INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY V. ITALY) COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF ITALY 22 DECEMBER 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. GENERAL REMARKS ..................................................................................... 5 Section I. Introduction................................................................................................................. 5 Section II. The Agreement Between the Parties on the Jurisdiction of the Court................. 7 Section III. The Real Scope of the Dispute ................................................................................ 8 Section IV. The Position of the Federal Republic of Germany and its International Responsibility for the Crimes Committed by the Third Reich....................................... 9 Section V. The Time Element in the Present Case.................................................................. 10 CHAPTER II. THE FACTS..................................................................................................... 13 Section I. The Events of the Second World War Concerning the Parties ............................ 13 A. IMPRISONMENT AND FORCED LABOUR OF BOTH ITALIAN MILITARY PERSONNEL AND CIVILIANS.............................................................................................................. 14 B. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION................................................................. 15 Section II. The Exclusion of Italian Victims from Reparations on the Basis of a Mistaken Interpretation of the 1947 and 1961 Waiver Clauses.................................................... 16 Section III. The Mechanisms for Reparation Established by Germany and the Persistent Lack of Effective Reparation for a Very Large Number of Italian Victims ............... 19 A. THE FEDERAL COMPENSATION LAW OF 1953 ................................................................. 19 B. THE COMPENSATION LAW OF 2 AUGUST 2000................................................................ 21 Section IV. The Search for an Effective Remedy in the Light of a Denial of Justice: Access to Justice before Italian Courts and the Derogation from the Principle of Immunity ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Section V. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 29 CHAPTER III. JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 31 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 31 Section II. Identification of the Real Cause of the Dispute Submitted by Germany for the Purposes of the Court’s Jurisdiction............................................................................... 33 Section III. The Dispute on Immunity Brought by Germany and the Dispute on Reparation Brought by Italy Fall within the Scope Ratione Temporis of the 1957 European Convention....................................................................................................... 37 Section IV. Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 40 CHAPTER IV. IMMUNITY.................................................................................................... 42 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 42 Section II. The Principle of State Immunity from Jurisdiction and Its Limits.................... 43 A. IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY PRINCIPLE.............................................................................................................. 44 B. DEVELOPMENTS OF IMMUNITY LAW ............................................................................... 45 1. Evolution from Absolute to Relative Immunity ....................................................................................45 2. The Exceptions to State Immunity for Personal Injuries.......................................................................51 (a) Irrelevance of Imperii-Gestionis Distinction in Tort Litigation .....................................................51 (b) Applicability of the Torts Exception in Cases Concerning War Damage ......................................54 3. Inter-Temporal Application of the Rules of State Immunity.................................................................56 C. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 59 Section III. The Principles of State Immunity in the Context of Developments of International Law ............................................................................................................. 60 A. JUS COGENS..................................................................................................................... 60 B. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW .................................................................................... 70 C. ACCESS TO JUSTICE......................................................................................................... 73 D. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 80 Section IV. Immunity Cannot Mean Impunity ....................................................................... 80 Section V. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER V. REPARATION ................................................................................................ 87 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................... 87 Section II. The General Principle of Effective Reparation for Serious Violations of IHL.. 90 A. THE REPARATION RÉGIME FOR SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF IHL........................................ 90 B. THE NON-DEROGABLE CHARACTER OF THE OBLIGATION OF REPARATION IN WAR CRIMES CASES....................................................................................................... 94 C. THE NEED FOR ‘EFFECTIVE’ REPARATION AND THE WAYS IN WHICH STATES FULFIL THEIR REPARATION OBLIGATIONS ........................................................................ 98 Section III. Developments in International Criminal Law, Human Rights Law and Other Relevant Principles Concerning Reparation to Victims of International Crimes.... 100 Section IV. Germany’s Obligations of Reparation for Serious Violations of IHL Against Italian Victims................................................................................................................. 104 CHAPTER VI. BALANCING IMMUNITY AND THE OBLIGATION OF REPARATION .................................................................................................................... 114 Section I. The Position of the Italian Judges with Respect to the Conflict Between Immunity and Reparation ............................................................................................. 114 A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 114 B. NATIONAL JUDGES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ............................................................. 117 Section II. The Reasons Why, by Denying Immunity, Italy Did Not Commit an Internationally Wrongful Act........................................................................................ 122 CHAPTER VII. COUNTER-CLAIM ................................................................................... 128 Section I. Introduction............................................................................................................. 128 Section II. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Counter-Claim........................................ 129 Section III. Remedies Sought by Italy.................................................................................... 131 Section IV. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 133 SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................ 134 LIST OF ANNEXES................................................................................................................ 135 CHAPTER I GENERAL REMARKS Section I. Introduction 1.1 In this Counter-Memorial, presented within the deadline laid down by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the Court) by order of 29 April 2009, the Italian Republic (hereinafter Italy) intends, first, to set out the arguments that lead it to ask the Court to reject the request submitted on 23 December 2008 by the Federal Republic of Germany (hereinafter Germany), illustrated in its Memorial of 12 June 2009. Secondly, Italy intends to explain the reasons on which its own counter-claim, submitted in the same context, is based. 1.2 In its Memorial, Germany emphasizes that the strong links of friendship and cooperation between Italy and Germany are not being called in question in any way by the initiative of bringing before the Court a delicate controversy it seems impossible to resolve any