ASYLUM CASE

ICJ Reports, 1950

FACTS
On October 3, 1948, a military rebellion broke out
in Peru.
The political party, American Peoples
Revolutionary Alliance was charged with having
organized and directed the rebellion.
The leader of American Peoples Revolutionary
Alliance, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre and other
members of the party were charged as
responsible for the rebellion.
On January 3, 1949, Haya de la Torre sought
asylum in the Colombian Embassy in Lima.
The Colombian Ambassador confirmed that Haya
de la Torre was granted asylum in accordance
with what is provided in Article 2, paragraph 2, of
the Havana Convention on Asylum signed in the
year 1928. He is now requesting that de la Torre
be able to leave Peru safely.
Havana Convention on
Asylum
Article 2, paragraph 2 states that:
Immediately upon granting asylum, the
diplomatic agent, commander of a warship, or
military camp or aircraft, shall report the fact to
the Minister of Foreign Relations of the State of
the person who has secured asylum, or to the
local administrative authority, if the act occurred
outside the capital.

The Colombian Ambassador sent another note to
the Peruvian Minister stating that they have
qualified de la Torre as a political refugee based
on Article 2 of the Convention on Political Asylum
signed by both countries in the city of
Montevideo in 1933.
ISSUE
As a state granting asylum, is Colombia
competent to qualify the nature of the offence by
a unilateral and definitive decision binding on
Peru?
The Colombian Government further relies on the
Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928. This
convention lays down certain rules relating to
diplomatic asylum, but does not contain any
competence to qualify the offence with definitive
and binding force for the territorial State. Also,
they contend that such competence is implied in
that Convention and is inherent in the institution
of asylum.
In invoking the Montevideo Convention of 1933,
it is also not applicable because Peru has not
ratified such.
The limited number of States which have ratified
this convention reveals the weakness of this
argument.
The Colombian Government also invokes the
application of the American International Law.
The court has arrived at the conclusion that
Colombia, as the State granting asylum, is not
competent to qualify the offence by a unilateral
and definitive decision, binding on Peru.

ISSUE
Is Peru bound to give the guarantees necessary
for the departure of Haya de la Torre from the
country, with due regard to the inviolability of his
person?
Havana Convention
Article 2, paragraph 3 states that:
The Government of the State may require that
the refugee be sent out of the national territory
within the shortest time possible; and the
diplomatic agent of the country who has granted
asylum may in turn require the guarantees
necessary for the departure of the refugee from
the country with due regard to the inviolability of
his person.
The territorial State is only bound to grant safe-conduct
only if it has exercised his option to require the
departure of the refugee.
The Peruvian Government has not requested that Haya
de la Torre should leave Peru.
The court held that the Colombian Government is not
entitled to claim that the Peruvian Government should
give the guarantees necessary for the departure of de la
Torre from the country, with due regard to the
inviolability of his person.
Issue
Whether or not the Colombian Government has
violated Article 1, paragraph 1 and Article 2,
paragraph 2 of the Convention on Asylum when
in granted asylum to de la Torre?
Havana Convention
Article 1, paragraph 1 states that:
It is not permissible for States to grant asylum
to persons condemned for common crimes
Article 2, paragraph 2 states that:
Asylum may not be granted except in urgent
cases and for the period of time strictly
indispensable for the person who has sought
asylum to ensure in some other way his safety.
Summary
The Court finds that:
Colombia has not established its competence as
a country granting asylum, to qualify the nature of
the offence by a unilateral and definitive decision,
binding on Peru.
Colombia has not also established the need for
the request of safe-conduct with regard to the
departure of the refugee.
Colombia has violated Article 1, paragraph 1 and
Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Havana Convention.