with the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on December 23, 1906, and the judgment of the International Court of Justice of November 18, 1960, and following the order of business established by the Chairman of the Commission in his message dated this July 3, and accepted by the national representatives, the Commission should proceed to fix the location of the point known as Cruz sin Brazo, which is the southwest corner boundary marker of the Sitio de Teotecacinte in conformity with the demarcation effected in 1720, a point that has been located by the Commission of Honduran Engineers on the north bank of the watercourse of Paya11, formerly known by the name Siute, which is in a place different from the one that was indicated by the Commission of Engineers of Nicaragua in the topographical survey that the Commission of Engineers presented (Appendix 2 to the minutes of the seventh meeting). He stated that likewise the demarcation of the dividing line should be undertaken between the point called Murupuch1, defined in the minutes of the eighth meet ing and Cruz sin Brazo, which sector corresponds to the western boundary of the Sitio de Teotecacinte according to the said demarcation of 1720. The divi ding line in this sector is a straight line that goes from the point of Muru puch1, located in the Rincon of the same name, and continues south 8 defrees, 31 minutes, 30 seconds west until it reaches the said point called Cruz sin Brazo. From this point of Cruz sin Brazo the dividing line continues in a straight line ending at the Portillo de Teotecacinte. 3. The Representative of Nicaragua said precisely the following: That he does not accept the claim of the Representative of Honduras that the fixing of the location of the place called Cruz sin Brazo or of the western boundary of the Sitio de Teotecacinte,should be undertaken at this meeting, since Cruz sin Brazo is located within completely Nicaraguan territory that has never been the subject of dispute and hence~ establishing its location is of no interest to the work of this Commission, whose purpose is to demarcate the border in accordance with the Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain in 1906. He stated that he has not given express or tacit approval to discussion of the aforementioned fixing of the location of Cruz sin Brazo, and that he maintains that the boundary line, beginning at the point located in the Rinc6n PART I - 34- APPENDIX 13

de Murupuchf~ is a straight line between the boundary marker corresponding to that place and that of the Portillo de Teotecacinte~ the last one that the Mixed Boundary Commission established in accordance with Agreement No. 4 sign~ ed at Danll on June 26) 1901. 4. The points described in the preceding paragraphs are clearly spe cified in Appendix 2 to the minutes of the seventh meeting~ signed by engi neers Magin Lanza of Honduras and Cristobal Rugama of Nicaragua. Those points have been identified by the national representatives with the advice of Mr. Robert R. McIlwaine~ advisory member of the Commission of Engineers. 5. Despite the efforts put forth in this session it was not possible for the national representatives to resolve the differences noted above and) consequently) these disagreements between the said representatives are put on record and paragraph 6 of the Basis of Arrangement should be applied.

6. The national representatives agreed to request in separate notes from each of them to the Chairman of the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission that he decide the said differences in accordance with the aforementioned par~ graph 6 of the Basis of Arrangement. Likewise they agreed to present in writ ing the arguments in favor of their respective claims to the Chairman of the Mixed Commission not later than 10~00 a.m. on July 30. 70 As for the determination of the point of departure of the natural boundary between the two countries at the mouth of the Coco River~ the national representatives agreed to carry that out later.

Washington) D.C~) July 27) 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto E. Quiros Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Representative of Representative of Nicaragua the Chairman

------PART I APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS=NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Tenth Meeting - SundaY3 July 303 1961

1. The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission held its tenth meeting at 196~at San~ 10:00 a.m. on July 303 the Pan American Union. Messrs o Vicente chez Gavito, Chairman; Roberto Perdomo Paredes~ Representative of Hondurasj and Ignacio Roman Pacheco~ Representative of Nicaragua~ attended. Mr. Modesto Lucero served as Secretary. The purpose of the meeti.ng was to turn over to the Chairman the papers in which the national representatives set forth the points of view of their governments on the disagreement relative to the draw~ ing of the boundary line that is to join the Sitio to the Portillo de Teoteca cinte.

2. The Chainnan began the meeting with the reading of the statement that is transcribed belowg

I am especially thankful for the proof of confidence that the govern ments of Honduras and Nicaragua have given me in asking me to decide, in accordance with the terms of paragraph 6 of the Basis of Arrange

ment 3 the disagreement between their representatives on the Mixed Commission concerning the drawing of the boundary line that is to join the Sitio to the Portillo de Teotecacinte o

I accept this honor and the responsibility that accompanies it. I shall decide the disagreement because the prestige of the Organiza~ tion of American States that I serve requires it~ because I am con vinced that the interest of Honduras requires it and that~ in accor dance with the said Basis~ it will not take possession of all the territory over which its jurisdiction is recognized in the Arbitral Award of 1906 until this problem is solved, and» finally» because I believe that it is required by the interest so often expressed be fore the Mixed Commission by the Government of Nicaragua~ that every cause of disagreement between its people and that of Honduras disap~ pear as soon as possible and forever c It is opportune to recall these problems that the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua submitted to the Mixed Commission on March 13 of this year and that the Commlssion has already had the good for tune to solves Thus we can easily overcome the discouragem~nt caus ed by the failure of our endeavor to elimi.nate the first and only disagreement that has arisen within this Commission o

Along the e>..-tensive natural frontier» from the mouth of the Coc;o Ri ver to the zone of Teotecacinte» we ha'l1e had responsibiHty for the withdrawal of authorities from a region having an area of more than eight thousand square kilorneters and for the transfer in an orderly PART I APPENDIX 13

manner of several thousand human beings. Iri this entire operation we have not had to lament even one serious incident. What is more, in the course of our joint labors no insurmountable difference of opinion has arisen between my colleagues, the Representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua. Furthermore, with the invaluable advice of the Commission of En gineers, those same national representatives have reached agreement on the interpretation of a document - the demarcation of 1720 - that is not always precise and clear. Thus the borders of the Sitio de Teotecacinte have been defined and the land boundary, to which the Arbitral Award pertains, has been fixed over a goodly portion of its length.

There remains only the determination of the last portion of that di~ viding line. I describe the disagreement in this regard between the national representatives by means of the attached sketch in which the line AB represents that proposed by Nicaragua and ACB indicates the one proposed by Honduras. The area within those three lines (AB, AC, and CB) measures 17.5 square kilometers. I have flown over this by helicopter and have ascertained that this area is entirely composed of hilly, unpopulated terrain, in which there are no cultivated lands o

I shall communicate my decision to the national representatives in the course of this week. But before closing this statement I wish to emphasize that only they are acting in the name of member states of our regional Organization. I, on the other hand, represent the Or ganization itself and only the Organization.

Actually, the fact that a Mexican happens to exercise the Chairman~ ship of the Mixed Commission is accidental. The contribution of the Government of Mexico to the process that is about to come to an end has consisted exclusively of having ordered me to give p~iority to the work of the Mixed Commission over the tasks that it has entrusted to me. Not only has it given me no directive but also it has not even given me the least suggestion concerning the manner of exercising the Chairmanship of the Commission. Thus the Government of Mexico has believed it is best fulfilling the obligation that the ancestral friendship of its people with that of Honduras and Nicaragua imposes upon it by leaving me in absolute liberty and taking care that the responsibility for my acts falls upon me and upon me alone. 3. Next the Representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua read the docu ments mentioned in paragraph I of these minutes. The Chairman thanked the na tional representatives for their cooperation in having explained in such clear and precise form the positions of their respective governments on the disagre~ ment in question. PART I ~ 37- APPENDIX 13

4. As to the fixing of the loca~ion of the point known as Cruz sin Brazo - a problem in which the positions of the representatives of Honduras and Nicaragua were specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively of the minutes of the ninth meeting~ held on July 27» 1961 ~ the Chairman statedg a. that to determine with precision the terms of the disagreement between the national re presentatives it has been necessary for him to fix the location of the point called Cruz sin Brazo; b o that he understands the reasons for which the Repre sentative of Nicaragua does not desire that the location of the said point be

fixed, and c. that 9 without prejudging whether or not the said point will fi gure in the drawing of the boundary line that is to join the Sitio and the lo~ Portillo de Teotecacinte9 based upon his observations on the spot he has cated Cruz sin Brazo at a point on the north bank of the Payali watercourse degrees~ Rin~ in a straight line south9 8 31 minutes» 30 seconds west from the c~n de Murupuchi. The said point of Cruz sin Brazo is designated with the let~ t~r "CIi in the sketch attached to his statements> transcribed in paragraph 2 of these minutes.

5. Finallys> the Chairman stated that he may possibly request from the national representatives additional data on the matters brought up by them in the written documents they have just presented. In that case9 the Chairman would draw up a list of such points and would pass it to the national repre~ sentatives not later than noon of July 31.

Washington9 D.C. 9 July 309 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Vicente Sanchez Gavito Ignacio Roman Pacheco Representative of Honduras Chairman Representative of Nicaragua PART I = 38 co APPENDIX 13

HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Eleventh Meeting ~ Monday~ November 20~ 1961

la The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed COmmlssion held its eleventh meeting Managua~ Messrs~ at 11:00 a.m. on November 20s 1961Q in the city of Roberto Eo Quir6s~ Representative of the Cha~rman of the Commission~ Roberto Perdomo Paredes~ Representative of Honduras> and Ignacio Roman Pacheco~ Representative of Nicaragua~ attended.

2 0 For the purpose of carrying out the provis~on of paragraph 4~0 of the Basis of Arrangement~ the Commission proceeded to the zone of Teotecac~nte~

where it remained November 17 and 18Q The Commission made an inspe~tion of the dividing line fixed in the minutes of the se'lTen-rn and eighth meetings and in the decision of the Chairman of the M~xed COrnmissionl' Ambassador Vl.cent-e Gavito~ S£nchez dated August 59 19619 and ascertained that the COmmlssicn of Engineers has carried out the following operationsg ag It has opened a path approximately 10 meters wide along the entire aforementioned dividing line~ in which it has placed the stakes and markers that establ~sh the said line on the ground; b o It has constructed a type 1 reference boundary marker in or der to fix the intersection of the center of the bed of the Limon River with the line that joins it to the Rincon de Murupuchi'; c. It has constructed an~ other boundary marker of the same type in the Rincon de Murupuchio northwest

vertex of the Sitio de Teotecacintej do It has9 furthermorel' ccnstructed four type 2 interlineal boundary markers between the boundary markers noted in let ters ba and c~

3. As soon as the COmmlssion of Eng~neers completes the work of plac~ ing boundary markers that it is now doing" the Mixed Commission will draw up another report in which it will specify the geographical coordlnates of each corner border marker as well as the directlons and distances between the con=

tiguous markers of this kind9 and any other detail that may contribute to de fining the boundary line with greater clarity and exactitude" 40 The Mixed Commission has also verified that the Nicaraguan allthori..-, ties who were in the Honduran territory comprised in the zone of Teotecacinte have been withdrawn"

Managua~ November 20.0 1961

Roberto Perdomo Paredes Roberto Eo Quiros Ignaci.c Roman Pachec: Representative of Honduras Representat~ve of Representative of Nicaragua the Chalrman

------PART I - 39- APPENDIX 14

DECISION OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HONDURAS-NICARAGUA MIXED COMMISSION

Pan American Union, August 5, 1961 PART I - 40- APPENDIX 14

The final paragraph of the Award of December 23, 1906, states the following: From this junction (of the Poteca and Guineo rivers) the line will follow the direction which corresponds to the demarcation of the Sitio de Teotecacinte in accordance with the demarcation made in 1720 to terminate at the Portillo de Teotecacinte in such manner that said Sitio remains Wholly within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua. The "demarcation made in 1720," cited above, is the Act which appears as Appendix XIV of the Reply of the Government of Honduras in the proceedings

in which the International Court of Justice r~ndered judgment on November 18,

1960 co

The Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission, with the advisory services of the Commission of Engineers, in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Basis of Arrangement, in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by paragraph 4 b. of the aforesaid Basis and based upon the map which the said Commission of Engineers has made of the Sitio de Teotecacinte (i.e. estate or land-grant of Teotecacinte) as well as on its own observations on the site, has interpreted the abovementioned Act and, by unanimous decision, has determined the eastern and northern boundaries of the Sitio. In this way, the Mixed Commis- sion has brought the demarcation of the dividing line to the point where the only section that remains to be determined is that from the northwestern corner of the Sitio de Teotecacinte to the Portillo (i.e. the pass or notch) of the same name. Appendix 1 to this Decision is a map of the Teotecacinte area, signed by Messrs. McIlwaine, Lanza, and Rugama, members of the Commission of Engi- neers. Appendix 2 is a diagram of the western portion of the aforementioned PART I APPENDIX 14 map, in which the letter A indicates the northwestern corner of the Sitio, the letter B corresponds to the Portillo, and C to Cruz sin Brazo. The Re- presentative of Honduras maintains that the section of the frontier that remains to be determined should consist of the two straight lines AC and CBo

The Representativ~ of Nicaragua proposes the straight line AB for this purposeo This constitutes the disagreement between the national representatives and, therefore, the subject of this Decision.

The International Court of Justice, at the end of its aforementioned judgment of November 18~ 1960, refers to the problem of the connection from the Sitio to the Portillo de Teotecacinte, as follows:

Nicaragua argues further that the delimitation in the opera tive clause leaves a gap of a few kilometres between the point of departure of the frontier line from the junction of the Poteca or Bodega with the Guineo or Namasli up to the Portillo de Teota cacinte, which was the point to which the Mixed Commission had brought the frontier line from its western boundary pointo An examination of the Award fails to reveal that there is in fact any gap with regard to the drawing of the frontier line between the junction of the Pot'eca or Bodega with the Guineo or Namas11 and the Portillo de Teotecacinte. Immediately thereafter, the judgment concludes in this way: In view of the clear directive in the operative clause ,and the explanations in support of-it in the Award, the Court does not consider that the Award is incapable of execution by reason of any omissions, contradictions or obscurities. For these reasons, THE COURT, by fourteen votes to one, finds that the Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 is valid and binding and that Nicaragua is under an obli gation to give effect to ito PART I cs 42 - APPENDIX 14

This constitutes the legal truth" It is necessary, therefore, to

consider that the operative clause of the Award, cited at the beginning of

this Decision, contains the elements necessary for drawing the frontier line

to connect the Sitio with the Portillo de Teotecacinte, or that these elements, together with others available to the Governments of Honduras and Ni-

caragua~ are sufficient for that purpose"

III

In order to justify his interpretation of the paragraph of the Award quoted above, the Representative of Honduras asserts, as his major argument, that the boundaries of the Sitio de Teotecacinte, established in the demar-

cation of 1720, are an international frontier in their entirety.

In support of this position, the said Representative cites the following clause from the Report of the Commission of Investigation~

Whereas, from the point at which the River Guineo commences to form part of the River Poteca, the frontier line that may be taken is that which corresponds to the demarcation of said site of Teotecacinte until it connects with the Portillo of the same name, but in such a manner that the afor~·mentioned site remains within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua; This text was incorporated intact into the Award as the second from the last Whereas. Without doubt it provides a better basis for the thesis of the Representative of Honduras than the corresponding paragraph of the opera- tiye clause of the A1,'lard c In effect p the expression ii"""the frontier line that may be taken is that which corresponds to the demarcation•• "11 is more logically interpreted to indicate that the boundaries of the Sitio, fixed in the demarcation, are an international frontier in their entirety than the ex~

pressior, I? 0 • c the b.ne will follow the direction which corresponds to the demarca:icn of the site of 'reotecacinte in a.ccordance with the demarca.tion. u. ,," PART I - 43 - .APPEND IX !.4

~ Nevertheless, if first the Commission of Investigation.l· and> la.ter the

King of Spain had intended that their reference to the demarcation of' 1720 was to be :interpreted to mean that the frontier between t.he t.wo caun"t.!'ies $ in the area which concerns us here, co:incided with the boundaries of the Sitio de Teo- tecacinte established in that demarcation, 'Would it not, have been log::"cal fo:.=' them to express that intention in their conclusions, refinir~g ~~d clari~ying the formula employed in the corresponding Whereas?

Far from doing this~ both the Commission of Investigation in the con~ clusions of its Report and the King of Spain in the opeloative ~1ause of the

Award - which is the one to which the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed ConmUs~ion has been giving effect - further departed from the meaning which the Representatl~e of Honduras gives to that formula when they chose the ambigu.ous E'xpre1:~;ion

It •••the line rill follow the direction which corresponds to the demarca:I.:.:lon of

the Sitio de Teotecacinte in accordance with the demarcation mad!?. < 0 ."

In addition, as the Representative of Nicaragua empha.sizes -" ~3 0 • 0 in the whereases which served as a basis for the recommendation of tne Conun:i.~H3ion of

Investigation for the operative clause~ the Honduran thesis is clearly destroyed, since they state that the boundaries of the site of Teotecacinte should not be followed in their entirety but only in that part which corTespondL~so as to connect with the Portillo of the same name" (po 10 of the Representative of

Nicaragua i s memorandum of July 29, 1961) 0

The paragraph of the Report of the Commission of Investigation in reference is as followsg PART I APPENDIX 14

Therefore~ the said site of Teotecacinte belonging to Nicaragua, as proved by the aforementioned document~ which has not been refuted, it is obvious that upon arriving at the juncture of the southern ex tremity of the aforementioned Guineo river,\) that is at its point of confluence with the Poteca,\) the frontier line should be taken in such a way that the said site of Teotecacinte remains wholly within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua~ for which effect the frontier line should follow that part of the line of demarcation of the site of Teoteca cinte which corresponds to it in order to arrive at the Portillo of the same name and in such a manner that the site demarcated remains in Nicaraguan territory.

As a corollary to his major argument,\) the Representative of Honduras maintains that the connection of the Sitio with the Portillo de Teotecacinte should be made by drawing the straight line Cruz sin Brazo-Portillo (CB in

Appendix 2) since the demarcation of 1720 terminated in Cruz sin Brazo.

In effect, after citing the pertinent part of the Act of the demarcation of 1720, the said Representative describes Cruz sin Brazo as the "place where the measurement of the said Sitio was terminated, this point being the southwestern extremity of its perimeter" (p. 4 of the Representative of Hon duras' memorandum of July 30,\) 1961). No objection can be made to the final clause of this sentenceo Cruz sin Brazo is the southwestern extremity or corner of the Sitio de Teotecacinte. It may also be accepted that Cruz sin Brazo is the place where the measurement

of the said Sitio terminateo 9 although it will be recalled that the person who made the demarcation~ Pedro Gutierrez de Osorio,\) after having fix.ed Cruz sin Brazo measured the northeast corner of the Sitioj/ called IiSaquinlL" However, the claim that the Sitio and the Portillo de Teotecacinte must be connected by

a straight line from Cruz sin Brazo~ rests entirely on the premise that the et~· tire boundary of the Sitio is an international boundary. PART I - 45 - APPENDIX 14

This conclusion is obviouso The Representative of Honduras expresses it as follows:

It is logical to think that the connection of the Sitio de Te~ tecacinte with the Portillo of the same name must start from the place where the demarcation terminatess the demarcation having al ready been converted by the Award into an international frontier (po 7 of the memorandum of July 30)~ Since the evidences examined so far are insufficient to justify acceptance of the fact that the demarcation of 1720 was converted, by the Award, into an international frontier, it would be unjust to attribute to the fact that the demarcation terminated in Cruz sin Brazo the effect which the Repre- sentative of Honduras attributes to ito

The following reasoning of the said Representative of Honduras is closely related to what we have just studied o To better understand it, it is preferable to refer to the map that appears as Appendix 1 to this Decisiono

The argument consists in maintaining that, in view of the fact that the point of departure of the section of the dividing line in question is the confluence of the Poteca and Guineo rivers and its end is the Portillo de Teo- tecacinte, "•• oit should be understood that the grant of the Sitio de Teoteca- cinte to Nicaragua constitutes a deviation from the frontier recommended by the Commission of Investigation as the clearest, most precise and most natural one between the two points indicated."

The argument continues in the following manner~ The arbiter had to make this deviation in observance of para graph 2 of Article II of the Gamez-Bonilla Treatyo This deviation notwithstanding, on reaching Cruz sin Brazo, after having followed the outline of the Sitio, it is observed that the connection of PART I - 46 - APPENDIX 14

this point with the Portillo de Teotecacinte follows the. direction which the arbiter sought in order to arrive at the Portillo de Teo tecacinte from the point of departure (p. S of the memorandum of July 30) •

The words tlmost natural~" with which the Representative of Honduras refers to what he calls "the frontier recorrunended by the Cormnission of Inves- tigation,tl are difficult to interpret since no section of either the straight line from the confluence of the Poteca and Guineo rivers to the Portillo, or that which would connect the southeastern corner of the Sitio with the Portillo~ constitutes a natural boundaryo

In any event, the aforesaid line between the southeast corner and the

Portillo does approximate the one from Cruz sin Brazo to the Portillo~ in that particular section, and thlS Tact carries considerable weight as a supplementary piece of evidence. In itself, or in relation to the arguments examined so far, it is insufficient to warrant acceptance of the interpretation of the operative clause of the Award under study in ~he sense that Cruz sin Brazo should be part of the international boundaryo

Furthermore~ the undersigned considers it valid to maintain~ as does the Representative of Honduras, that the Award had to make a deviation from the frontier in order to recognize Nicaragua's rights to the Sitio; but he makes it clear that, in his opinion~ what was abandoned by this deviation was not the straight line between the terminal point of the natural boundary and the rest of the demarcation~ but simply the rule of establishing natural boun~ daries to which the King of Spain had adhered up to that point o VI Finally, the Representative of Honduras claims that "by explicit actions Nicaragua has recognized that Cruz sin Brazo is a point in the international boundaryll since in lSSO "the Sitio de Teotecacinte was resurveyed and a PART I - 47 - APPENDIX 14 stone corner marker was erected at Cruz sin Brazo••• " (p. 11 of the memoran-

dum of July 30) 0 Later he adds that " ...in view of t.he action taken by the

Government of Nicaragua in making the resurvey and erecting ail international corner marker in the aforementioned place•••, a corner marker which has been in existence for more than 60 years, there is no basis for contending••• " that

Cruz sin Brazo, as Nicaragua insists, is located in Nicaraguan territory.

The Act of the resurvey rrade in lS80 appears as Appendix 20 of the

Rejoinder of the Government of Nicaragua in the proceedings in the Internatio~ al Court of Justice. Its perusal brings out the fact that the resurvey was made at the request of an individual~ the owner of a plot in the Sitio, who asserted that since this plot belonged to various individuals, "questions frequently arise among the co-owners."

The Government of Nicaragua, then, ordered the new survey of the Sitio in order to avoid controversies among individuals. Consequently, it is impos- sible to attribute to that survey the effects claimed by the Representative of Honduras. Furthermore, the Mixed Commission has had no knowledge of any act of the Nicaraguan Government, relative to the resurvey of lSSO or to any other measures or actions, which could be interpreted as a recognition, either explicit or implicit, of Cruz sin Brazo as a frontier point or "international corner marker. 11

VII On his part, the Representative of Nicaragua maintains that the straight line between Murupuxi and the Portillo (AB in Appendix 2) complies with the

Award and follows the southwesterly direction which the frontier follows in the sector in question. He then Rlleges the following~ PART I - 48- APPENDIX 14

The Mixed Boundary Commission of the Republics of Honduras and 26~ Nicaragua clearly stated in Act 0 No.. 4, signed in Danli. on June 1901, that since the time both Republics were colonial provinces of Spain, the ridge of the Dipilto mountain range had been considered as the common boundary between th~~~ for which reason it found a basis for definitely establishin.g as the boundary line between the two countries the divide along the crest of the aforementioned moun tain range. Only by preserving the line claimed by Nicaragua can the DIVIDE (between the watersheds) agreed upon by the Mixed Border Commission in 1901 be maintain.ed o

In keeping with the Award made by the King of Spain, that line is identified as a straight line from the Portillo de Teotecacinte to the Rinc6n de Murupuchi. By identifying the line in this manner Nicaragua's rights to the waters that flow toward the south of the Depilto mountain range are respected and the resolution of the Royal Award which orders that all of the Sitio is to remain within Nicara guan jurisdiction is fully complied with (p. 5 of the memorandum of July 29).

The Representative of Honduras, in turn, maintains that there is no basis for the claliu that the point of connection of the Sitio with the Por- tillo should be Murupuxi (p. 9 of the memorandum of July 30)0

VIII

The undersigned has reached the conclusion that both the line proposed by Nicaragua and the one Honduras wishes adopted are in agreement with the terms of the Award" In reality, both "follow the direction which corresponds to the demarcation of the Sitio de Teotecacinte in accordance with the demarcation made in 1720" and both terminate in the Portillo "in such a manner that the said Sitio remains wholly within the jurisdiction of Nicaragua,,"

The logical consequence of this conclusion is the necessity to supple- ment the operative clause of' the Award with additional points of evid.ence"

These are analyzed in the following chapters. PART I - 49 - APPENDIX 14

In the first place~ paragraph 6 of Article II of the Gamez-Bonilla

Treaty and, above all~ the manner in which the Arbiter applied the rule con-

tained therein~ seem to indicate the course to a just decision.

The aforesaid disposition is couched in these ter.ms~

Article II. The Mixed Commission~ composed of an equal number of members appointed by both parties~ shall meet at one of the bor der towns which offers the greater convenience for study~ and shall there begin its work~ adhering to the following rulesg

00 000000000000000000000000000000

60 The same Mixed Commission~ if it deems it appropriate, may grant compensations and even fix indemnities in order to establish~ possible~ insofar as a well-defined9 natural boundary lineo The Award complies so faithfully with this rule on the fixation of na-

tural boundaries that it established a natural frontier from the Atlantic 0- cean to the Sitio de Teotecacinteo In order to have an exact idea of what this

signifies in terms of proportions~ it is sufficient to recall that this section of the frontier measures approximately 500 kilometers in length and that the distance between the point where it terminates (southeast corner of the Sitio) and the point where the entire demarcation is to terminate (Portillo de Teote

cacinte), following the outline of the Sitio~ is only 25 or 30 kilometerso It was so difficult to obtain such a high proportion that the Arbiter considered

himself obligated to justify the e~~remes to which he had recourseo In effect, the next to the last Whereas of the Award states that if the

selection of the confluence of the Poteca with the Coco or Segovia "00 omight give rise 'to doubts and controversy under the supposition that Honduras would

be favored•••on the other hand g and as compensation for having taken the mouth PART I - 50- APPENDIX 14

of the Segovia•••the bay and town of Cape Gracias a Dios remain within the domain of Nicaragua, Which, according to facts beyond dispute and with a greater right, would correspond to Honduras ••••"

The course that this decision should take is made clearer when it is recalled that the Government of Honduras, when the controversy was defined in 1901, and later when the process was brought before the Arbiter, requested recognition of the fact that"o. ofrom the Portillo de Teotecacinte, terminal point of the third section of the frontier as already determined and the place where one of the headwaters of the Limon river rises, the frontier continues downstream in the bed of this river until it ,joins the Guineo river 0 " With respect to this matter, the national representatives have expressed some of their most penetrating arguments o The Representative of Nicaragua qualifies the claim of the Government of Honduras that the line connecting Murupuxi and the Portillo follow a course south of the Lim6n River, as would the line starting from Cruz sin Brazo, as "contrary to the very essence of the Award and to the judgment of the Inter- national Court of Justice••• " since it would make "the decision of King Alfonso XIII, as it pertains to the demarcation of the western region of the Sitio de

Teotecacinte, a judgment that is defective by reason of what is known in Law as ultra petita. inasmuch as it would appear to give Honduras more than it officially requested."

For his ~rt the Representative of Honduras considers that the foregoing contention "is entirely beyond the competence of the Mixed Commission~ ------~--

PART I - 51 - APPENDIX 14

whose function is to demarcate the frontier established by the Award of the King of Spain, in accordance with the demarcation made in 1720." The question of the competence of the Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commis- sion is a complicated one. It seems evident that when it acts, as in the present case, in observance of paragraph 4 b. of the Basis of Arrangement, it is a Commission of Demarcation and the mere perusal of the extensive observations

of Lapradelle (pp. 144-166, La Frontiere, Paris, 1928) on the legitimate sphere of action of such agencies is sufficient to make one aware of the difficulties of this subject.

In the case of a decision by the Chairman of the Commission the problem is even more delicate, since the Basis of Arrangement limits itself to stating that, in the event of disagreement between the national representatives, "the Chairman will make the fina.L decision." With the cooperation of both Representatives, the undersigned has at- tempted to make up for the obvious deficiency of such a meager disposition.

Thus~ he was able to establish a. procedure thanks to which each Representative

has requested, in writing, that this decision be made; the terms of disagreement have been defined; and the respective arguments have been presented. The

schematic nature of thi~ procedure. nevertheless, supports the position taken by the Representative of Honduras, substantial in itself, relative to incompe-

tence o Consequently, no attempt will be made to resolve any question of a technico-juridical nature. No pronouncement will be made on the Nicaraguan

thesis of ultrlL~etita. PART I - 52 - APPENDIX 14

The foregoing notwithstanding, the fact that the Government of Honduras requested the Arbiter to indicate the Limon River as the international boundary in the se'~tor of the Teotecacinte area in question, must be examined as one of the supplementary pieces of evidence, the value of which has been brought out by the declaration that the lines proposed by both national representatives conform to the terms of the pertinent paragraph of the Award o

The bases which can be deduced from the rule on natural boundaries, from the way in which the Arbiter respected this rule, and from the original petition of the Government of Honduras having been established, special force is acquired by the argument of the Representative of Nicaragua, summarized at the end of Chapter III above, that the frontier should not follow the limits of the Sitio de Teotecacint.e in their entirety but only in "that part which corresponds to it," just as the Connnission of Investigation recommended in the part of its Report quoted in the same chapter. Unfortunately, the expression contains no indication as to which portion of the line of demarcation of 1720 should correspond to the frontiero It is necessary, therefore, to look for the point at which it is justifiable to abandon the boundary of the Sitio de Teotecacinte so as to return to the tracing of a natural boundary and, thus, bring to an end that which the Representa~ tive of Honduras so opportunely terms a "deviation." The search commences in the Rinc6n de Murupuxf, since the frontier has been established up to this point by agreement between the national representa- tiveso PART I - 53 - APPENDIX 14

Some meters to the west of the corresponding corner marker is the stream called Arenal, whose bed is well defined at this point; however, approximately 400 meters downstream, where it is crossed by a trail, it widens and its borders lack those characteristics which facilitate the determination of the mid- dIe or center of the bed. During several months of the year it is dry.

A Border Commission, such as that established by the Governments of Hon- duras and Nicaragua in accordance with the Gamez-Bonilla Treaty, might perhaps have chosen this stream - in spite of its deficiencies for the purpose ~ so as to cease as rapidly as possible the tracing of artificial boundaries; but the undersigned would have no justification for following this course since by so doing he would be introducing a new element to solve the problem submitted to hi~ decision.

In effect, the rule stated in paragraph 6 of Article 11 of the Treaty is "to establish, insofar as possible, a well-defined natural boundary line."

If, because of the physical characteristics noted, it is debatable that the stream Arenal meets the requirements of a "well-defined" line, there is no doubt that its designation as an international boundary line is beyond the li- mited sphere of what is juridically "possible" for the undersigned ChairlA'an.

Consequently, the western boundary of the Sitio de Teotecacinte, which is, in the understanding of the undersigned, a straight line from the corner marker of Muruptua, south 8 degrees, 31 minutes, 30 seconds west, according co the triangulation of the Commis$ion of Engineers, should be followed. After approximately 600 meters, this boundary crosses the Lim6n River, one of whose headwaters rises in the Portillo de Teotecacinte.

Not only does the Lim6n River carry water all during the year~ but also,

as can be verified by referring to the map (Appendix 1), the Potecap designated

~--~-- PART I - 54 - APPENDIX 14

by the Arbiter as a boundary line from its confluence with the Coco, is the

same Limon River, its volume increased by the waters of the Guineo o

If the whole of the frontier traced by the Award were examined in the

light of the argumentation of the Representative of Honduras relative to the

deviation which this demarcation undergoes in the southeast corner of the Sitio

de Teotecacinte, the eastern and northern boundaries of the Sitio, together with

the 600 meters south from Murupuxi, would clearly appear as the only break in

continuity in a perfect natural boundaryo

By reason of the foregoing, the undersigned Chairman of the. Honduras-

Nicaragua Mixed Commission, with a basis in the power conferred upon him by pa~ ragraph 6 of the Basis of Arrangement, decides:

That from the corner marker of Murupuxi (A in Appendix 2) the boundary

line will be a straight line south 8 degrees, 31 minutes, 30 seconds west, to its intersection with the center of the bed of the Limon River and, from that point, will continue upstream along the center of the bed of the J..i.m6n Hiver and that one of its headwaters which rises in the Portillo de Teotecacinte (only one shown in Appendix 2) until it meets the terminal point of the third section of the boundary line, fixed by the Mixed Border Commission of Honduras and

Nicaragua in Act IV of its meeting on June 26, 1901.

Pan American Union, on the fifth day of the month of August in the year one thousand nine hll.l1dred and sixty-one o

Vicente S£nchez Gavito, Chairman Honduras-Nicaragua Mixed Commission

Modesto Lucero Secretary - 56 -

APPENDIX 2

I I I i • 0 . i ~ .. cK. • .. • WRUPUXI A CASERIO DEL BIJAO 00 CIFUENTES ~. ~ Cua't"r~:;;...... o- ...... HONDURAS ~ .. I

B \,, , .) ...-.--'

NICARAGUA

CRUZ SIN BRAZO c

.... ••<:1=''''-''.''',.,.,. ..