| Justice in Ethiopia www.justiceinethiopia.net (Are these actions, actions of a government which represents and defends the interests of its people?) Chapter IV (Central Sector) "...(d) Conclusion regarding the western part of the Belesa projection 4.68 The Commission has carefully weighed the evidence with which it has been presented. For the most part, it finds the evidence to be of mixed quality and to some extent conflicting as regards its significance for territorial sovereignty. In general, therefore, but subject to two important qualifications, which relate to, respectively, the northern and southern sections of this part of the projection, the Commission does not find that the evidence justifies any departure from the boundary line as found by the Commission to result from the 1900 Treaty. 4.69 The qualification as to the northern section relates to Tserona. In its Reply, Ethiopia stated that a number of specific places mentioned by Eritrea as the location of incidents on which Eritrea was relying were irrelevant, since they were in any event mostly in Eritrea. The words used by Ethiopia were that “Fort Cadorna, Monoxeito, Guna Guna and Tserona” were “mostly . . . undisputed Eritrean places.” While Monoxeito and Guna Guna are on the Eritrean side of the Treaty line as determined by the Commission, the Commission finds that, on the basis of the evidence before it, Tserona and Fort Cadorna are not. 4.70 As to Tserona, the Commission cannot fail to give effect to Ethiopia's statement, made formally in a written pleading submitted to the Commission. It is an admission of which the Commission must take full account. It is necessary, therefore, to adjust the Treaty line so as to ensure that it is placed in Eritrean territory. 4.71 The qualification as to the southern section relates to the Acran region and to Fort Cadorna. The Commission is satisfied that the evidence of Eritrean activity is sufficient, in terms of administrative range, quantity, area and period, to justify treating the Acran region as part of Eritrea. As regards Fort Cardorna, the Commission is bound to apply to that place, in the same way as it does to Tserona, the Ethiopian admission. 4.72 The Commission therefore decides that the boundary line which it has found to result from the 1900 Treaty must be adjusted in the manner set out in Chapter VIII, paragraph 8.1, sub-paragraph B...." Chapter VI (Eastern Sector) "...(c) The meaning of the “coast” 6.19 The first question that arises in the application of Article I of the Treaty is the definition of the coast. Ethiopia abandoned its conception of the coast as including islands and submitted in its concluding argument that “the coastline” should be understood as “adhering continuously to the continent itself, and not any coastlines of islands as such.” This was also the position presented by Eritrea. As the Parties are in agreement on this point, the Commission will take as the coastline the line adhering to the continent itself, and not any coastlines of islands..." |
