## Facts

- A Guinean national, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, lived and worked in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) for decades and served as *gérant* and a major shareholder in two companies incorporated in the DRC: Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire.
- Guinea alleged that DRC authorities unlawfully detained Diallo, dispossessed him of property and interests, and expelled him, in connection with disputes over debts allegedly owed to his companies by state-linked entities.
- Guinea instituted proceedings in 1998 under the parties’ optional-clause declarations (ICJ Statute art. 36(2)), invoking diplomatic protection of its national.
- In 2002, the DRC raised preliminary objections directed to admissibility, arguing that Guinea lacked standing because the claims were, in substance, claims of the two Congolese companies, and that local remedies in the DRC had not been exhausted.
- The 2007 judgment addressed these preliminary objections and limited the scope of claims that could proceed to the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether Guinea could exercise diplomatic protection for (a) Diallo’s rights as an individual, (b) Diallo’s direct rights as an associé/shareholder in the two DRC companies, and (c) the rights of the companies themselves.
2. Whether the admissible claims were barred because Diallo (or the relevant rights-holders) failed to exhaust available and effective local remedies in the DRC.

## Decision

- The Court held the application admissible insofar as it concerned diplomatic protection of Diallo’s rights as an individual.
- The Court held the application admissible insofar as it concerned protection of Diallo’s direct rights as an associé/shareholder in Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire.
- The Court held the application inadmissible insofar as it sought protection for alleged violations of the rights of Africom‑Zaire and Africontainers‑Zaire as corporate entities.
- The Court rejected the local-remedies objection as to the surviving claims, including on the ground that discretionary, non-right-based administrative reconsideration is not a remedy that must be exhausted.

## Legal Principles

- Diplomatic protection permits a State to present international claims for injuries to its nationals, including claims concerning the individual’s personal rights.
- In diplomatic protection involving corporations, the State of incorporation is ordinarily the State entitled to protect the company’s rights; a shareholder’s national State generally may not claim for injury to the company itself.
- A shareholder’s national State may, however, protect the shareholder’s own direct rights arising from shareholder status, distinct from the corporation’s rights.
- The exhaustion of local remedies rule requires exhaustion of remedies that are available and effective in law; discretionary administrative reconsideration granted “as a matter of grace” does not qualify as a local remedy that must be exhausted before international proceedings.

## Conclusion

The ICJ allowed Guinea’s case to proceed only as to Diallo’s personal rights and his direct shareholder rights, while excluding claims framed as violations of the DRC-incorporated companies’ rights, and it clarified that non-binding, discretionary administrative reconsideration is not a local remedy whose pursuit is required for admissibility.


Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), 2007 I.C.J. 582 (I.C.J. 2007)