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, vol 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 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, 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 tri1Post, p. 324. 1 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. Mr. André Mandelstam, First Dragoman of the Imperial Embassy of Russia at Constantinople, Councilor of State, Doctor of International Law, associate of the Institute of International Law; Herante Abro Bey, Licentiate in Law, Legal Counselor of the Sublime Porte; and Ahmed Réchid Bey, Licentiate in Law, Legal Counselor of the Sublime Porte. Mr. Henri Fromageot, Doctor of Laws, associate of the Institute of International Law, advocate in the Court of Appeals of Paris, acted as agent of the Imperial Russian Government and was assisted by Mr. Francis Rey, Doctor of Laws, Secretary of the European Commission of the Danube, in the capacity of secretary; Mr. Edouard Clunet, advocate in the Court of Appeals of Paris, member and former president of the Institute of International Law, acted as agent of the Imperial Ottoman Government and was assisted by Mr. Ernest Roguin, professor of comparative legislation in the University of Lausanne, member of the Institute of International Law, in the capacity of counsel to the Ottoman Government; Mr. André Hesse, Doctor of Laws, advocate in the Court of Appeals of Paris, in the capacity of counsel to the Ottoman Government; Youssouf Kémâl Bey, professor in the Faculty of Law of Constantinople, former deputy, director of the Ottoman Commission of Juridical Studies; in the capacity of counsel to the Ottoman Gov ernment; Mr. C. Campinchi, Advocate in the Court of Appeals of Paris, in the capacity of secretary to the agent of the Ottoman Government; Baron Michiels van Verduynen, secretary general of the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, acted as secretary general, and Jonkheer W. Röell, first secretary of the International Bureau of the Court, attended to the secretariat. After a first session at The Hague on February 15, 1911, to arrange certain questions of procedure, the cases and counter-cases were duly exchanged by the parties and communicated to the arbi trators, who declared respectively, as well as the agents of the parties, that they waived the right to ask for further information. The arbitral tribunal met again at The Hague on October 28, 29, 30, 31, November 2, 5, and 6, 1912, and after having heard the oral arguments of the agents and counsel of the parties, made the following award: PRELIMINARY QUESTION In view of the preliminary request of the Imperial Ottoman Government that the claim of the Imperial Russian Government be declared inadmissible without examining the principal question, the tribunal, considering that the Imperial Ottoman Government bases this preliminary request, in its written demands, upon the fact That the direct creditors for the principal sums adjudged to them were the Russian subjects individually, benefiting by a stipulation made in their names, either in the preliminaries of peace signed at San Stefano, February 19/March 3, 1878, or by Article 5 of the treaty of Constantinople of January 27/ February 8, 1879, or by the protocol of the same date, and that their titles in this respect were established by the designative decisions of the commission ad hoc which met at the Russian Embassy at Constantinople, which decisions were communicated to the Sublime Porte; That, under these circumstances, the Imperial Russian Government should have proved the survival of the rights of each claimant and the identity of the persons entitled at the present time to avail themselves of these rights, especially since the transfer of certain of these rights has been reported to the Imperial Ottoman Government; That, even admitting that the Russian State was the only direct creditor as to the indemnities, the Imperial Russian Government should have, nevertheless, made such proof, inasmuch as the said Government could not deny its duty to transmit to the claimants or their assigns the sums which it might obtain in the present suit as moratory interest-damages, the claimants appearing, upon this supposition, as beneficiaries of the stipulation made in their interest, if not as creditors. That, however, the Imperial Russian Government furnished no proof as to the identity of the claimants or of their assigns, |