## Facts

- Ethiopia filed “Claim 4” before the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission under Article 5 of the Algiers Agreement (Dec. 12, 2000), seeking a finding that Eritrea unlawfully treated Ethiopian prisoners of war (POWs) captured in the 1998–2000 international armed conflict and requesting monetary compensation.
- Ethiopia alleged that Eritrea held about 1,100 Ethiopian POWs (virtually all men) from 1998 through releases completed in 2002, in five principal camps (Barentu, Embakala, Digdigta, Afabet, and Nakfa/Sahel) and various transit locations (including Badme, Asmara, Tesseney, and Barentu), moving POWs from camp to camp and closing most camps after transfers.
- Ethiopia’s allegations included: inhumane conditions during evacuations from the front; physical abuse and coercive interrogations; detention conditions that endangered health; inadequate basic medical care reflected in a high death rate; failures by Eritrea to prevent, investigate, and discipline abuse; and forced labor on projects Ethiopia said were not permissible POW labor.
- Eritrea denied liability and maintained that it complied with international law in its treatment of Ethiopian POWs.
- A threshold dispute concerned applicable law: Eritrea argued it was not bound by the 1949 Geneva Conventions at the start of the conflict because it did not succeed automatically to Ethiopia’s treaty obligations after independence; Eritrea later acceded to the Conventions on Aug. 14, 2000.
- Ethiopia also advanced a claim concerning repatriation of POWs; Eritrea objected that this aspect was not timely filed under the Algiers Agreement’s one-year filing deadline.
- The award was a partial award addressing jurisdiction, applicable law, and liability. Compensation methodology and amounts were reserved for later proceedings, with Ethiopia proposing a mass-claims approach tied to the five permanent camps.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission had jurisdiction over Ethiopia’s POW-related allegations, including whether a repatriation claim was barred by the Algiers Agreement’s filing deadline.
2. Whether Eritrea was bound by the 1949 Geneva Conventions by succession from Ethiopia, and, if not, what POW protections applied before Eritrea’s Aug. 14, 2000 accession.
3. What standard of gravity the Commission would apply in an inter-State process (i.e., whether it would determine responsibility only for serious violations affecting multiple victims rather than isolated incidents).
4. Whether the evidence established Eritrea’s responsibility for frequent and recurring unlawful conduct in the evacuation, interrogation, detention, medical care, discipline/investigation of abuse, and POW labor categories.

## Decision

- The Commission held it had jurisdiction over claims concerning treatment of POWs during the period from the outbreak of hostilities in May 1998 until the Dec. 12, 2000 Algiers Agreement, but it lacked jurisdiction over Ethiopia’s repatriation claim because it was not filed by the Dec. 12, 2001 deadline; that claim was extinguished.
- The Commission rejected automatic succession to the Geneva Conventions by Eritrea in the circumstances and held Eritrea became bound by the Conventions only upon its Aug. 14, 2000 accession (and their entry into force between the Parties), while also holding that many relevant POW protections reflected customary international humanitarian law applicable throughout the conflict.
- The Commission interpreted its mandate as allowing findings of State responsibility only for serious violations affecting several victims—frequent and recurring violations—rather than isolated acts framed as individual criminal cases.
- Applying those standards, the Commission found Eritrea internationally responsible for multiple POW-treatment violations, including:
  - inhumane evacuation practices, including forcing POWs to walk barefoot during evacuations;
  - allowing coercive interrogations of POWs;
  - detention conditions and deficient basic medical care that seriously endangered POW health, with the high death rate, together with serious camp deficiencies, supporting a finding of failure to provide required basic care;
  - failure to conduct adequate inquiry and to impose discipline in response to abuse of POWs; and
  - forced labor imposed under harsh conditions on work not of a “military character,” including road construction and building camp facilities.
- The Commission declined to impose liability for hardships attributable to general wartime conditions where the evidence did not show unlawful treatment beyond conditions faced by Eritrea’s own forces or beyond what the law required in the circumstances.
- The Commission reserved questions of compensation and valuation for later phases.

## Legal Principles

- The Commission’s task is inter-State responsibility for violations of international obligations arising from the conflict; it does not determine individual criminal guilt.
- Under the Algiers Agreement and the Commission’s approach, liability is determined for serious violations affecting several victims, meaning violations shown to be frequent and recurring rather than isolated incidents.
- Eritrea did not automatically succeed to the 1949 Geneva Conventions upon separation from Ethiopia on the facts presented; Eritrea became a party by accession on Aug. 14, 2000. Nonetheless, customary international humanitarian law governing POW treatment applied throughout the conflict.
- Where a State contests that a specific Geneva Convention rule reflects customary law, the State bears the burden of supporting that denial in light of widespread acceptance and practice.
- POWs must be treated humanely, and the detaining power has a legal duty to keep POWs alive and in good health; basic medical care is required, and lack of money or infrastructure does not excuse failure to meet minimum obligations (even though circumstances may affect what care is feasible beyond the minimum).
- A high death rate, coupled with proven major deficiencies in detention conditions, can support an inference that basic medical care was not provided as required.
- For POW labor, the detaining power may require certain work, but compelling POWs to perform labor not of a military character—such as road construction or building camp facilities—particularly under harsh conditions, can breach applicable POW protections.
- States must take reasonable measures to prevent abuse of POWs and to investigate and discipline mistreatment; failure to inquire into and punish abuse can itself engage State responsibility.

## Conclusion

In this partial award, the Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission held that it could adjudicate Ethiopia’s allegations about Eritrea’s treatment of Ethiopian POWs during the May 1998–Dec. 12, 2000 conflict period, while dismissing as time-barred (and extinguished) Ethiopia’s separate repatriation claim. The Commission found Eritrea bound by customary POW protections throughout the conflict and by Geneva Convention III only after Eritrea’s Aug. 14, 2000 accession, and—applying a “serious, frequent and recurring” violations threshold—held Eritrea responsible for inhumane evacuations (including barefoot marches), coercive interrogations, detention conditions and medical neglect that endangered health and contributed to a high death rate, failures to investigate and discipline abuse, and forced labor on non-military tasks under harsh conditions, leaving compensation for later proceedings.


Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim 4 (Partial Award), 26 R.I.A.A. 73 (Eri.-Eth. Cl. Comm’n July 1, 2003).