The arbitral tribunal decides that the Peruvian Government shall, on July 31, 1912, deliver to the Italian Legation at Lima, on account of the brothers Napoléon and Carlos Canevaro: 1. In one per cent bonds of the domestic debt of 1889, the nominal amount of 39,811 pounds, 8 shillings, 1 penny sterling upon the surrender of two-thirds of the bonds issued on December 23, 1880, to the firm of José Canevaro & Sons; 2. In gold, the sum of 9,388 pounds, 17 shillings, 1 penny sterling, the amount of interest at one per cent from January 1, 1889, to July 31, 1912. The Peruvian Government may delay payment of this latter sum until January 1, 1913, provided it pays interest thereon at the rate of six per cent from August 1, 1912. Done at The Hague, in the palace of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, on May 3, 1912. LOUIS RENAULT, President MICHIELS VAN VERDUYNEN, Secretary General AGREEMENT FOR ARBITRATION Protocol between Italy and Peru for the arbitration of the Canevaro claim.-Signed at Lima, April 25, 1910.1 Dr. Don Meliton F. Porras, Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru, and Count Giulio Bolognesi, Chargé d'Affaires of Italy, having met at the office of the former, have agreed upon the following: The Government of the Peruvian Republic, and the Government of His Majesty, the King of Italy, not having succeeded in reaching an agreement in regard to the claim presented by the latter on behalf of Count Napoléon, Carlos and Rafael Canevaro, for the payment of the sum of forty-three thousand, one hundred and forty pounds sterling and the legal interest thereon, which they demand from the Government of Peru, Have resolved, in accordance with Article 1 of the general treaty of arbitration in force between the two countries, to submit this controversy to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, which Court shall decide in accordance with law the following points: 1American Journal of International Law, vol. 6, Supplement, p. 212. For the original Italian and Spanish texts, see Appendix, p. 528. Should the Government of Peru pay in cash, or in accordance with the Peruvian law of June 12, 1889, on the domestic debt, the bills of exchange (libramientos) now in the possession of the brothers Napoléon, Carlos and Rafael Canevaro which were drawn by the Peruvian Government to the order of the firm of José Canevaro and Sons for the sum of 43,140 pounds sterling, plus the legal interest on the said amount? Have the Canevaro brothers a right to demand the total amount claimed? Has Don Rafael Canevaro a right to be considered as an Italian claimant ? The Government of the Republic of Peru and the Government of His Majesty, the King of Italy, pledge themselves to designate, within four months from the date of this protocol, the members who are to constitute the arbitral tribunal. Seven months after said arbitral tribunal has been organized, both Governments shall submit to the same a complete statement of the controversy, together with all the documents, evidence, briefs and arguments in the case, each Government being entitled to a period of five months in order to file its answer to the other Government, and in said answer they shall only be allowed to refer to the allegations contained in the statement of the other side. The controversy shall then be deemed closed, unless the arbitral tribunal should require new documents, proofs, or briefs, in which case they must be presented within the term of four months from the time the arbitrator should demand the presentation of the same. Should said documents, proofs or briefs not be presented within this period, an arbitral sentence shall be passed as if the same did not exist. In witness whereof the undersigned put their names to the present protocol, drawn in Spanish and Italian, affixing their respective seals thereon. Done in duplicate in Lima, the 25th day of April, 1910. (L. S.) M. F. PORRAS (L. S.) GIULIO BOLOGNESI ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Notes Concerning the Formation of the Arbitral Tribunal1 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Lima, April 27, 1910. SIR: There being no stipulation in the protocol submitting to arbitration the claim presented against the Peruvian Government by the brothers Canevaro, in regard to the formation of the arbitral tribunal, it is a pleasure to me to propose to your Excellency that the same be made in accordance with Article 87 of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, signed at The Hague in 1907. I reiterate to your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration. TO COUNT GIULIO BOLOGNESI, Chargé d'Affaires of Italy. M. F. PORRAS LEGATION OF HIS MAJESTY, THE KING OF ITALY, MR. MINISTER: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the note of your Excellency No. 18, of this date, and I am highly pleased to accept the proposal of your Excellency providing for the formation of the arbitral tribunal at The Hague to pass upon the Canevaro controversy, in accordance with the provisions of Article 87 of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes signed at The Hague in 1907. Be pleased, Mr. Minister, to accept the assurances of my highest and distinguished consideration. To His Excellency, DR. MELITON F. PORRAS, Minister of Foreign Relations. GIULIO BOLOGNESI 1American Journal of International Law, voì 6. Supplement, p. 214. For the original Spanish text, see Appendix, p. 530. THE RUSSIAN INDEMNITY CASE between RUSSIA and TURKEY Decided November 11, 1912 Syllabus Article 5 of the treaty of Constantinople, concluded January 27/ February 8, 1879, between Russia and Turkey, which ended the war of 1877-78 between those two countries, stipulated that "the claims of Russian subjects and institutions in Turkey for indemnity on account of damages sustained during the war shall be paid as soon as they are examined by the Russian Embassy at Constantinople and transmitted to the Sublime Porte." The claims were duly examined by the Embassy and presented to the Turkish Government, but payments were delayed and only made under constant pressure from the Russian Government. The claims amounted in all to 6,186,543 francs, of which sum 50,000 Turkish pounds were paid in 1884, 50,000 in 1889, 75,000 in 1893, 50,000 in 1894, and a trifle over 42,438 in 1902, leaving a balance of 1,539 Turkish pounds, which the Turkish Government deposited in the Ottoman Bank to the credit of Russia, but which the latter refused to receive on the ground that payment of the interest which Russia claimed for the delayed payments had not been made. The controversy over this interest was submitted by a compromis signed at Constantinople July 22/August 4, 1910,1 to the arbitration of a tribunal composed of the following: Charles Édouard Lardy, of Switzerland; Baron Michel de Taube and André Mandelstam, of Russia, and Herante Abro Bey and Ahmed Réchid Bey, of Turkey. Of these members, only two, viz., Lardy and de Taube, were selected from the panel of the Permanent Court. The sessions began February 15, 1911, and ended November 6, 1912, the decision being rendered November 11, 1912. On a preliminary question raised by Turkey-that the claims were due to certain specified subjects of Russia and not to the Russian Government, and that therefore Russia as such had no standing in the court the tribunal found that the treaty was made with Russia for the benefit of its subjects, and rejected the Turkish contention. On the main question the tribunal decided that Turkey was responsible in the same manner as a private debtor for the payment of interest, but was only responsible after demand had been made for the payment of the principal and interest upon such principal. The tri 1Post, p. 324. bunal found that Russia had made such a demand in proper form on December 31, 1890/January 12, 1891, but that subsequently the Russian Government, through its Embassy at Constantinople, repeatedly agreed to accept the balance as stated by Turkey, in which no interest was included. The tribunal considered this to be a renunciation of the claim for interest, and held that, after the principal had been paid in full to Russia or placed at its disposal, the Russian Government was, by the interpretation which had been accepted and practiced in its name by its Embassy, estopped from reopening the question. AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL Award of the arbitral tribunal constituted by virtue of the arbitration agreement signed at Constantinople between Russia and Turkey, July 22/August 4, 1910.—The Hague, November 11, 1912.1 By a compromis signed at Constantinople, July 22/August 4, 1910, the Imperial Government of Russia and the Imperial Ottoman Government agreed to submit to an arbitral tribunal the final decision of the following questions: I. Whether or not the Imperial Ottoman Government must pay the Russian claimants interest-damages by reason of the dates on which the said Government made payment of the indemnities determined in pursuance of Article 5 of the Treaty of January 27/ February 8, 1879, as well as of the protocol of the same date? II. In case the first question is decided in the affirmative, what should be the amount of these interest-damages? The arbitral tribunal was composed of: His Excellency Monsieur Lardy, Doctor of Laws, member and former president of the Institute of International Law, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Switzerland at Paris, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, umpire; His Excellency Baron Michel de Taube, Assistant Minister of Public Instruction of Russia, Councilor of State, Doctor of Laws, associate of the Institute of International Law, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; 1American Journal of International Law, vol. 7., p. 178. For the original French text, see Appendix, p. 532. 2 Post, p. 324. |