## Facts

- Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, a Peruvian political leader, was sought by Peruvian authorities in connection with unrest and an alleged rebellion following events in October 1948.
- On January 3, 1949, the Colombian Embassy in Lima granted Haya de la Torre diplomatic asylum.
- Colombia requested that Peru issue a safe-conduct permitting Haya de la Torre to leave Peru; Peru refused.
- Peru denied that Colombia could unilaterally determine whether the alleged conduct was a political offense (as opposed to a common crime) in a way binding on Peru.
- The states agreed by the Act of Lima (Aug. 31, 1949) to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice; Colombia filed its application on Oct. 15, 1949.
- Colombia sought declarations that (1) it could qualify the refugee as a political offender (or common criminal/deserter) and (2) Peru was obligated to provide guarantees and safe-conduct for departure.
- Peru counterclaimed that the asylum was unlawful under the Havana Convention on Asylum (1928).

## Issues

1. Whether Colombia had a unilateral right, opposable to Peru, to qualify the nature of the alleged offense as political (or otherwise) for purposes of asylum.
2. Whether Peru was legally obligated to grant safe-conduct enabling the refugee to depart Peru because asylum had been granted.
3. Whether the grant of asylum complied with the Havana Convention on Asylum (1928) and/or any applicable regional customary international law on diplomatic asylum.

## Decision

- The Court rejected Colombia’s submission that it could unilaterally and conclusively qualify the offense in a manner binding on Peru.
- The Court rejected Colombia’s submission that Peru was legally obligated to issue safe-conduct for Haya de la Torre’s departure on the grounds asserted.
- The Court upheld Peru’s counterclaim, holding the asylum was granted in violation of the Havana Convention on Asylum (1928).
- The Court stated that Peru had not proved Haya de la Torre was a common criminal, but this did not establish Colombia’s claimed unilateral rights or a duty of safe-conduct.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty obligations bind only to the extent instruments are in force between the parties; non-ratified or non-applicable treaties cannot impose duties on a state in a contentious case.
- Diplomatic asylum, as against the territorial state’s criminal jurisdiction, requires a clear legal basis in treaty or established custom; it is treated as an exceptional institution.
- A claimed regional customary rule must be shown by sufficiently general, constant, and uniform practice accepted as law (opinio juris) to be opposable to the respondent state.
- Absent a treaty or proven custom, the state granting asylum lacks a unilateral power to impose its characterization of an offense on the territorial state.
- Absent a treaty or proven custom, the territorial state is not legally required to grant safe-conduct solely because asylum was granted in a foreign embassy.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Colombia lacked any unilateral, legally binding authority to qualify the alleged offense or to compel Peru to provide safe-conduct, and it found the asylum unlawful under the Havana Convention on Asylum (1928), while noting Peru had not proved the refugee was a common criminal.


Asylum (Colom. v. Peru), Judgment, 1950 I.C.J. 266 (Nov. 20)