8 of 8 DOCUMENTS

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CASE CONCERNING THE LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER DISPUTE

(EL SALVADOR/HONDURAS: NICARAGUA intervening)

General List No. 75

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1992 ICJ LEXIS 4

11 September 1992

TYPE: [*1] Judgment

JUDGES: Present: Judge SETTE-CAMARA, President of the Chamber; President; Sir Robert JENNINGS; Vice-President ODA; Judges ad hoc VALTICOS, TORRES BERNARDEZ; Registrar VALENCIA-OSPINA.

TEXT: Case brought by Special Agreement -- Dispute involving six sectors of international land frontier, legal situation of islands and of maritime spaces inside and outside the Gulf of Fonseca.

Land boundaries -- Applicability and meaning of principle of uti possidetis juris -- Relevance of certain "titles" -- Link between disputed sectors and adjoining agreed sectors of boundary -- Use of topographical features in boundary-making -- Special Agreement and 1980 General Treaty of Peace between the Parties -- Provision in Treaty for account to be taken by Chamber of "evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind, brought before it by the Parties and admitted under international law" -- Significance to be attributed to Spanish colonial titulos ejidales -- Relevance of post-independence land titles -- Role of effectivites -- Demographic considerations and inequalities of natural resources -- Considerations of "effective control" of territory -- Relationship [*2] between titles and effectivites -- Critical date.

First sector of land boundary -- Interpretation of Spanish colonial land titles -- Effect of grant by Spanish colonial authorities to community in one province of rights over land situate in another -- Whether account may be taken of proposals or concessions made in negotiations -- Whether acquiescence capable of modifying uti possidetis juris situation -- Interpretation of colonial documents -- Claims based solely on effectivites -- Relevance of post-independence land titles -- Significance of topographically suitable boundary line agreed ad referendum.

Second sector of land boundary -- Interpretation of Spanish colonial land titles -- Circumstances justifying reliance on post-independence land titles -- Interpretation of title -- Claims to particular area based on effectivites.

Third sector of land boundary -- Interpretation of Spanish colonial land titles -- Interpretation of interlocking titles -- Impossibility of reconciling all recorded references to landmarks, distances and directions -- Line which harmonizes identifiable features and corresponds to recorded distances -- Relevance of post-independence land titles [*3] -- Claims based solely on effectivites.

Fourth sector of land boundary -- Interpretation of Spanish colonial land titles and related judicial decision -- Reference to negotiations between the Parties -- Statement by Party of its view on a question of fact -- Significance of recognition by Party that certain communal lands straddled international frontier -- Claim to area which was crown lands (tierras realengas) in colonial times -- Absence of agreement between Parties as to location of endpoint of agreed sector of boundary -- Limits of jurisdiction of the Chamber -- Absence of evidence for determining uti possidetis juris on part of line -- Application of equity infra legem -- Claims based on effectivites.

Fifth disputed sector of the land boundary -- Interpretation of Spanish colonial land titles -- Claims based on effectivites.

Sixth disputed sector of the land boundary -- Colonial boundary formed by river -- Change of river's course -- New argument not consistent with previous history of dispute -- Significance of 18th century map and survey -- Relevance of past negotiations -- Boundary line in river with several mouths.

Legal situation of islands of the Gulf of [*4] Fonseca -- Jurisdiction of the Chamber -- Question which islands were in dispute at date of Special Agreement -- Law applicable to island dispute -- Uti possidetis juris of 1821 -- Colonial effectivites and the islands -- Evidence for application of uti possidetis juris fragmentary and ambiguous -- Recourse to other evidence and arguments contemplated by Special Agreement -- Relevance of conduct of newly-independent States as a guide to uti possidetis juris boundary -- Acquiescence and lack of protest.

El Tigre island -- Presence of Honduras in the island and administration by it -- Attitude of El Salvador.

Meanguera and Meanguerita islands -- History of dispute -- Administration of Meanguera by El Salvador -- Conduct revealing acquiescence.

Legal situation of maritime spaces -- Whether jurisdiction of Chamber includes delimitation of maritime spaces -- Interpretation of Special Agreement -- Ordinary meaning of text in its context -- Ascertainment of common intention expressed in Special Agreement -- Jurisdiction and principle of consent.

Gulf of Fonseca as an historic bay with three coastal States -- Particular historical regime established by practice -- 1917 Judgement [*5] of Central American Court of Justice -- Exclusive littoral maritime belt of 1 marine league, further belt for rights of maritime inspection, 1900 maritime delimitation between Honduras and Nicaragua -- Uso inocente of waters of Gulf -- Sovereignty of three States in historic waters -- Finding in 1917 Judgement that waters of the Gulf are subject to a condominio (co-ownership) -- Legal status of 1917 Judgement -- Judgement as a relevant precedent decision of a competent court and subsidiary means for determination of rules of law (Statute, Art. 38) -- Conclusion of Chamber that Gulf waters, other than 3-mile maritime belts, and waters delimited in 1900, are historic waters and subject to a joint sovereignty of the three coastal States -- Honduran contention of community of interests -- Possibility or necessity of delimitation of waters.

Closing line of Gulf -- Whether or not also a baseline -- Gulf waters are internal waters subject to a special and particular regime -- Joint sovereignty and rights of passage -- 1900 delimitation between Honduras and Nicaragua accepted by El Salvador -- Significance of condominio (co-ownership) for delimitation -- Existence of legal rights of Honduras [*6] in waters at the closing line.

Waters outside the Gulf -- Application of modern concepts of the law of the sea -- Territorial sea -- Closing line of historic bay constitutes baseline of territorial sea -- Entitlement of Honduras in respect of ocean waters outside the Gulf -- All three joint sovereigns of waters inside closing line of Gulf have entitlement outside that line to territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone -- Choice between continuation of situation and delimitation for the three States concerned.

Intervention under Article 62 of the Statute of the Court -- Effect of Judgment on State permitted to intervene as non-party -- Possible effect of unilateral statement of intention to be bound.

Invitation to Chamber under Rules of Court, Articles 66 and 67, to obtain evidence in situ -- Request for admission of documents after close of oral proceedings.

JUDGMENT

In the case concerning the land, island and maritime frontier dispute,

between

the Republic of El Salvador,

represented by

Mr. Alfredo Martinez Moreno,

as Agent and Counsel,

H.E. Mr. Roberto Arturo Castrillo, Ambassador,

as Co-Agent,

and

H.E. Mr. Jose Manuel Pacas Castro, Minister [*7] for Foreign Relations,

as Counsel and Advocate,

Lic. Berta Celina Quinteros, Director General of the Boundaries Office,

as Counsel,

assisted by

Mr. Eduardo Jimenez de Arechaga, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Uruguay, former Judge and President of the International Court of Justice; former President and Member of the International Law Commission,

Mr. Keith Highet, Adjunct Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and Member of the Bars of New York and the District of Columbia,

Mr. Elihn Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C., Director of the Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,

Mr. Prosper Weil, Professor Emeritus at the Universite de droit, d'economie et de sciences sociales de Paris,

Mr. Francisco Roberto Lima, Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law; former Vice-President of the Republic and former Ambassador to the United States of America,

Mr. David Escobar Galindo, Professor of Law, Vice-Rector of the University "Dr. Jose Matias Delgado" (El Salvador),

as Counsel and Advocates,

and

Mr. Francisco Jose Chavarria,

Mr. Santiago Elias Castro,

Ms Solange Langer, [*8]

Ms Ana Maria de Martinez,

Mr. Anthony J. Oakley,

Ms Ana Elizabeth Villalta,

as Counsellors,

and

the Republic of Honduras,

represented by

H.E. Dr. Ramon Valladares Soto, Ambassador of Honduras to the Netherlands,

as Agent,

H.E. Mr. Pedro Pineda Madrid, Chairman of the Sovereignty and Frontier Commission,

as Co-Agent,

Mr. Daniel Bardonnet, Professor at the Universite de droit, d'economie et de sciences sociales de Paris,

Mr. Derek W. Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C., Ll.D., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge,

Mr. Rene-Jean Dupuy, Professor at the College de France,

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor at the Universite de droit, d'economie et de sciences sociales de Paris,

Mr. Julio Gonzalez Campos, Professor of International Law, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid,

Mr. Luis Ignacio Sanchez Rodriguez, Professor of International Law, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,

Mr. Alejandro Nieto, Professor of Public Law, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,

Mr. Paul De Visscher, Professor Emeritus at the Universite de Louvain,

as Advocates and Counsel,

H.E. Mr. Max Velasquez, Ambassador of Honduras to the United Kingdom,

Mr. Arnulfo Pineda Lopez, Secretary-General of [*9] the Sovereignty and Frontier Commission,

Mr. Arias de Saavedra y Muguelar, Minister, Embassy of Honduras to the Netherlands,

Mr. Gerardo Martinez Blanco, Director of Documentation, Sovereignty and Frontier Commission,

Mrs. Salome Castellanos, Minister Counsellor, Embassy of Honduras to the Netherlands,

Mr. Richard Meese, Legal Advisor, Partner in Frere Cholmeley, Paris,

as Counsel,

Mr. Guillermo Bustillo Lacayo,

Mrs. Olmeda Rivera,

Mr. Jose Antonio Gutierrez Navas,

Mr. Raul Andino,

Mr. Miguel Tosta Appel,

Mr. Mario Felipe Martinez,

Mrs. Lourdes Corrales,

as Members of the Sovereignty and Frontier Commission,

the Republic of Nicaragua having been permitted to intervene in the case,

represented by

H.E. Mr. Carlos Arguello Gomez,

as Agent and Counsel,

H.E. Mr. Enrique Dreyfus Morales, Minister for Foreign Affairs,

assisted by

Mr. Ian Brownlie, Q.C., F.B.A., Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford; Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford,

as Counsel and Advocate,

and

Mr. Alejandro Montiel Arguello, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs,

as Counsel,

The CHAMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE formed to deal with the above-mentioned case,

composed as [*10] above,

after deliberation,

delivers the following Judgment:

1. By a joint notification dated 11 December 1986, filed in the Registry of the Court the same day, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras and the Republic of El Salvador transmitted to the Registrar a certified copy of a Special Agreement in the Spanish language entitled "COMPROMISO ENTRE HONDURAS Y EL SALVADOR PARA SOMETER A LA DECISION DE LA CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA LA CONTROVERSIA FRONTERIZA TERRESTRE, INSULAR Y MARITIMA EXISTENTE ENTRE LOS DOS ESTADOS, SUSCRITO EN LA CIUDAD DE ESQUIPULAS, REPUBLICA DE GUATEMALA, EL DIA 24 DE MAYO DE 1986", and entering into force on 1 October 1986.

2. The Parties provided the Chamber with a joint translation into English of this Special Agreement under cover of a letter dated 2 May 1991, received in the Registry on 8 May 1991. A French translation of the agreed English translation of the Special Agreement was prepared by the Registry.

3. The Spanish text of the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986 was set out in the Judgment of the Chamber dated 13 September 1990 on the application of Nicaragua to intervene in the case (see paragraph 12 below). The agreed [*11] English translation of the Special Agreement is as follows:

"SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN EL SALVADOR AND HONDURAS TO SUBMIT TO THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE THE LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY DISPUTE EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO STATES, SIGNED IN THE CITY OF ESQUIPULAS, REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA, ON 24 MAY 1986.

The Government of the Republic of El Salvador and the Government of the Republic of Honduras,

Considering that on 30 October 1980, in the City of Lima, Peru, they signed the General Treaty of Peace, by means of which, inter alia, they delimited the land boundary of both Republics in those sectors where there did not exist any dispute;

Considering that within the period of time envisaged by Articles 19 and 31 of the General Treaty of Peace, of 30 October 1980, no direct agreement was reached regarding the differences relating to the existing boundaries in respect of the remaining land areas in dispute and relating to the juridical status of the islands and of the maritime spaces;

Have designated as their respective Plenipotentiaries, El Salvador its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Licenciado Rodolfo Antonio Castillo Claramount, and Honduras [*12] its Minister of Foreign Affairs, the lawyer Carlos Lopez Contreras, who having found their Full Powers to be in good and appropriate form:

AGREE THE FOLLOWING:

Article 1

Constitution of a Chamber

1. In application of Article 34 of the General Treaty of Peace, signed on 30 October 1980, the Parties submit the issues mentioned in Article 2 of the present Special Agreement to a chamber of the International Court of Justice, composed of three members, with the consent of the Parties, who will express this in a joint form to the President of the Court, this agreement being essential for the formation of the chamber, which will be constituted in accordance with the procedures established in the Statute of the Court and in the present Special Agreement.

2. In addition the chamber will include two Judges ad hoc specially nominated one by El Salvador and the other by Honduras, who may have the nationality of the Parties.

Article 2

Subject of the Litigation

The Parties request the Chamber:

1. To delimit the boundary line in the zones or sections not described in Article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace of 30 October 1980.

2. To determine the legal situation of the islands and [*13] maritime spaces.

Article 3

Procedure

1. The Parties request the Chamber to authorize that the written proceedings shall consist of:

(a) a Memorial presented by each of the Parties not later than ten months after the notification of this Special Agreement to the Registry of the International Court of Justice;

(b) a Counter-Memorial presented by each of the Parties not later than ten months after the date on which each has received the certified copy of the Memorial of the other Party;

(c) a Reply presented by each of the Parties not later than ten months after the date on which each has received the certified copy of the Counter-Memorial of the other Party;

(d) the Court will be able to authorize or to prescribe the presentation of a Rejoinder, if the Parties so agree or if the Court decides ex officio or at the request of one of the parties that this part of the proceedings is necessary.

2. The above-mentioned parts of the written proceedings and their annexes presented to the Registrar will not be transmitted to the other Party until the Registrar has received the part of the proceedings corresponding to the said Party.

3. The oral procedure, the notification [*14] of the appointment of the respective Agents of the Parties, and any other procedural questions will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and the Rules of the Court.

Article 4

Languages

The case will be heard in the English and French languages without distinction.

Article 5

Applicable Law

In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Chamber, when delivering its Judgment, will take into account the rules of international law applicable between the Parties, including, where pertinent, the provisions of the General Treaty of Peace.

Article 6

Execution of the Judgment

1. The Parties will execute the Judgment of the Chamber in its entirety and in complete good faith. To this end, the Special Demarcation Commission established by the Agreement of 11 February 1986 will begin the demarcation of the frontier line fixed by the Judgment not later than three months after the date of the said Judgment and will diligently continue its work until the demarcation is completed.

2. For this purpose, the procedures established in respect of this matter in the above-mentioned [*15] Agreement concerning the establishment of the Special Demarcation Commission will be applied.

Article 7

Entry into Force and Registration

1. This present Special Agreement will enter into force on 1 October 1986, once the constitutional requirements of each Party have been met.

2. It will be registered with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, jointly or by either of the Parties. At the same time it will be brought to the attention of the Organization of American States.

Article 8

Notification

1. In application of Article 40 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, this present Special Agreement will be notified to the Registrar of the same by a Joint Note of the Parties. This notification will be made before 31 December 1986.

2. If this notification is not made in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the present Special Agreement may be notified to the Registrar of the Court by either of the Parties within the period one month following the date established in the preceding paragraph.

In witness thereof, the undersigned sign the present Special Agreement in two copies in the City [*16] of Esquipulas, Republic of Guatemala, on the twenty-fourth day of May one thousand nine hundred and eighty-six."

4. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the joint notification and Special Agreement were transmitted by the Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Members of the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court. On 30 July 1991, the Registrar also transmitted copies, through the same channel, of the English translation approved by the Parties and of the French translation, prepared by the Registry.

5. The Parties, when duly consulted on 17 February 1987, pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, as to the composition of the chamber of the Court, confirmed what was said in the Special Agreement, that as regards the number of judges to constitute such chamber, they agreed, pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute, that that number be fixed at three judges with the addition of two judges ad hoc chosen by the Parties pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute.

6. In March 1987 the Court [*17] was notified of the choice by El Salvador of Mr. Nicolas Valticos to sit as judge ad hoc in the chamber; in April 1987, the Court was notified of the choice by Honduras of Mr. Michel Virally to sit as judge ad hoc in the chamber.

7. By an Order of 8 May 1987 the Court decided to accede to the request of the Parties to form a special chamber to deal with the case, and declared that at an election held on 4 May 1987 Judges Oda, Sette-Camara and Sir Robert Jennings had been elected to form, with the judges ad hoc referred to above, a chamber to deal with the case, and declared further such a chamber to have been duly constituted, with the following composition: Judges Oda, Sette-Camara and Sir Robert Jennings and Judges ad hoc Valticos and Virally. On 29 May 1987 the Chamber elected Judge Sette-Camara as its President, pursuant to Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.

8. Judge ad hoc Virally died on 27 January 1989, and by a letter dated 8 February 1989 the Agent of Honduras informed the Court that his Government had chosen Mr. Santiago Torres Bernardez to sit as judge ad hoc in his place. By an Order dated 13 December 1989 the Court declared the composition [*18] of the Chamber formed to deal with the case to be as follows: Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber; Judges Oda and Sir Robert Jennings; Judges ad hoc Valticos and Torres Bernardez.

9. By an Order dated 27 May 1987, the Court, taking into account Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement, fixed the time-limit for Memorials, and by an Order dated 29 May 1987 the Chamber authorized the filing of Counter-Memorials and Replies pursuant to Article 92, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, and fixed time-limits therefor.

10. The Memorials were duly filed within the time-limit of 1 June 1988 fixed therefor. The time-limits for the remaining pleadings were, at the request of the Parties, extended by Orders made by the President of the Chamber on 12 January 1989 and 13 December 1989. The Counter-Memorials and the Replies were duly filed within the extended time-limits thus fixed, namely 10 February 1989 and 12 January 1990 respectively.

11. Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, requests by the Governments of Nicaragua and Colombia for the pleadings and annexed documents to be made available to them were granted, for Nicaragua on 15 June 1988, and for Colombia [*19] on 27 January 1989, and in each case after the views of the Parties had been ascertained.

12. On 17 November 1989 the Republic of Nicaragua filed in the Registry of the Court an Application for permission to intervene in the case, which Application was stated to be made by virtue of Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 62 of the Statute of the Court. In that Application, the Government of Nicaragua contended that its request for permission to intervene, "not only because it is an incidental proceeding but also for . . . reasons of elemental equity (that of consent and that of the equality of States)", was "a matter exclusively within the procedural mandate of the full Court".

13. By an Order dated 28 February 1990, the Court, after considering the written observations of the Parties on the question thus raised, whether the Application for permission to intervene was to be decided upon by the full Court or by the Chamber, and the observations of Nicaragua in response to those observations found that it was for the Chamber formed to deal with the present case to decide whether the Application by Nicaragua for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute should be granted. [*20]

14. Pursuant to Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the two Parties on 5 March 1990 submitted written observations on the Application for permission to intervene filed by Nicaragua on 17 November 1989; since in the observations of El Salvador objection was made to the Application for permission to intervene, public sittings were held, pursuant to Article 84, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, in order to hear the State seeking to intervene and the Parties, on 5, 6, 7 and 8 June 1990.

15. By a Judgment delivered on 13 September 1990 the Chamber found that Nicaragua had shown that it had an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by part of the Judgment of the Chamber on the merits in the present case, namely its decision on the legal regime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca, but not by its decision on other issues in dispute, and decided that Nicaragua was permitted to intervene in the case, but not as a party, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute, to the extent, in the manner and for the purposes therein indicated, but not further or otherwise.

16. Since the Application for permission to intervene submitted by Nicaragua had to that extent been granted by [*21] the Chamber, in accordance with Article 85 of the Rules of Court, that State submitted a written statement and the Parties filed written observations thereon. The written statement of Nicaragua and the written observations of the Parties thereon were filed within the time-limits fixed by the President of the Chamber.

17. The President of the Chamber fixed 15 April 1991 as the time-limit for the opening of the oral proceedings in the case. Following consultations with the representatives of the Parties on 21 February 1991, it was decided that the Parties would present their arguments successively on each of the following aspects of the dispute: (a) the whole of the general question; (b) each of the six sectors of the land frontier; (c) the islands and maritime spaces. Following a meeting held, after the opening of the oral proceedings, between the President of the Chamber and the Agents of the Parties and of the intervening State, it was agreed that, after the Parties had presented their arguments on the legal regime of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca, Nicaragua would address this question and could, after the Parties had presented their views on the whole [*22] of the maritime aspects of the dispute, make a final statement on the legal regime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca.

18. In the course of 50 public sittings, held from 15 April to 14 June 1991,the Chamber was addressed by the following representatives of the Parties and Nicaragua:

For the Republic of Honduras:

H.E. Mr. Ramon Valladares Soto,

Mr. Paul De Visscher,

Mr. Alejandro Nieto,

Mr. Daniel Bardonnet,

Mr. Luis Ignacio Sanchez Rodriguez,

Mr. Julio Gonzalez Campos,

Mr. Rene-Jean Dupuy,

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,

Mr. Derek Bowett, Q.C.

For the Republic of El Salvador:

H.E. Mr. Jose Manuel Pacas Castro,

H.E. Mr. Alfredo Martinez Moreno,

Mr. Prosper Weil,

Mr. Eduardo Jimenez de Arechaga,

Mr. Anthony J. Oakley,

Mr. Francisco Roberto Lima,

Mr. Keith Highet,

Mr. Elihu Lauterpacht, Q.C.

For the Republic of Nicaragua:

H.E. Mr. Carlos Arguello Gomez,

Mr. Ian Brownlie, Q.C.,

H.E. Mr. Enrique Dreyfus Morales.

19. In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed would be made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings.

20. On 12 April 1991 the Republic of El Salvador [*23] indicated, in accordance with Article 57 of the Rules of Court, that it intended to call Mr. Heriberto Aviles Dominguez, of Salvadorian nationality, as a witness and provided particulars identifying him. Additional information concerning Mr. Aviles Dominguez was communicated subsequently by El Salvador, at the request of the Agent of Honduras. At a public sitting held on 29 May 1991 Mr. Aviles Dominguez gave evidence, in Spanish, and in accordance with Article 39, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 70, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, El Salvador made the necessary arrangements for the statement of its witness to be interpreted. The examination-in-chief of the Salvadorian witness was conducted by Mr. Higher and the cross-examination by Mr. Sanchez Rodriguez.

21. In the course of the oral proceedings, a number of new documents were submitted by each of the Parties in accordance with Article 56, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court. Prior to the close of the oral proceedings El Salvador announced its intention of submitting to the Chamber certain additional documents which had been referred to, but not included, in a dossier of documents concerning the island dispute (referred [*24] to as the "Meanguera dossier") submitted by El Salvador during the oral proceedings. These additional documents were transmitted to the Chamber under cover of a letter from the Agent of El Salvador dated 5 September 1991. The President of the Chamber, while noting that the submission of further documents to the Court after the closure of the written proceedings was not a normal part of the procedure, took the view that it was appropriate to apply to them, by extension and mutatis mutandis, the provision of Article 56 of the Rules. A set of copies of the documents was therefore transmitted to Honduras, which objected to the admission of the additional documents submitted by El Salvador. After examining the question the Chamber decided not to authorize the submission of those documents and informed the Parties of its decision to that effect.

22. At the hearings of 27 May 1991 and 14 June 1991, El Salvador requested that the Chamber consider exercising its functions pursuant to Article 66 of the Rules of Court with regard to the obtaining of evidence in situ in the disputed areas of the land frontier, and indicated also that El Salvador would welcome any order by the Chamber [*25] pursuant to Article 67 of the Rules, arranging for an enquiry or an expert opinion on these matters. At the closure of the oral proceedings, the President of the Chamber stated that the Chamber considered that it was not yet in a position to reach a decision on whether it would be appropriate in the case to exercise its powers under Articles 66 and 67 of the Rules of Court, and would announce its decision in due course. After deliberation, the Chamber decided that it did not consider it necessary to exercise its functions with regard to the obtaining of evidence, as contemplated by Article 66 of the Rules of Court, in the disputed areas of the land frontier, as suggested by El Salvador, nor did it consider it necessary to exercise its powers to arrange for an enquiry or expert opinion in the case.

23. In the course of the written proceedings the following submissions were presented by the Parties:

On behalf of the Republic of El Salvador,

in the Memorial:

"I. Delimitation of the Land Frontier

The Government of El Salvador requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice to delimit the land frontier in the disputed areas between El Salvador and Honduras on the basis [*26] of:

1. The rights resulting from the titles to commons owned in favour of El Salvador and the effective sovereignty that El Salvador has exercised and exercises in those disputed areas in accordance with the evidence which has been submitted in the annexes of the present Memorial. The precise delimitation of the areas which, in accordance with the above are subject to its sovereignty are set out as follows:"

In the Memorial, here follow references to the specific paragraphs of the Memorial setting out the argument of El Salvador on each of the six sectors of the land boundary. The Memorial also contains a "Conclusion" specifying the detailed course of the line, the terms of which were repeated in the Annexes to the final submissions of El Salvador at the close of the oral proceedings (see below).

"2. The addition to the areas thus attributed to El Salvador of those areas of Crown Lands (tierras realengas) lying between the Common Lands of El Salvador and Honduras respectively that are properly attributed to El Salvador after a comparison of the grants of Common Lands made by the Spanish Crown and authorities in favour of the Provinces of San Salvador and of Comayagua and Tegucigalpa, [*27] Honduras.

II. The Juridical Position of the Islands

The Government of El Salvador requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice: To determine, on the basis of long-established possession and/or of the titles granted by the Spanish Crown, that El Salvador has and had sovereignty over all the islands in the Gulf of Fonseca, with the exception of the Island of Zacate Grande which can be considered as forming part of the coast of Honduras.

III. The Juridical Position of the Maritime Spaces

The Government of El Salvador requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice to determine the juridical position of the maritime spaces as follows:

A. Within the Gulf of Fonseca

The juridical position of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca corresponds to the juridical position established by the Judgement of the Central American Court of Justice rendered 9 March 1917, as accepted and applied thereafter.

B. Outside of the Gulf of Fonseca

As regards the juridical position beyond the closing line of the Gulf of Fonseca, the Government of El Salvador is unaware of the precise nature and extent of the claim, if any, of the Government of Honduras and must, [*28] therefore reserve its position. However El Salvador maintains that in principle, as Honduras has no coast on the Pacific Ocean, it has no rights in that ocean other than those possessed therein by any other non-littoral State."

in the Counter-Memorial:

1. Delimitation of the Land Frontier

2. In addition to the arguments set out in the Memorial of El Salvador, the Government of El Salvador has proven:

(i) that the land boundaries defined by the Formal Title-Deeds to the Commons of the indigenous communities (which include the Royal Landholdings within the same jurisdictions) presented by El Salvador are absolutely identical with the international frontiers of the territory of each State;

(ii) that El Salvador has completely established in its Memorial and in this Counter-Memorial that the Formal Title-Deeds to Commons which support the claims of [*29] El Salvador were executed by the Spanish Crown in accordance with all the necessary judicial procedures and requirements and, consequently, these Formal Title-Deeds to Commons form the fundamental basis of the uti possidetis juris in that they indicate jurisdictional boundaries, that is to say the boundaries of territories and settlements;

(iii) that Honduras has presented Title-Deeds to private proprietary interests which in no case either permitted the exercise of administrative control or implied the exercise of acts of sovereignty;

(iv) that the majority of the Title-Deeds presented by Honduras relate to lands which are situated either outside the disputed sectors or in sectors which have already been delimited by the General Peace Treaty of 1980.

II. The Juridical Status of the Islands

3. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial in view of the fact that in Chapters V and VI of this Counter-Memorial it has rebutted the arguments contained in the Memorial of Honduras.

4. In addition to the arguments set out in the Memorial of El Salvador, the Government of El Salvador has proven:

(i) [*30] that in 1804 none of the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca was assigned to the Bishopric of Comayagua and that, even when the 'Alcaldia Mayor' of Tegucigalpa was incorporated to the intendency and Government of Comayagua subsequently to 1821, neither this 'Alcaldia' nor the Bishopric of Comayagua ever exercised either civil or ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca during the colonial period and thus it was the colonial Province of San Salvador, through San Miguel, that exercised both civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca;

(ii) that the colonial Province of Honduras, when it was constituted, did not have any coast on the Pacific Ocean;

(iii) that the Reales Cedulas(Royal Decrees) of 1563 and 1564 left the Gulf of Fonseca within the jurisdiction of the Captain-General of Guatemala and, more specifically, in the jurisdiction of San Miguel in the colonial Province of San Salvador;

(iv) that when the Spanish Crown established jurisdiction over islands, it did so by means of a Real Cedula (as in the case of islands of Guanajas on the Atlantic coast of Honduras) and no such Real Cedula was ever executed in favour [*31] of Honduras in respect of the Islands of the Gulf of Fonseca.

III. The Juridical Status of the Maritime Spaces

5. The Government of El Salvador petitions the Chamber of the International Court of Justice that it determine the juridical status of the maritime spaces in the following manner:

(i) that, in view of the Principles of the Law of the Sea, it apply within the Gulf of Fonseca the juridical status established by the decision of the Central American Court of Justice handed down on 9 March 1917;

(ii) that, in accordance with the Special Agreement between El Salvador and Honduras, it decide that it has no jurisdiction to delimit the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca;

(iii) that it decline to delimit the maritime spaces outside the Gulf of Fonseca in the Pacific Ocean beyond the closing line of the Gulf on the grounds that its jurisdiction is limited to determining the juridical status of these maritime spaces;

(iv) that it determine that the rights and the jurisdiction over the waters and maritime spaces (including the natural resources therein) of the Pacific Ocean beyond the closing line of the Gulf of Fonseca are exerciseable exclusively by El Salvador and Nicaragua on the [*32] grounds that such rights arise from the relevant coasts which these two States have on the Pacific Ocean";

in the Reply:

"I. Delimitation of the Land Frontier

1. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial that the Chamber delimit the land frontier between El Salvador and Honduras in the disputed sectors in accordance with the line indicated in the submissions contained in the Memorial. This petition was ratified in the Counter-Memorial of El Salvador, which rebutted the arguments contained in the Memorial of Honduras, and is now ratified again in view of the fact that in Chapters II, III and IV of this Reply El Salvador has rebutted the arguments contained in the Counter-Memorial of Honduras.

II. The Juridical Status of the Islands

2. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial as to the juridical status of the islands. This petition was ratified in the Counter-Memorial of El Salvador, which rebutted the arguments contained in the Memorial of Honduras, and is now ratified again in view of the fact [*33] that in Chapter V of this Reply El Salvador has rebutted the arguments contained in the Counter-Memorial of Honduras.

III. The Juridical Status of the Maritime Spaces

3. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the position to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Counter-Memorial as to the juridical status of the maritime spaces in view of the fact that in Chapter VI of this Reply El Salvador has rebutted the arguments contained in the Counter-Memorial of Honduras."

On behalf of the Republic of Honduras,

in the Memorial and in the Counter-Memorial (identical texts):

"In view of the facts and arguments set out above, the Government of the Republic of Honduras confirms and reiterates the submissions of its Memorial and asks that it may please the Court:

A. With respect to the land frontier dispute:

-- to adjudge and declare that the course of the frontier between El Salvador and Honduras is constituted by the following line in the areas or sections not described in Article 16 of the General Peace Treaty of 30 October 1980:

1. Section of the land frontier lying between the point known as El Trifinio, at the summit of the Cerro Montecristo, [*34] and the summit of the Cerro del Zapotal. From the summit of the Cerro Montecristo (latitude 14 [degrees] 25' 20" N and longitude 89 [degrees] 21' 28" W), the tripoint between Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, running south-east to the northernmost source of the San Miguel Ingenio or Taguilapa river (14 [degrees] 24' 00" N and 89 [degrees] 20' 10" W), known as the Chicotera, thereafter running downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to the ford on the road from Citala to Metapan (14 [degrees] 20' 55" N and 89 [degrees] 19' 33" W) at Las Cruces. From the preceding point eastwards, in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the river Jupula with the river Lempa (14 [degrees] 21' 06" N and 89 [degrees] 13' 10" W), the said line passing through the place known as El Cobre, and from that confluence in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Zapotal (14 [degrees] 23' 26" N and 89 [degrees] 14' 43" W).

2. Section of the land frontier lying between the Cayaguanca rock and the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura stream with the Sumpul river. From the Cayaguanca rock (14 [degrees] 21' 55" N and 89 [degrees] 10' 05" W), in a straight line, as far as the confluence [*35] of the Chiquita or Oscura mountain stream with the river Sumpul (14 [degrees] 20' 25" N and 89 [degrees] 04' 57" W).

3. Section of the land frontier lying between the Pacacio boundary marker and the boundary marker known as Poza del Cajon. From the Pacacio boundary marker (14 [degrees] 06' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 49' 20" W), on the river of the same name, in a straight line as far as the confluence of the La Puerta stream with the Gualcinga river (14 [degrees] 06' 24" N and 88 [degrees] 47' 04" W) and from there downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to arrive at the Poza del Toro boundary marker (14 [degrees] 04' 14" N and 88 [degrees] 47' 00" W), at the confluence of the river Gualcinga with the river Sazalapa, on La Lagartera, thence following the said river upstream along the middle of the bed to the Poza de la Golondrina boundary marker (14 [degrees] 06' 55" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 32" W); from this point in a straight line as far as the La Canada, Guanacaste or Platanar boundary marker (14 [degrees] 06' 04" N and 88 [degrees] 43' 52" W) and from that boundary marker in a straight line to the El Portillo boundary marker on the Cerro del Tambor (14 [degrees] 04' [*36] 47" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 06" W), also known as Portillo de El Sapo; from that boundary marker in a straight line as far as the Guaupa boundary marker (14 [degrees] 04' 33" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 40" W), passing over the El Sapo hill; thence in a straight line to the summit of the Loma Redonda (14 [degrees] 03' 46" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 35" W); from the Loma Redonda in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Ocotillo or Gualcimaca (14 [degrees] 03' 25" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 22" W), passing over the Cerro del Caracol. From the El Ocotillo boundary marker, in a straight line, as far as the La Barranca or Barranco Blanco boundary marker (14 [degrees] 02' 55" N and 88 [degrees] 43' 27" W); from there to the Cerro de la Bolsa (14 [degrees] 02' 05" N and 88 [degrees] 42' 40" W); and from that place, in a straight line, to the Poza del Cajon boundary marker (14 [degrees] 01' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 41' 10" W) on the river Amatillo or Gualcuquin.

4. Section of the land frontier lying between the source of the La Orilla stream and the boundary marker known as the Malpaso de Similaton. From the source of the mountain stream called La Orilla (13 [degrees] 53' 50" N and 88 [degrees] [*37] 20' 30" W) to the pass of El Jobo (13 [degrees] 53' 40" N and 88 [degrees] 20' 25" W), at the foot of the mountain known as El Volcancillo; from there to the southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda (13 [degrees] 53' 46" N and 88 [degrees] 20' 00" W), following its course downstream along the middle of the bed to the Champate boundary marker (13 [degrees] 53' 20" N and 88 [degrees] 19' 02" W) as far as its confluence with the river Canas or Santa Ana, thence following the camino real, by way of the boundary markers of Portillo Blanco (13 [degrees] 53' 40" N and 88 [degrees] 18' 24" W), Obrajito (13 [degrees] 53' 50" N and 88 [degrees] 17' 28" W), Laguna Seca (13 [degrees] 54' 03" N and 88 [degrees] 16' 46" W), Amatillo (13 [degrees] 54' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 15' 42" W), Picacho or Quecruz (13 [degrees] 55' 59" N and 88 [degrees] 14' 42" W), Esquinero or Sirin (13 [degrees] 56' 55" N and 88 [degrees] 13' 10" W), El Carrizal (13 [degrees] 57' 20" N and 88 [degrees] 11' 35" W); thence, still following the camino real, as far as the point where this road crosses the river Negro (13 [degrees] 59' 36" N and 88 [degrees] 12' 35" W); thence, following the river Negro upstream, as [*38] far as the Las Pilas boundary marker at the source of that same river (14 [degrees] 00' 00" N and 88 [degrees] 06' 30" W), and from that place to the Malpaso de Similaton (13 [degrees] 59' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 04' 21" W).

5. Section of the land frontier lying between the point where the river Torola is joined by the Manzupucagua stream and the ford known as Paso de Unire. From the confluence of the Manzupucagua mountain stream with the Torola river (13 [degrees] 54' 00" N and 87 [degrees] 54' 30" W), following the river Torola upstream along the middle of the bed to its source, the mountain stream known as La Guacamaya (13 [degrees] 53' 30" N and 87 [degrees] 48'22" W); from this point, in a straight line, to the pass of La Guacamaya (13 [degrees] 53' 20" N and 87 [degrees] 48' 19" W); thence in a straight line to a point on the river Unire (13 [degrees] 52' 37" N and 87 [degrees] 47' 04" W), close to the place known as El Coyolar, and from there, following the Unire river downstream, as far as the Paso de Unire or Limon ford (13 [degrees] 52' 07" N and 87 [degrees] 46' 00" W), on the said river.

6. Section of the land frontier lying between Los Amates and the Gulf of Fonseca. From [*39] the point known as Los Amates on the river Goascoran (13 [degrees] 26' 28" N and 87 [degrees] 43' 20" W), following the said river downstream along the middle of the bed by way of the Rincon de Muruhuaca and Barrancones, as far as its mouth to the north-west of the Ramaditas islands (13 [degrees] 24' 26" N and 87 [degrees] 49' 05" W) in the Bay of La Union.

B. With respect to the island dispute:

-- to declare that the Republic of Honduras has sovereignty over the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita.

C. With respect to the maritime dispute:

(1) Concerning the zone subject to delimitation within the Gulf:

-- to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras by reason of their both being coastal States bordering on an enclosed historic bay produces between them a perfect equality of rights, which has nevertheless never been transformed by the same States into a condominium;

-- to adjudge and declare, therefore, that each of the two States is entitled to exercise its powers within zones to be precisely delimited between El Salvador and Honduras;

-- to adjudge and declare that the course of the line delimiting the zones falling, [*40] within the Gulf, under the jurisdiction of Honduras and El Salvador respectively, taking into account all the relevant circumstances for the purpose of arriving at an equitable solution, shall be defined as follows:

(a) the line equidistant from the low-water line of the mainland and island coasts of the two States, starting within the Bay of La Union, from the mouth of the Rio Goascoran (latitude 13 [degrees] 24' 26" N and longitude 87 [degrees] 49'05" W) and extending to the point situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the Salvadorian island of Conchaguita and from the Honduran island of Meanguera, to the south of the first and to the west of the second;

(b) from that point, the line joining points situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the island of Conchaguita, running to the south of that island up to a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the mainland coast of El Salvador;

(c) from that point onwards, the line joining points situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the Salvadorian coast as far as the point where it meets the closing line of the Gulf (see illustrative Chart C.5);

-- to adjudge and declare that the community [*41] of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras as coastal States bordering on the Gulf implies an equal right for both to exercise their jurisdictions over maritime areas situated beyond the closing line of the Gulf.

(2) Concerning the zone outside the Gulf:

-- to adjudge and declare that the delimitation line productive of an equitable solution, when account is taken of all the relevant circumstances, is represented by a line drawn on a bearing of 215.5 [degrees], starting from the closing line of the Gulf at a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast of El Salvador, and running out 200 nautical miles from that point, thus delimiting the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of El Salvador and Honduras (see illustrative Chart C.6)";

in the Reply:

"In view of the facts and arguments set out above, the Government of the Republic of Honduras asks that it may please the Court:

A. With respect to the land frontier dispute:

1. Section of the land frontier lying between the point known as El Trifinio, at the summit of the Cerro Montecristo, and the summit of the Cerro del Zapotal. From the summit of the Cerro Montecristo (latitude 14 [degrees] 25' 20" N and longitude 89 [degrees] 21' 28" W), the tripoint between Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, running south-east to the northernmost source of the San Miguel Ingenio or Taguilapa river (14 [degrees] 24' 00" N and 89 [degrees] 20' 10" W), known as the Chicotera, thereafter running downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to the ford on the road from Citala to Metapan (14 [degrees] 20' 55" N and 89 [degrees] 19' 33" W) at Las Cruces. From the preceding point eastwards, in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the river Jupula with the river Lempa (14 [degrees] 21' 06" N and 89 [degrees] 13' 10" W), the said line passing through the place known as El Cobre, and from that confluence in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro Zapotal (14 [degrees] 23' 26" N and 89 [degrees] 14' 43" W).

2. Section of the land frontier lying between the Cayaguanca rock and the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura stream [*43] with the Sumpul river. From the Cayaguanca rock (14 [degrees] 21' 55" N and 89 [degrees] 10' 05" W), in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura mountain stream with the river Sumpul (14 [degrees] 20' 25" N and 89 [degrees] 04' 57" W).

3. Section of the land frontier lying between the Pacacio boundary marker and the boundary marker known as Poza del Cajon. From the Pacacio boundary marker (14 [degrees] 06' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 49' 20" W), on the river of the same name, in a straight line as far as the confluence of the La Puerta stream with the Gualcinga river (14 [degrees] 06' 24" N and 88 [degrees] 47' 04" W) and from there downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to arrive at the Poza del Toro boundary marker (14 [degrees] 04' 14" N and 88 [degrees] 47' 00" W), at the confluence of the river Gualcinga with the river Sazalapa, on La Lagartera, thence following the said river upstream along the middle of the bed to the Poza de la Golondrina boundary marker (14 [degrees] 06' 55" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 32" W); from this point in a straight line as far as the La Canada, Guanacaste or Platanar boundary marker (14 [degrees] 06' 04" N and 88 [*44] [degrees] 43' 52" W) and from that boundary marker in a straight line to the El Portillo boundary marker on the Cerro del Tambor (14 [degrees] 04' 47" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 06" W), also known as Portillo de El Sapo; from that boundary marker in a straight line as far as the Guaupa boundary marker (14 [degrees] 04' 33" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 40" W), passing over the El Sapo hill; thence in a straight line to the summit of the Loma Redonda (14 [degrees] 03' 46" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 35" W); from the Loma Redonda in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Ocotillo or Gualcimaca (14 [degrees] 03' 25" N and 88 [degrees] 44' 22" W), passing over the Cerro del Caracol. From the El Ocotillo boundary marker, in a straight line, as far as the La Barranca or Barranco Blanco boundary marker (14 [degrees] 02' 55" N and 88 [degrees] 43' 27" W); from there to the Cerro de la Bolsa (14 [degrees] 02' 05" N and 88 [degrees] 42' 40" W); and from that place, in a straight line, to the Poza del Cajon boundary marker (14 [degrees] 01' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 41' 10" W) on the river Amatillo or Gualcuquin.

4. Section of the land frontier lying between the source of the La Orilla stream and the boundary [*45] marker known as the Malpaso de Similaton. From the source of the mountain stream called La Orilla (13 [degrees] 53' 50" N and 88 [degrees] 20' 30" W) to the pass of El Jobo (13 [degrees] 53' 40" N and 88 [degrees] 20' 25" W), at the foot of the mountain known as El Volcancillo; from there to the southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda (13 [degrees] 53' 46" N and 88 [degrees] 20' 00" W), following its course downstream along the middle of the bed to the Champate boundary marker (13 [degrees] 53' 20" N and 88 [degrees] 19' 02" W) as far as its confluence with the river Canas or Santa Ana, thence following the camino real, by way of the boundary markers of Portillo Blanco (13 [degrees] 53' 40" N and 88 [degrees] 18' 24" W), Obrajito (13 [degrees] 53' 50" N and 88 [degrees] 17' 28" W), Laguna Seca (13 [degrees] 54' 03" N and 88 [degrees] 16' 46" W), Amatillo or Las Tijeretas (13 [degrees] 54' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 15' 42" W), and from there, in a northerly direction, as far as the point at which the river Las Canas joins the mountain stream known as Masire or Las Tijeretas (13 [degrees] 55' 03" N and 88 [degrees] 15' 45" W); thence, taking a north-easterly direction, it follows [*46] its course upstream as far as the road from Torola to Colomoncagua and continues in the same direction as far as the Cerro La Cruz, Quecruz or El Picacho (13 [degrees] 55' 59" N and 88 [degrees] 13' 10" W); thence, to the Monte Redondo, Esquinero or Sirin boundary marker (13 [degrees] 56' 55" N and 88 [degrees] 13' 10" W) and from there to the El Carrisal or Soropay marker (13 [degrees] 57' 41" N and 88 [degrees] 12' 52" W); from there it runs in a northerly direction to the Cerro del Ocote or hill of Guiriri (13 [degrees] 59' 00" N and 88 [degrees] 12' 55" W), and thence, in the same direction, to the marker of El Rincon, on the river Negro, Quiaguara or El Palmar (13 [degrees] 59' 53" N and 88 [degrees] 12' 59" W); thence, following the river Negro upstream, as far as the Las Pilas boundary marker at the source of that same river (14 [degrees] 00' 00" N and 88 [degrees] 06' 30" W), and from that place to the Malpaso de Similaton (13 [degrees] 59' 28" N and 88 [degrees] 04' 21" W).

5. Section of the land frontier lying between the point where the river Torola is joined by the Manzupucagua stream and the ford known as Paso de Unire. From the confluence of the Manzupucagua mountain [*47] stream with the Torola river (13 [degrees] 54' 00" N and 87 [degrees] 54' 30" W), following the river Torola upstream along the middle of its bed to its source, the mountain stream known as La Guacamaya (13 [degrees] 53'30" N and 87 [degrees] 48' 22" W); from this point, in a straight line, to the pass of La Guacamaya (13 [degrees] 53' 20" N and 87 [degrees] 48' 19" W); thence in a straight line to a point on the river Unire (13 [degrees] 52' 37" N and 87 [degrees] 47' 04" W), close to the place known as El Coyolar, and from there, following the Unire river downstream, as far as the Paso de Unire or Limon ford (13 [degrees] 52' 07" N and 87 [degrees] 46' 00" W), on the said river.

6. Section of the land frontier lying between Los Amates and the Gulf of Fonseca. From the point known as Los Amates on the river Goascoran (13 [degrees] 26' 28" N and 87 [degrees] 43' 20" W), following the said river downstream along the middle of the bed by way of the Rincon de Muruhuaca and Barrancones, as far as its mouth to the north-west of the Ramaditas islands (13 [degrees] 24' 26" N and 87 [degrees] 49' 05" W) in the Bay of La Union.

-- to reject the submissions of the Government of El Salvador [*48] including those set forth in item I, paragraph 2, of the submissions of the Counter-Memorial and that relate to the delimitation of the land frontier;

B. With respect to the island dispute:

-- to declare that only the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita are in dispute between the Parties and that the Republic of Honduras has sovereignty over them.

C. With respect to the maritime dispute:

(1) Concerning the zone subject to delimitation within the Gulf:

-- to adjudge and declare, therefore, that each of the two States is entitled to exercise its powers within zones to be precisely delimited between El Salvador and Honduras;

-- to adjudge and declare that the course of the line delimiting the zones falling, within the Gulf, under the jurisdiction of Honduras and El Salvador respectively, taking into account all the relevant circumstances for the purpose of [*49] arriving at an equitable solution, shall be defined as follows:

(a) the line equidistant from the low-water line of the mainland and island coasts of the two States, starting within the Bay of La Union, from the mouth of the Rio Goascoran (latitude 13 [degrees] 24' 26" N and longitude 87 [degrees] 49'05" W) and extending to the point situated at a distance of I nautical mile from the Salvadorian island of Conchaguita and from the Honduran island of Meanguera, to the south of the first and to the west of the second;

-- to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras as coastal States bordering on the Gulf implies an equal right for both to exercise their jurisdictions [*50] over maritime areas situated beyond the closing line of the Gulf;

(2) Concerning the zone outside the Gulf:

24. In the course of the oral proceedings the following submissions were presented by the Parties:

On behalf of the Republic of El Salvador:

"The Government of El Salvador respectfully requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare that:

A. Concerning the delimitation of the land frontier

The line of the frontier in the zones or sectors not described in Article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace of 30 October 1980, is as follows:

(i) in the disputed sector of Tepanguisir, in [*51] accordance with paragraph 6.69 and map 6.7 of the Memorial of El Salvador as set forth in Annex I to these submissions;

(ii) in the disputed sector of Las Pilas or Cayaguanca, in accordance with paragraph 6.70 and map 6.8 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex II to these submissions;

(iii) in the disputed sector of Arcatao or Zazalapa, in accordance with paragraph 6.71 and map 6.9 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex III to these submissions;

(iv) in the disputed sector of Nahuaterique, in accordance with paragraph 6.72 and map 6.10 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex IV to these submissions;

(v) in the disputed sector of Poloros, in accordance with paragraph 6.73 and map 6.11 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex V to these submissions; and

(vi) in the disputed sector of the Estuary of the Goascoran river, in accordance with paragraph 6.74 and map 6.12 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex VI to these submissions.

B. Concerning the legal situation of the islands

The sovereignty over all the islands within the Gulf of Fonseca, and, in particular, over the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita, belongs [*52] to El Salvador, with the exception of the island of Zacate Grande and the Farallones islands.

C. Concerning the determination of the legal situation of the maritime spaces

1. The Chamber has no jurisdiction to effect any delimitation of the maritime spaces.

2. The legal situation of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca corresponds to the legal position established by the Judgement of the Central American Court of Justice of 9 March 1917.

3. The legal situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf of Fonseca is that:

(a) Honduras has no sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction in or over them; and

(b) the only States which have sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction in or over them are States with coasts that directly front on the Pacific Ocean, of which El Salvador is one."