From the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Geneva, the Agent of the Venezuelan State in the case of the International Court of Justice between Venezuela and Guyana, Samuel Moncada, presented legal arguments to declare inadmissible the application of Guyana in relation to the commitment and the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899
Ambassador Samuel Moncada stressed that Venezuela for 182 years has fought against imperial aggression and the integrity of the Guayana Esequiba territory.
In this sense, he expressed that “Venezuela cannot accept that in the name of its decolonization, Guyana repeats the crime committed by the colonizing power and for this reason, before the international court of justice, it extends a friendly hand to Guyana, maintaining a fraternal relationship of friendship and cooperation, in not allowing the consequences of illicit conduct by the United Kingdom to continue affecting the future of our nations”, assured Professor Samuel Moncada.
He also highlights that Venezuela has always followed a policy based on peace, honor and respect for international law, without claiming something that does not belong to us.
Lastly, he mentioned Venezuela’s final application, which asks the court to judge and declare that Guyana’s claims are inadmissible.
Presentation of sustainable arguments to evidence the claim of Guyana
The lawyer and specialist Pablo Paquetti, offered in the International Criminal Court in Geneva, the sustainable arguments to prove the demand of Guyana.
During the intervention, Paquetti highlighted two fundamental aspects: the silence that Guyana maintains regarding the possible responsibility of the United Kingdom, in terms of its fraudulent conduct and, on the other hand, the argument according to which the United Kingdom would not be an indispensable party, having consented to the exercise of its jurisdiction by the court.
Paquetti stated that in the arguments heard last Friday, Guyana insisted on the argument regarding the United Kingdom’s lack of interest in the disputed territory.
Likewise, he mentioned that Guyana began its defense timidly, alleging its surprise at the presentation of this argument raised for the first time, such as the fraudulent conduct of the United Kingdom before the seizure of the territory of Guayana Esequiba.
He also stressed that if it is established that the United Kingdom maintained fraudulent behavior, it must assume its international responsibility and would be obliged to grant adequate compensation, such as that of the abusive exploitation of the territory of Guayana Esequiba.
In this sense, he assured that only the intervention of a third State, which is incorporated into the procedure, can alleviate the defects of the dismissed claims, in accordance with the principle of coined gold.
In addition to this, he mentioned that if the court agrees to declare Guyana’s claim inadmissible, there will be no return to the colonial past, the only consequence will be a return to the spirit that animated the parties in 1966, when the Geneva agreement was signed to find a acceptable solution to the dispute over territorial delimitation.
Finally, Andreas Zimmermann, concluded that it is necessary to determine the meaning of the operative clause, referring to the reasoning set forth in the sentence in question.