1 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo), Compensation Owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea (June 19, 2012), http://www.icj-ci-j.org/docket/files/103/17044.pdf [hereinafter Judgment].

2 Fragmentation was a topic selected for study by the International Law Commission of the United Nations. The Study Group completed its work and adopted a report in 2006. See generally, Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U.N. Doc. No. A/61/10 (2006); see also Buergenthal, Thomas, Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Is It Good Or Bad? 14 Leiden J. Intl’l L. 267 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 1-10.

4 Id.

5 Id. ¶ 1.

6 Id.

7 Id.

8 Note that the Court decided to use certain French terms in the English version of the judgment because the form of commercial company of the two entities at issue was specific to civil-law systems and had no precise equivalent in common-law systems.

See infra note 20, Judgment of Nov. 30, 2010, 1 99.

9 Id. ¶ 2 (referring to Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo) Preliminary Objections, 2007 I.C.J. 617-18 (May 24). Note that between 1971 and 1997, the DRC was called Zaire.

10 Id. ¶ 3.

11 Id. ¶ 6.

12 The Court refers to the famous Factory of Charzow case in the paragraph 13, recalling that the “Permanent Court of International Justice stated in the Factory of Charzow case (Meríts, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, pp. 27-28), ‘it is a principle of international law that the reparation of a wrong may consist in an indemnity corresponding to the damage which the nationals of the injured States have suffered as a result of the at which is contrary to international law.’”

13 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 4.

14 Id. ¶ 7.

15 Id. ¶ 9.

16 Id. ¶ 10.

17 Id.

18 Id. ¶¶ 11-17.

19 Id. ¶ 12.

20 Id. ¶ 17 (citing Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo), Judgment, ¶ 163 (Nov. 30, 2010), http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/103/16244.pdf).

21 The Court fixed an amount of compensation in its very first case, Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Assessment of Amount of Compensation, 1949 I.C.J. 244 (Dec. 15).

22 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 13.

23 Id. ¶ 14.

24 Id. ¶ 17.

25 Id. ¶¶ 18-25.

26 Id. ¶ 19.

27 Specifically, the DRC requested the Court to take into consideration the brevity of the detention, the absence of mistreatment, and Diallo’s expulsion to his country of origin. Id. ¶ 20.

28 Id. ¶ 21.

29 Id. ¶ 24 (relying on the Lusitania cases and reports of the Human Rights Committee).

30 Id. ¶ 25 (Guinea had requested U.S. $250,000).

31 Id. ¶¶ 26-55.

32 Id. ¶¶ 29-33.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Id. ¶ 34-35.

37 Id. ¶ 36.

38 Id. ¶¶ 37-46.

39 Id. ¶¶ 34-35.

40 Id. ¶ 40-43.

41 Id. ¶ 43.

42 Id. ¶ 46.

43 Id. Я 51-54.

44 Id. ¶ 60.

45 Id. ¶ 61.

46 See LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), Judgment, 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June 27), and Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), Judgment, 2004 I.C.J. 12 (Mar. 31) (ordering the United States to use means of its own choosing to provide review to German and Mexican nationals on death row who had not been given the opportunity to request consular assistance in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights).

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Court of Justice Web site (visited September 15, 2012) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/103/17044.pdf.