• Copy the reference
  • Tutorial video
Source(s) of the individual document(s):

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), tribunal’s secretary

Judgment

1.
By a joint notification dated 11 December 1986, filed in the Registry of the Court the same day, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras and the Republic of El Salvador transmitted to the Registrar a certified copy of a Special Agreement in the Spanish language entitled "compromiso ENTRE HONDURAS Y EL SALVADOR PARA SOMETER A LA DECISION DE LA CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTICIA LA CONTROVERSIA FRONTERIZA TERRESTRE, INSULAR Y MARITIMA EXISTENTE ENTRE LOS DOS ESTADOS, SUSCRITO EN LA CIUDAD DE Esquipulas, republica de guatemala, el DIA 24 de mayo de 1986 ", and entering into force on 1 October 1986.
2.
The Parties provided the Chamber with a joint translation into English of this Special Agreement under cover of a letter dated 2 May 1991, received in the Registry on 8 May 1991. A French translation of the agreed English translation of the Special Agreement was prepared by the Registry.
3.
The Spanish text of the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986 was set out in the Judgment of the Chamber dated 13 September 1990 on the application of Nicaragua to intervene in the case (see paragraph 12 below). The agreed English translation of the Special Agreement is as follows :

"SPECIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN EL SALVADOR AND HONDURAS TO SUBMIT TO THE DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE THE LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY DISPUTE EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO STATES, SIGNED IN THE CITY OF ESQUIPULAS, REPUBLIC OF GUATEMALA, ON 24 MAY 1986.

The Government of the Republic of El Salvador and the Government of the Republic of Honduras,

Considering that on 30 October 1980, in the City of Lima, Peru, they signed the General Treaty of Peace, by means of which, inter alia, they delimited the land boundary of both Republics in those sectors where there did not exist any dispute;

Considering that within the period of time envisaged by Articles 19 and 31 of the General Treaty of Peace, of 30 October 1980, no direct agreement was reached regarding the differences relating to the existing boundaries in respect of the remaining land areas in dispute and relating to the juridical status of the islands and of the maritime spaces;

Have designated as their respective Plenipotentiaries, El Salvador its Minister of Foreign Affairs, Licenciado Rodolfo Antonio Castillo Claramount, and Honduras its Minister of Foreign Affairs, the lawyer Carlos López Contreras, who having found their Full Powers to be in good and appropriate form :

Agree the following :

Article 1

Constitution of a Chamber

1. In application of Article 34 of the General Treaty of Peace, signed on 30 October 1980, the Parties submit the issues mentioned in Article 2 of the present Special Agreement to a chamber of the International Court of Justice, composed of three members, with the consent of the Parties, who will express this in a joint form to the President of the Court, this agreement being essential for the formation of the chamber, which will be constituted in accordance with the procedures established in the Statute of the Court and in the present Special Agreement.

2. In addition the chamber will include two Judges ad hoc specially nominated one by El Salvador and the other by Honduras, who may have the nationality of the Parties.

Article 2

Subject of the Litigation

The Parties request the Chamber :

1. To delimit the boundary line in the zones or sections not described in Article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace of 30 October 1980.

2. To determine the legal situation of the islands and maritime spaces.

Article 3

Procedure

1. The Parties request the Chamber to authorize that the written proceedings shall consist of :

(a) a Memorial presented by each of the Parties not later than ten months after the notification of this Special Agreement to the Registry of the International Court of Justice;

(b) a Counter-Memorial presented by each of the Parties not later than ten months after the date on which each has received the certified copy of the Memorial of the other Party;

(c) a Reply presented by each of the Parties not later than ten months after the date on which each has received the certified copy of the CounterMemorial of the other Party ;

(d) the Court will be able to authorize or to prescribe the presentation of a Rejoinder, if the Parties so agree or if the Court decides ex officio or at the request of one of the Parties that this part of the proceedings is necessary.

2. The above-mentioned parts of the written proceedings and their annexes presented to the Registrar will not be transmitted to the other Party until the Registrar has received the part of the proceedings corresponding to the said Party.

3. The oral procedure, the notification of the appointment of the respective Agents of the Parties, and any other procedural questions will be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Statute and the Rules of the Court.

Article 4

Languages

The case will be heard in the English and French languages without distinction.

Article 5

Applicable Law

In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Chamber, when delivering its Judgment, will take into account the rules of international law applicable between the Parties, including, where pertinent, the provisions of the General Treaty of Peace.

Article 6

Execution of the Judgment

1. The Parties will execute the Judgment of the Chamber in its entirety and in complete good faith. To this end, the Special Demarcation Commission established by the Agreement of 11 February 1986 will begin the demarcation of the frontier line fixed by the Judgment not later than three months after the date of the said Judgment and will diligently continue its work until the demarcation is completed.

2. For this purpose, the procedures established in respect of this matter in the above-mentioned Agreement concerning the establishment of the Special Demarcation Commission will be applied.

Article 7

Entry into Force and Registration

1. This present Special Agreement will enter into force on 1 October 1986, once the constitutional requirements of each Party have been met.

2. It will be registered with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, jointly or by either of the Parties. At the same time it will be brought to the attention of the Organization of American States.

Article 8

Notification

1. In application of Article 40 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, this present Special Agreement will be notified to the Registrar of the same by a Joint Note of the Parties. This notification will be made before 31 December 1986.

2. If this notification is not made in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the present Special Agreement may be notified to the Registrar of the Court by either of the Parties within the period one month following the date established in the preceding paragraph.

In witness thereof, the undersigned sign the present Special Agreement in two copies in the City of Esquipulas, Republic of Guatemala, on the twenty-fourth day of May one thousand nine hundred and eighty-six."

4.
Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the joint notification and Special Agreement were transmitted by the Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Members of the United Nations and other States entitled to appear before the Court. On 30 July 1991, the Registrar also transmitted copies, through the same channel, of the English translation approved by the Parties and of the French translation, prepared by the Registry.
5.
The Parties, when duly consulted on 17 February 1987, pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, as to the composition of the chamber of the Court, confirmed what was said in the Special Agreement, that as regards the number of judges to constitute such chamber, they agreed, pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute, that that number be fixed at three judges with the addition of two judges ad hoc chosen by the Parties pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute.
6.
In March 1987 the Court was notified of the choice by El Salvador of Mr. Nicolas Valticos to sit as judge ad hoc in the chamber; in April 1987, the Court was notified of the choice by Honduras of Mr. Michel Virally to sit as judge ad hoc in the chamber.
7.
By an Order of 8 May 1987 the Court decided to accede to the request of the Parties to form a special chamber to deal with the case, and declared that at an election held on 4 May 1987 Judges Oda, Sette-Camara and Sir Robert Jennings had been elected to form, with the judges ad hoc referred to above, a chamber to deal with the case, and declared further such a chamber to have been duly constituted, with the following composition: Judges Oda, Sette-Camara and Sir Robert Jennings and Judges ad hoc Valticos and Virally. On 29 May 1987 the Chamber elected Judge Sette-Camara as its President, pursuant to Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.
8.
Judge ad hoc Virally died on 27 January 1989, and by a letter dated 8 February 1989 the Agent of Honduras informed the Court that his Government had chosen Mr. Santiago Torres Bernárdez to sit as judge ad hoc in his place. By an Order dated 13 December 1989 the Court declared the composition of the Chamber formed to deal with the case to be as follows: Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber; Judges Oda and Sir Robert Jennings; Judges ad hoc Valticos and Torres Bernárdez.
9.
By an Order dated 27 May 1987, the Court, taking into account Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Special Agreement, fixed the time-limit for Memorials, and by an Order dated 29 May 1987 the Chamber authorized the filing of CounterMemorials and Replies pursuant to Article 92, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, and fixed time-limits therefor.
10.
The Memorials were duly filed within the time-limit of 1 June 1988 fixed therefor. The time-limits for the remaining pleadings were, at the request of the Parties, extended by Orders made by the President of the Chamber on 12 January 1989 and 13 December 1989. The Counter-Memorials and the Replies were duly filed within the extended time-limits thus fixed, namely 10 February 1989 and 12 January 1990 respectively.
11.
Pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, requests by the Governments of Nicaragua and Colombia for the pleadings and annexed documents to be made available to them were granted, for Nicaragua on 15 June 1988, and for Colombia on 27 January 1989, and in each case after the views of the Parties had been ascertained.
12.
On 17 November 1989 the Republic of Nicaragua filed in the Registry of the Court an Application for permission to intervene in the case, which Application was stated to be made by virtue of Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 62 of the Statute of the Court. In that Application, the Government of Nicaragua contended that its request for permission to intervene, "not only because it is an incidental proceeding but also for... reasons of elemental equity (that of consent and that of the equality of States)", was "a matter exclusively within the procedural mandate of the full Court".
13.
By an Order dated 28 February 1990, the Court, after considering the written observations of the Parties on the question thus raised, whether the Application for permission to intervene was to be decided upon by the full Court or by the Chamber, and the observations of Nicaragua in response to those observations found that it was for the Chamber formed to deal with the present case to decide whether the Application by Nicaragua for permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute should be granted.
14.
Pursuant to Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the two Parties on 5 March 1990 submitted written observations on the Application for permission to intervene filed by Nicaragua on 17 November 1989; since in the observations of El Salvador objection was made to the Application for permission to intervene, public sittings were held, pursuant to Article 84, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, in order to hear the State seeking to intervene and the Parties, on 5, 6, 7 and 8 June 1990.
15.
By a Judgment delivered on 13 September 1990 the Chamber found that Nicaragua had shown that it had an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by part of the Judgment of the Chamber on the merits in the present case, namely its decision on the legal régime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca, but not by its decision on other issues in dispute, and decided that Nicaragua was permitted to intervene in the case, but not as a party, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute, to the extent, in the manner and for the purposes therein indicated, but not further or otherwise.
16.
Since the Application for permission to intervene submitted by Nicaragua had to that extent been granted by the Chamber, in accordance with Article 85 of the Rules of Court, that State submitted a written statement and the Parties filed written observations thereon. The written statement of Nicaragua and the written observations of the Parties thereon were filed within the timelimits fixed by the President of the Chamber.
17.
The President of the Chamber fixed 15 April 1991 as the time-limit for the opening of the oral proceedings in the case. Following consultations with the representatives of the Parties on 21 February 1991, it was decided that the Parties would present their arguments successively on each of the following aspects of the dispute: (a) the whole of the general question; (b) each of the six sectors of the land frontier; (c) the islands and maritime spaces. Following a meeting held, after the opening of the oral proceedings, between the President of the Chamber and the Agents of the Parties and of the intervening State, it was agreed that, after the Parties had presented their arguments on the legal régime of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca, Nicaragua would address this question and could, after the Parties had presented their views on the whole of the maritime aspects of the dispute, make a final statement on the legal régime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca.
18.
In the course of 50 public sittings, held from 15 April to 14June 1991,the Chamber was addressed by the following representatives of the Parties and Nicaragua:

For the Republic of Honduras: H.E. Mr. Ramôn Valladares Soto,

Mr. Paul De Visscher,

Mr. Alejandro Nieto,

Mr. Daniel Bardonnet,

Mr. Luis Ignacio Sanchez Rodriguez,

Mr. Julio González Campos,

Mr. René-Jean Dupuy,

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy,

Mr. Derek Bowett, Q.C.

For the Republic of El Salvador: H.E. Mr. José Manuel Pacas Castro,

H.E. Mr. Alfredo Martinez Moreno,

Mr. Prosper Weil,

Mr. Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga,

Mr. Anthony J. Oakley,

Mr. Keith Highet,

Mr. Francisco Roberto Lima,

Mr. Elihu Lauterpacht, Q.C.

For the Republic of Nicaragua : H.E. Mr. Carlos Argüello Gômez,

Mr. Ian Brownlie, Q.C.,

H.E. Mr. Enrique Dreyfus Morales.

19.
In accordance with Article 53, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed would be made accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings.
20.
On 12 April 1991 the Republic of El Salvador indicated, in accordance with Article 57 of the Rules of Court, that it intended to call Mr. Heriberto Avilés Dominguez, of Salvadorian nationality, as a witness and provided particulars identifying him. Additional information concerning Mr. Avilés Dominguez was communicated subsequently by El Salvador, at the request of the Agent of Honduras. At a public sitting held on 29 May 1991 Mr. Avilés Dominguez gave evidence, in Spanish, and in accordance with Article 39, paragraph 3, of the Statute and Article 70, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, El Salvador made the necessary arrangements for the statement of its witness to be interpreted. The examination-in-chief of the Salvadorian witness was conducted by Mr. Highet and the cross-examination by Mr. Sánchez Rodriguez.
21.
In the course of the oral proceedings, a number of new documents were submitted by each of the Parties in accordance with Article 56, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court. Prior to the close of the oral proceedings El Salvador announced its intention of submitting to the Chamber certain additional documents which had been referred to, but not included, in a dossier of documents concerning the island dispute (referred to as the "Meanguera dossier") submitted by El Salvador during the oral proceedings. These additional documents were transmitted to the Chamber under cover of a letter from the Agent of El Salvador dated 5 September 1991. The President of the Chamber, while noting that the submission of further documents to the Court after the closure of the written proceedings was not a normal part of the procedure, took the view that it was appropriate to apply to them, by extension and mutatis mutandis, the provision of Article 56 of the Rules. A set of copies of the documents was therefore transmitted to Honduras, which objected to the admission of the additional documents submitted by El Salvador. After examining the question the Chamber decided not to authorize the submission of those documents and informed the Parties of its decision to that effect.
22.
At the hearings of 27 May 1991 and 14 June 1991, El Salvador requested that the Chamber consider exercising its functions pursuant to Article 66 of the Rules of Court with regard to the obtaining of evidence in situ in the disputed areas of the land frontier, and indicated also that El Salvador would welcome any order by the Chamber pursuant to Article 67 of the Rules, arranging for an enquiry or an expert opinion on these matters. At the closure of the oral proceedings, the President of the Chamber stated that the Chamber considered that it was not yet in a position to reach a decision on whether it would be appropriate in the case to exercise its powers under Articles 66 and 67 of the Rules of Court, and would announce its decision in due course. After deliberation, the Chamber decided that it did not consider it necessary to exercise its functions with regard to the obtaining of evidence, as contemplated by Article 66 of the Rules of Court, in the disputed areas of the land frontier, as suggested by El Salvador, nor did it consider it necessary to exercise its powers to arrange for an enquiry or expert opinion in the case.
23.
In the course of the written proceedings the following submissions were presented by the Parties :

On behalf of the Republic of El Salvador,

in the Memorial :

"I. Delimitation of the Land Frontier

The Government of El Salvador requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice to delimit the land frontier in the disputed areas between El Salvador and Honduras on the basis of :

1. The rights resulting from the titles to commons owned in favour of El Salvador and the effective sovereignty that El Salvador has exercised and exercises in those disputed areas in accordance with the evidence which has been submitted in the annexes of the present Memorial. The precise delimitation of the areas which, in accordance with the above are subject to its sovereignty are set out as follows

In the Memorial, here follow references to the specific paragraphs of the Memorial setting out the argument of El Salvador on each of the six sectors of the land boundary. The Memorial also contains a "Conclusion" specifying the detailed course of the line, the terms of which were repeated in the Annexes to the final submissions of El Salvador at the close of the oral proceedings (see below).

"2. The addition to the areas thus attributed to El Salvador of those areas of Crown Lands (tierras realengas) lying between the Common Lands of El Salvador and Honduras respectively that are properly attributed to El Salvador after a comparison of the grants of Common Lands made by the Spanish Crown and authorities in favour of the Provinces of San Salvador and of Comayagua and Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

II. The Juridical Position of the Islands

The Government of El Salvador requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice : To determine, on the basis of long-established possession and/or of the titles granted by the Spanish Crown, that El Salvador has and had sovereignty over all the islands in the Gulf of Fonseca, with the exception of the Island of Zacate Grande which can be considered as forming part of the coast of Honduras.

III. The Juridical Position of the Maritime Spaces

The Government of El Salvador requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice to determine the juridical position of the maritime spaces as follows;

A. Within the Gulf of Fonseca

The juridical position of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca corresponds to the juridical position established by the Judgement of the Central American Court of Justice rendered 9 March 1917, as accepted and applied thereafter.

B. Outside of the Gulf of Fonseca

As regards the juridical position beyond the closing line of the Gulf of Fonseca, the Government of El Salvador is unaware of the precise nature and extent of the claim, if any, of the Government of Honduras and must, therefore reserve its position. However El Salvador maintains that in principle, as Honduras has no coast on the Pacific Ocean, it has no rights in that ocean other than those possessed therein by any other non-littoral State."

in the Counter-Memorial :

" I. Delimitation of the Land Frontier

1. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial that the Chamber delimit the land frontier between El Salvador and Honduras in the disputed sectors in accordance with the line indicated in the submissions contained in the Memorial of El Salvador.

2. In addition to the arguments set out in the Memorial of El Salvador, the Government of El Salvador has proven :

(i) that the land boundaries defined by the Formal Title-Deeds to the Commons of the indigenous communities (which include the Royal Landholdings within the same jurisdictions) presented by El Salvador are absolutely identical with the international frontiers of the territory of each State ;

(ii) that El Salvador has completely established in its Memorial and in this Counter-Memorial that the Formal Title-Deeds to Commons which support the claims of El Salvador were executed by the Spanish Crown in accordance with all the necessary judicial procedures and requirements and, consequently, these Formal Title-Deeds to Commons form the fundamental basis of the uti possidetis juris in that they indicate jurisdictional boundaries, that is to say the boundaries of territories and settlements ;

(iii) that Honduras has presented Title-Deeds to private proprietary interests which in no case either permitted the exercise of administrative control or implied the exercise of acts of sovereignty;

(iv) that the majority of the Title-Deeds presented by Honduras relate to lands which are situated either outside the disputed sectors or in sectors which have already been delimited by the General Peace Treaty of 1980.

II. The Juridical Status of the Islands

3. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial in view of the fact that in Chapters V and VI of this Counter-Memorial it has rebutted the arguments contained in the Memorial of Honduras.

4. In addition to the arguments set out in the Memorial of El Salvador, the Government of El Salvador has proven :

(i) that in 1804 none of the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca was assigned to the Bishopric of Comayagua and that, even when the ‘Alcaldía Mayor’ of Tegucigalpa was incorporated to the intendency and Government of Comayagua subsequently to 1821, neither this ‘Alcaldía ’ nor the Bishopric of Comayagua ever exercised either civil or ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca during the colonial period and thus it was the colonial Province of San Salvador, through San Miguel, that exercised both civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca ;

(ii) that the colonial Province of Honduras, when it was constituted, did not have any coast on the Pacific Ocean ;

(iii) that the Reales Cédulas (Royal Decrees) of 1563 and 1564 left the Gulf of Fonseca within the jurisdiction of the Captain-General of Guatemala and, more specifically, in the jurisdiction of San Miguel in the colonial Province of San Salvador;

(iv) that when the Spanish Crown established jurisdiction over islands, it did so by means of a Real Cédula (as in the case of islands of Guanajas on the Atlantic coast of Honduras) and no such Real Cédula was ever executed in favour of Honduras in respect of the Islands of the Gulf of Fonseca.

III. The Juridical Status of the Maritime Spaces

5. The Government of El Salvador petitions the Chamber of the International Court of Justice that it determine the juridical status of the maritime spaces in the following manner:

(i) that, in view of the Principles of the Law of the Sea, it apply within the Gulf of Fonseca the juridical status established by the decision of the Central American Court of Justice handed down on 9 March 1917 ;

(ii) that, in accordance with the Special Agreement between El Salvador and Honduras, it decide that it has no jurisdiction to delimit the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca;

(iii) that it decline to delimit the maritime spaces outside the Gulf of Fonseca in the Pacific Ocean beyond the closing line of the Gulf on the grounds that its jurisdiction is limited to determining the juridical status of these maritime spaces;

(iv) that it determine that the rights and the jurisdiction over the waters and maritime spaces (including the natural resources therein) of the Pacific Ocean beyond the closing line of the Gulf of Fonseca are exerciseable exclusively by El Salvador and Nicaragua on the grounds that such rights arise from the relevant coasts which these two States have on the Pacific Ocean" ;

in the Reply:

Delimitation of the Land Frontier

1. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial that the Chamber delimit the land frontier between El Salvador and Honduras in the disputed sectors in accordance with the line indicated in the submissions contained in the Memorial. This petition was ratified in the Counter-Memorial of El Salvador, which rebutted the arguments contained in the Memorial of Honduras, and is now ratified again in view of the fact that in Chapters II, III and IV of this Reply El Salvador has rebutted the arguments contained in the Counter-Memorial of Honduras.

II. The Juridical Status of the Islands

2. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the petition to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Memorial as to the juridical status of the islands. This petition was ratified in the CounterMemorial of El Salvador, which rebutted the arguments contained in the Memorial of Honduras, and is now ratified again in view of the fact that in Chapter V of this Reply El Salvador has rebutted the arguments contained in the Counter-Memorial of Honduras.

III. The Juridical Status of the Maritime Spaces

3. The Government of El Salvador ratifies the position to the Chamber of the International Court of Justice contained in its Counter-Memorial as to the juridical status of the maritime spaces in view of the fact that in Chapter VI of this Reply El Salvador has rebutted the arguments contained in the Counter-Memorial of Honduras."

On behalf of the Republic of Honduras,

in the Memorial and in the Counter-Memorial (identical texts):

"In view of the facts and arguments set out above, the Government of the Republic of Honduras confirms and reiterates the submissions of its Memorial and asks that it may please the Court :

A. With respect to the land frontier dispute:

— to adjudge and declare that the course of the frontier between El Salvador and Honduras is constituted by the following line in the areas or sections not described in Article 16 of the General Peace Treaty of 30 October 1980:

1. Section of the land frontier lying between the point known as El Trifinio, at the summit of the Cerro Montecristo, and the summit of the Cerro del Zapotal. From the summit of the Cerro Montecristo (latitude 14° 25'20" N and longitude 89° 21'28" W), the tripoint between Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, running south-east to the northernmost source of the San Miguel Ingenio or Taguilapa river (14° 24' 00" N and 89° 20' 10" W), known as the Chicotera, thereafter running downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to the ford on the road from Citalá to Metapan (14° 20'55" N and 89° 19' 33" W) at Las Cruces. From the preceding point eastwards, in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the river Jupula with the river Lempa (14° 21'06" N and 89° 13' 10" W), the said line passing through the place known as El Cobre, and from that confluence in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Zapotal (14° 23'26" N and 89° 14'43" W).

2. Section of the land frontier lying between the Cayaguanca rock and the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura stream with the Sumpul

river. From the Cayaguancarock(14° 21' 55" N and 89° 10'05" W), in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura mountain stream with the river Sumpul (14° 20'25" N and 89° 04' 57" W).

3. Section of the land frontier lying between the Pacacio boundary marker and the boundary marker known as Poza del Cajón. From the Pacacio boundary marker (14° 06'28" N and 88° 49'20" W), on the river of the same name, in a straight line as far as the confluence of the La Puerta stream with the Gualcinga river (14° 06'24" N and 88° 47' 04" W) and from there downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to arrive at the Poza del Toro boundary marker (14° 04' 14" N and 88° 47' 00" W), at the confluence of the river Gualcinga with the river Sazalapa, on La Lagartera, thence following the said river upstream along the middle of the bed to the Poza de la Golondrina boundary marker (14° 06' 55" N and 88° 44' 32" W); from this point in a straight line as far as the La Cañada, Guanacaste or Platanar boundary marker (14° 06'04" N and 88° 43'52" W) and from that boundary marker in a straight line to the El Portillo boundary marker on the Cerro del Tambor (14° 04' 47" N and 88° 44' 06" W), also known as Portillo de El Sapo ; from that boundary marker in a straight line as far as the Guaupa boundary marker (14° 04' 33" N and 88° 44' 40" W), passing over the El Sapo hill ; thence in a straight line to the summit of the Loma Redonda (14° 03'46" N and 88° 44'35" W); from the Loma Redonda in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Ocotillo or Gualcimaca (14° 03' 25" N and 88° 44' 22" W), passing over the Cerro del Caracol. From the El Ocotillo boundary marker, in a straight line, as far as the La Barranca or Barranco Blanco boundary marker (14° 02' 55" N and 88° 43' 27" W); from there to the Cerro de la Boisa (14° 02' 05" N and 88° 42' 40" W); and from that place, in a straight line, to the Poza del Cajón boundary marker (14° 01'28" N and 88° 41' 10" W) on the river Amatillo or Gualcuquín.

4. Section of the land frontier lying between the source of the La Orilla stream and the boundary marker known as the Malpaso de Similatón. From the source of the mountain stream called La Orilla (13° 53'50" N and 88° 20'30" W) to the pass of El Jobo (13° 53'40" N and 88° 20' 25" W), at the foot of the mountain known as El Volcancillo; from there to the southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda (13° 53'46" N and 88° 20'00" W), following its course downstream along the middle of the bed to the Champate boundary marker (13° 53' 20" N and 88° 19' 02" W) as far as its confluence with the river Canas or Santa Ana, thence following the camino real, by way of the boundary markers of Portillo Blanco (13° 53'40" Nand 88° 18'24" W), Obrajito (13° 53' 50" N and 88° 17' 28" W), Laguna Seca (13° 54' 03" N and 88° 16'46" W), Amatillo (13° 54'28" N and 88° 15'42" W), Picacho or Quecruz (13° 55'59" N and 88° 14'42" W), Esquinero or Sirin (13° 56'55" N and 88° 13'10" W), El Carrizal (13° 57'20" N and 88° 11'35" W); thence, still following the camino real, as far as the point where this road crosses the river Negro (13° 59'36" N and 88° 12' 35" W) ; thence, following the river Negro upstream, as far as the Las Pilas boundary marker at the source of that same river (14° 00' 00" N and 88° 06' 30" W), and from that place to the Malpaso de Similatón (13° 59' 28" N and 88° 04' 21 " W).

5. Section of the land frontier lying between the point where the river Torola is joined by the Manzupucagua stream and the ford known as Paso de Unire. From the confluence of the Manzupucagua mountain stream with the Torola river (13° 54' 00" N and 87° 54' 30" W), following the river Torola upstream along the middle of the bed to its source, the mountain stream known as La Guacamaya (13° 53'30" N and 87° 48'22" W); from this point, in a straight line, to the pass of La Guacamaya (13° 53' 20" N and 87° 48' 19" W); thence in a straight line to a point on the river Unire (13° 52'37" N and 87° 47'04" W), close to the place known as El Coyolar, and from there, following the Unire river downstream, as far as the Paso de Unire or Limon ford (13° 52' 07" N and 87° 46' 00" W), on the said river.

6. Section of the land frontier lying between Los Amates and the Gulf of Fonseca. From the point known as Los Amates on the river Goascorán (13° 26'28" N and 87° 43'20" W), following the said river downstream along the middle of the bed by way of the Rincon de Muruhuaca and Barrancones, as far as its mouth to the north-west of the Ramaditas islands (13° 24' 26" N and 87° 49' 05" W) in the Bay of La Union.

B. With respect to the island dispute:

— to declare that the Republic of Honduras has sovereignty over the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita.

C. With respect to the maritime dispute:

(1) Concerning the zone subject to delimitation within the Gulf:

— to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras by reason of their both being coastal States bordering on an enclosed historic bay produces between them a perfect equality of rights, which has nevertheless never been transformed by the same States into a condominium;

— to adjudge and declare, therefore, that each of the two States is entitled to exercise its powers within zones to be precisely delimited between El Salvador and Honduras ;

— to adjudge and declare that the course of the line delimiting the zones falling, within the Gulf, under the jurisdiction of Honduras and El Salvador respectively, taking into account all the relevant circumstances for the purpose of arriving at an equitable solution, shall be defined as follows:

(a) the line equidistant from the low-water line of the mainland and island coasts of the two States, starting within the Bay of La Union, from the mouth of the Rio Goascorán (latitude 13° 24'26" N and longitude 87° 49'05" W) and extending to the point situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the Salvadorian island of Conchaguita and from the Honduran island of Meanguera, to the south of the first and to the west of the second ;

(b) from that point, the line joining points situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the island of Conchaguita, running to the south of that island up to a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the mainland coast of El Salvador;

(c) from that point onwards, the line joining points situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the Salvadorian coast as far as the point where it meets the closing line of the Gulf (see illustrative Chart C.5);

— to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras as coastal States bordering on the Gulf implies an equal right for both to exercise their jurisdictions over maritime areas situated beyond the closing line of the Gulf.

(2) Concerning the zone outside the Gulf ;

— to adjudge and declare that the delimitation line productive of an equitable solution, when account is taken of all the relevant circumstances, is represented by a line drawn on a bearing of 215.5°, starting from the closing line of the Gulf at a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast of El Salvador, and running out 200 nautical miles from that point, thus delimiting the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of El Salvador and Honduras (see illustrative Chart C.6)";

in the Reply:

"In view of the facts and arguments set out above, the Government of the

Republic of Honduras asks that it may please the Court :

A. With respect to the land frontier dispute:

— to adjudge and declare that the course of the frontier between El Salvador and Honduras is constituted by the following line in the areas or sections not described in Article 16 of the General Peace Treaty of 30 October 1980:

1. Section of the land frontier lying between the point known as El Trifinio, at the summit of the Cerro Montecristo, and the summit of the Cerro del Zapotal. From the summit of the Cerro Montecristo (latitude 14° 25'20" N and longitude 89° 21'28" W), the tripoint between Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, running south-east to the northernmost source of the San Miguel Ingenio or Taguilapa river (14° 24'00" N and 89° 20' 10" W), known as the Chicotera, thereafter running downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to the ford on the road from Citalá to Metapan (14° 20'55" N and 89° 19' 33" W) at Las Cruces. From the preceding point eastwards, in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the river Jupula with the river Lempa (14° 21'06" N and 89° 13' 10" W), the said line passing through the place known as El Cobre, and from that confluence in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro Zapotal (14° 23' 26" N and 89° 14' 43" W).

2. Section of the land frontier lying between the Cayaguanca rock and the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura stream with the Sumpul river. From the Cayaguanca rock (14° 21'55" N and 89° 10'05" W), in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura mountain stream with the river Sumpul (14° 20' 25" N and 89° 04' 57" W).

3. Section of the land frontier lying between the Pacacio boundary marker and the boundary marker known as Poza del Cajón. From the Pacacio boundary marker (14° 06'28" N and 88° 49'20" W), on the river of the same name, in a straight line as far as the confluence of the La Puerta stream with the Gualcinga river (14° 06'24" N and 88° 47' 04" W) and from there downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to arrive at the Poza del Toro boundary marker (14° 04' 14" N and 88° 47' 00" W), at the confluence of the river Gualcinga with the river Sazalapa, on La Lagartera, thence following the said river upstream along the middle of the bed to the Poza de la Golondrina boundary marker (14° 06' 55" N and 88° 44' 32" W); from this point in a straight line as far as the La Cañada, Guanacaste or Platanar boundary marker (14° 06'04" N and 88° 43'52" W) and from that boundary marker in a straight line to the El Portillo boundary marker on the Cerro del Tambor (14° 04' 47" N and 88° 44' 06" W), also known as Portillo de El Sapo ; from that boundary marker in a straight line as far as the Guaupa boundary' marker (14° 04' 33" N and 88° 44' 40" W), passing over the El Sapo hill ; thence in a straight line to the summit of the Loma Redonda (14° 03' 46" N and 88° 44' 35" W); from the Loma Redonda in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Ocotillo or Gualcimaca (14° 03' 25" N and 88° 44' 22" W), passing over the Cerro del Caracol. From the El Ocotillo boundary marker, in a straight line, as far as the La Barranca or Barranco Blanco boundary marker (14° 02'55" N and 88° 43'27" W); from there to the Cerro de la Bolsa (14° 02' 05" N and 88° 42' 40" W); and from that place, in a straight line, to the Poza del Cajón boundary marker (14° 01'28" N and 88° 41' 10" W) on the river Amatillo or Gualcuquín.

4. Section of the land frontier lying between the source of the La Orilla stream and the boundary marker known as the Malpaso de Similatón. From the source of the mountain stream called La Orilla (13° 53'50" N and 88° 20'30" W) to the pass of El Jobo (13° 53'40" N and 88° 20'25" W), at the foot of the mountain known as El Volcancillo ; from there to the southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda (13° 53'46" N and 88° 20'00" W), following its course downstream along the middle of the bed to the Champate boundary marker (13° 53' 20" N and 88° 19' 02" W) as far as its confluence with the river Canas or Santa Ana, thence following the camino real, by way of the boundary markers of Portillo Blanco (13° 53'40" N and 88° 18'24" W), Obrajito (13° 53'50" Nand 88° 17'28" W), Laguna Seca (13° 54'03" N and 88° 16'46" W), Amatillo or Las Tijeretas (13° 54'28" N and 88° 15'42" W), and from there, in a northerly direction, as far as the point at which the river Las Canas joins the mountain stream known as Masire or Las Tijeretas (13° 55'03" N and 88° 15'45" W); thence, taking a north-easterly direction, it follows its course upstream as far as the road from Torola to Colomoncagua and continues in the same direction as far as the Cerro La Cruz, Quecruz or El Picacho (13° 55' 59" N and 88° 13' 10" W); thence, to the Monte Redondo, Esquinero or Sirin boundary marker (13° 56' 55" N and 88° 13' 10" W) and from there to the El Carrisal or Soropay marker (13°57'41" N and 88° 12'52" W); from there it runs in a northerly direction to the Cerro del Ocote or hill of Guiriri (13° 59'00" N and 88° 12'55" W), and thence, in the same direction, to the marker of El Rincon, on the river Negro, Quiaguara or El Palmar (13° 59' 53" N and 88° 12' 59" W); thence, following the river Negro upstream, as far as the Las Pilas boundary marker at the source of that same river(14°00' 00" N and 88°06'30" W), and from that place to the Malpaso de Similatón (13° 59' 28" N and 88° 04' 21" W).

5. Section of the land frontier lying between the point where the river Torola is joined by the Manzupucagua stream and the ford known as Paso de Unire, From the confluence of the Manzupucagua mountain stream with the Torola river (13° 54' 00" N and 87° 54' 30" W), following the river Torola upstream along the middle of its bed to its source, the mountain stream known as La Guacamaya (13° 53'30" N and 87° 48'22" W); from this point, in a straight line, to the pass of La Guacamaya (13° 53' 20" N and 87° 48' 19" W); thence in a straight line to a point on the river Unire (13° 52'37" N and 87° 47'04" W), close to the place known as El Coyolar, and from there, following the Unire river downstream, as far as the Paso de Unire or Limon ford (13° 52' 07" N and 87° 46' 00" W), on the said river.

6. Section of the land frontier lying between Los Amates and the Gulf of Fonseca. From the point known as Los Amates on the river Goascorán (13° 26' 28" N and 87° 43' 20" W), following the said river downstream along the middle of the bed by way of the Rincon de Muruhuaca and Barrancones, as far as its mouth to the north-west of the Ramaditas islands (13° 24'26" N and 87° 49'05" W) in the Bay of La Union.

— to reject the submissions of the Government of El Salvador including those set forth in item I, paragraph 2, of the submissions of the Counter-Memorial and that relate to the delimitation of the land frontier;

B. With respect to the island dispute:

— to declare that only the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita are in dispute between the Parties and that the Republic of Honduras has sovereignty over them.

C. With respect to the maritime dispute:

(1) Concerning the zone subject to delimitation within the Gulf :

— to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras by reason of their both being coastal States bordering on an enclosed historic bay produces between them a perfect equality of rights, which has nevertheless never been transformed by the same States into a condominium ;

— to adjudge and declare, therefore, that each of the two States is entitled to exercise its powers within zones to be precisely delimited between El Salvador and Honduras;

— to adjudge and declare that the course of the line delimiting the zones falling, within the Gulf, under the jurisdiction of Honduras and El Salvador respectively, taking into account all the relevant circumstances for the purpose of arriving at an equitable solution, shall be defined as follows:

(a) the line equidistant from the low-water line of the mainland and island coasts of the two States, starting within the Bay of La Union, from the mouth of the Rio Goascorán (latitude 13° 24'26" N and longitude 87° 49'05" W) and extending to the point situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the Salvadorian island of Conchaguita and from the Honduran island of Meanguera, to the south of the first and to the west of the second ;

(b) from that point, the line joining points situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the island of Conchaguita, running to the south of that island up to a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the mainland coast of El Salvador;

(c) from that point onwards, the line joining points situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the Salvadorian coast as far as the point where it meets the closing line of the Gulf (see illustrative chart C.5);

— to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras as coastal States bordering on the Gulf implies an equal right for both to exercise their jurisdictions over maritime areas situated beyond the closing line of the Gulf ;

(2) Concerning the zone outside the Gulf :

— to adjudge and declare that the delimitation line productive of an equitable solution, when account is taken of all the relevant circumstances, is represented by a line drawn on a bearing of 215.5°, starting from the closing line of the Gulf at a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast of El Salvador, and running out 200 nautical miles from that point, thus delimiting the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of El Salvador and Honduras (see illustrative Chart C.6 in the Memorial of Honduras)."

24.
In the course of the oral proceedings the following submissions were presented by the Parties :

On behalf of the Republic of El Salvador:

"The Government of El Salvador respectfully requests the Chamber of the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare that:

A. Concerning the delimitation of the land frontier

The line of the frontier in the zones or sectors not described in Article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace of 30 October 1980, is as follows :

(i) in the disputed sector of Tepangüisir, in accordance with paragraph 6.69 and map 6.7 of the Memorial of El Salvador as set forth in Annex I to these submissions ;

(ii) in the disputed sector of Las Pilas or Cayaguanca, in accordance with paragraph 6.70 and map 6.8 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex II to these submissions;

(iii) in the disputed sector of Arcatao or Zazalapa, in accordance with paragraph 6.71 and map 6.9 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex III to these submissions;

(iv) in the disputed sector of Nahuaterique, in accordance with paragraph 6.72 and map 6.10 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex IV to these submissions;

(v) in the disputed sector of Polorós, in accordance with paragraph 6.73 and map 6.11 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex V to these submissions ; and

(vi) in the disputed sector of the Estuary of the Goascoran river, in accordance with paragraph 6.74 and map 6.12 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex VI to these submissions.

B. Concerning the legal situation of the islands

The sovereignty over all the islands within the Gulf of Fonseca, and, in particular, over the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita, belongs to El Salvador, with the exception of the island of Zacate Grande and the Farallones islands.

C. Concerning the determination of the legal situation of the maritime spaces

1. The Chamber has no jurisdiction to effect any delimitation of the maritime spaces.

2. The legal situation of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca corresponds to the legal position established by the Judgement of the Central American Court of Justice of 9 March 1917.

3. The legal situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf of Fonseca is that:

(a) Honduras has no sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction in or over them; and

(b) the only States which have sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction in or over them are States with coasts that directly front on the Pacific Ocean, of which El Salvador is one."

"Annexes referred to in final submissions of El Salvador ANNEX I

TEPANGUISIR

Starting from the summit of the peak known as the Cerro Zapotal or

Chiporro situated at latitude 14° 23' 26" N and longitude 89° 14' 43" W, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 71° 27' 20" W for a distance of 3,530 metres as far as the peak known as the Cerro Piedra Menuda situated at latitude 14° 24'02" N and longitude 89° 16'35" W. From this peak, it continues in the direction N 57° 19' 33" W for a distance of 2,951 metres as far as the boundary marker known as the Mojón del Talquezalar on the river known as the Pomola situated at latitude 14° 24' 54" N and longitude 89° 17' 58" W. From this boundary marker, the frontier follows the course of the Pomola river upstream for a distance of 875 metres as far as the confluence of the streams known as the Pomola and Cipresales situated at latitude 14° 24'45" N and longitude 89° 18'21" W. From this confluence, the frontier follows the course of the Pomola stream upstream for a distance of 4,625 metres as far as its source situated at latitude 14° 26'05" N and longitude 89° 20' 12" W. From this source, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 51° 35' 00" W for a distance of 2,700 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro Montecristo situated at latitude 14° 25' 10,784" N and longitude 89° 21' 21,568" W.

ANNEX II

LAS PILAS OR CAYAGUANCA

Starting from the confluence of the stream known as the Oscura or the Chiquita with the river known as the Sumpul situated at latitude 14° 20' 26" N and longitude 89° 04' 58" W, the frontier follows the course of the Sumpul river upstream for a distance of 10,500 metres as far as its source situated at latitude 14° 24' 17" N and longitude 89° 06' 45" W. From this source, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 53° 46' 31" W for a distance of 7,404 metres as far as the peak known as the Peña de Cayaguanca situated at latitude 14° 21'54" N and longitude 89° 10'04" W.

ANNEX III

ARCATAO OR ZAZALAPA

Starting from the boundary marker known as the Mojón Poza del Cajón on the river known as the Guayquiquin, Gulacuquín or El Amatillo situated at latitude 14° 01'28" N and longitude 88° 41' 09" W, the frontier follows the said river upstream for a distance of 5,000 metres as far as its source situated at latitude 14° 02' 45" N and longitude 88° 42' 33" W. From this source, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 18° 21' 16" W for a distance of 9,853 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Fraile situated at latitude 14° 07'49" N and longitude 88° 44' 16" W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 60° 30' W for a distance of 7,550 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro La Pintal situated at latitude 14° 09' 49" N and longitude 88° 47' 55 " W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 21° 30' W for a distance of 2,830 metres as far as the source of the stream or river known as the Pacacio situated at latitude 14° 08'23" N and longitude 88° 48'30" W. From this source, the frontier follows the course of the Pacacio stream or river downstream for a distance of 5,125 metres as far as a point on the said Pacacio stream or river situated at latitude 14° 06'27" N and longitude 88° 49' 18" W.

ANNEX IV

NAHUATER1QUE

Starting from the boundary marker known as the Mojón Mal Paso de Similatón situated at latitude 14° 00'53" N and longitude 88° 03'54" W, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 3° W for a distance of 3,000 metres as far as the boundary marker known as the Antiguo

Mojón de la Loma situated at latitude 14° 02'32" N and longitude 88° 03' 59" W. From this boundary marker, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 31° 30' W for a distance of 2,780 metres as far as the mountain known as the Montana de la Isla situated at latitude 14° 03' 49" N and longitude 88° 04' 47" W. From this mountain, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 89° 40' 02" W for a distance of 7,059 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro La Ardilla situated at latitude 14° 03'51" N and longitude 88° 08'43" W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 78° 35' 13" W for a distance of 6,833 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Alumbrador situated at latitude 14° 03' 08" N and longitude 88° 12'26 " W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 18° 13' 36" W for a distance of 4,222 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro Chagualaca or Marquezote situated at latitude 14° 00' 57" N and longitude 88° 13' 11" W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 66° 45' W for a distance of 2,650 metres as far as an elbow of the river known as the Negro situated at latitude 14° 00'22" N and longitude 88° 14'31" W. From this elbow of this river, it follows the course of the Negro river upstream for a distance of 1,800 metres as far as the confluence with it of the river known as the La Presa, Las Flores or Pichigual situated at latitude 13° 59' 38" N and longitude 88° 14' 16" W. From this confluence, the frontier follows the course of the La Presa, Las Flores or Pichigual river upstream for a distance of 4,300 metres as far as a boundary marker situated on its course at latitude 13° 57' 44" N and longitude 88° 13' 49" W. From this boundary marker, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 22° 40' W for a distance of 2,170 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Alguacil situated at latitude 13° 56' 21" N and longitude 88° 14' 16" W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 73° 14' 11" W for a distance of 1,881 metres as far as an elbow of the river known as the Las Canas or Yuquina situated at latitude 13°56'21" N and longitude 88° 15' 16" W. From this elbow of this river, the frontier follows the course of the de Las Canas or Yuquina river downstream for a distance of 12,000 metres as far as the place known as the Cajón de Champate situated on its course at latitude 13° 53'33" N and longitude 88° 19'00" W. From this place, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 71° 02' 22" W for a distance of 2,321 metres as far as the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Volcancillo situated at latitude 13° 53' 58" N and longitude 88° 20' 13" W. From this point, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 60° 25' 12" W for a distance of 930 metres as far as the source of the stream known as the La Orilla situated at latitude 13° 53' 43" N and longitude 88° 20' 38" W.

ANNEX V

Polorós

Starting from the place known as the Paso de Unire situated on the river known as the Unire, Guajiniquil or Pescado at latitude 13° 52' 10" N and longitude 87° 46' 02" W, the frontier follows the course of the Unire, Guajiniquil or Pescado river upstream for a distance of 8,800 metres as far as its source situated at latitude 13° 55' 16" N and longitude 87° 47' 58" W.

From this source, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction N 56° 23' 13" W for a distance of 4,179 metres as far as the peak known as the Cerro Ribitá situated at latitude 13° 56' 32" N and longitude 87° 49' 54" W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 87° 02' 24" W for a distance of 6,241 metres as far as the peak known as the Cerro López situated at latitude 13° 56’ 23" N and longitude 87° 53' 21" W. From this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 40° 30' W for a distance of 2,550 metres as far as the boundary marker known as the Mojón Alto de la Loza situated at latitude 13° 55' 18" N and longitude 87° 54' 17" W. From this boundary marker, the frontier continues in a straight line in the direction S 10° W for a distance of 500 metres as far as the source of the stream known as the Manzucupagua or Manzupucagua situated at latitude 13° 55'03" N and longitude 87° 54'19" W. From this source, the frontier follows the course of the Manzucupagua or Manzupucagua stream downstream as far as its mouth in the river known as the Torola situated at latitude 13° 53'59" N and longitude 87° 54' 30" W.

ANNEX VI

THE ESTUARY OF THE Goascorán RIVER

Starting from the old mouth of the Goascorán river in the inlet known as the de la Cutù Estuary situated at latitude 13° 22'00" N and longitude 87° 41'25" W, the frontier follows the old course of the Goascorán river for a distance of 17,300 metres as far as the place known as the Rompición de los Amates situated at latitude 13° 26' 29" N and longitude 87° 43' 25" W, which is where the Goascorán river changed its course."

On behalf of the Republic of Honduras:

"The Government of the Republic of Honduras asks that it may please the Chamber:

A. With respect to the land frontier dispute:

— to adjudge and declare that the course of the frontier between El Salvador and Honduras is constituted by the following line in the areas or sections not described in Article 16 of the General Peace Treaty of 30 October 1980:

1. Section of the land frontier lying between the point knows as El Trifinio, at the summit of the Cerro Montecristo, and the summit of the Cerro Zapotal. From the summit of the Cerro Montecristo (14° 25'20" and 89° 21'28"1), the tripoint between Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, running south-east to the northernmost source of the San Miguel Ingenio or Taguilapa river (14° 24' 00" and 89° 20' 10"), known as the Chicotera stream, thereafter running downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to the ford on the road from Citalá to Metapan (14° 20' 55" and 89° 19' 33") at Las Cruces. From the preceding point eastwards, in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the river Jupula with the river Lempa (14°21' 06" and 89° 13' 10"), the said line passing through the place known as El Cobre, and from that confluence in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro Zapotal (14° 23' 26" and 89° 14' 43");

2. Section of the land frontier lying between the Cayaguanca rock and the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura stream with the Sumpul river. From the Cayaguanca rock (14° 21' 55" and 89° 10' 05"), in a straight line, as far as the confluence of the Chiquita or Oscura mountain stream with the river Sumpul (14° 20' 25" and 89° 04' 57");

3. Section of the land frontier lying between the Pacacio boundary marker and the boundary marker known as Poza del Cajón. From the Pacacio boundary marker (14° 06' 28" and 88° 49' 20"), on the river of the same name, in a straight line as far as the confluence of the La Puerta stream with the Gualcinga river (14° 06' 24" and 88° 47' 04") and from there downstream along the middle of the bed of the said river to arrive at the Poza del Toro boundary marker (14° 04'14" and 88° 47'00"), at the confluence of the river Gualcinga with the river Sazalapa, on La Lagartera, thence following the said river upstream along the middle of the bed to the Poza de la Golondrina boundary marker (14° 06' 55" and 88° 44' 32"); from this point in a straight line as far as the La Cañada, Guanacaste or Platanar boundary marker (14° 06'04" and 88° 43'52") and from that boundary marker in a straight line to the El Portillo boundary marker on the Cerro del Tam-bor (14° 04'47" and 88°44'06"), also known as Portillo de El Sapo; from that boundary marker in a straight line as far as the Guaupa boundary marker (14° 04'33" and 88° 44' 40"), passing over the El Sapo hill; thence in a straight line to the summit of the Loma Redonda (14° 03'46" and 88° 44' 35"); from the Loma Redonda in a straight line to the summit of the Cerro del Ocotillo or Gualcimaca (14° 03' 25" and 88° 44' 22"), passing over the Cerro del Caracol. From the El Ocotillo boundary marker, in a straight line, as far as the La Barranca or Barranco Blanco boundary marker (14° 02'55" and 88° 43'27"); from there to the Cerro de La Bolsa (14° 02'05" and 88° 42'40"); and from that place, in a straight line, to the Poza del Cajón boundary marker (14° 01'28" and 88° 41' 10") on the river Amatillo or Gualcuquín ;

4. Section of the land frontier lying between the source of the La Orilla stream and the boundary marker known as the Malpaso de Similatón. From the source of the stream called La Orilla (13° 53' 50" and 88° 20' 30") to the pass of El Jobo (13° 53' 40" and 88° 20' 25"), at the foot of the mountain known as El Volcancillo; from there to the southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda stream (13° 53'46" and 88° 20' 00"), following the course downstream along the middle of the river bed to the Champate boundary marker (13° 53'20" and 88° 19'02") as far as its confluence with the river Canas or Santa Ana, thence following the camino real, passing by the boundary markers of Portillo Blanco (13° 53'40" and 88° 18'24"), Obrajito (13° 53'50" and 88° 17' 28"), Laguna Seca (13° 54' 03" and 88° 16' 46"), Amatillo or Las Tijeretas (13° 54'28" and 88° 15'42"), and from there, in a northerly direction, as far as the point at which the river Las Canas joins the stream known as Masire or Las Tijeretas (13° 55'03" and 88° 15'45"); thence, taking a north-easterly direction, it follows its course upstream as far as the road from Torola to Colomoncagua and continues in the same direction as far as the Cerro La Cruz, Quecruz or El Picacho (13° 55' 59" and 88° 13' 10"); thence to the Monte Redondo, Esquinero or Sirin boundary marker (13° 56' 55" and 88° 13' 10") and from there to the El Carrisal or Soropay boundary marker (13°57'41" and 88° 12' 52"); from there it runs in a northerly direction to the Cerro del Ocote or hill of Guiriri (13° 59'00" and 88° 12'55"), and thence, in the same direction, to the marker of El Rincon, on the river Negro, Quiaguara or El Palmar (13° 59'33" and 88° 12'59"); thence following the river Negro upstream, as far as the Las Pilas boundary marker at the source of that same river (14° 00'00" and 88° 06'30"), and from that place to the Malpaso de Similatón (13° 59' 28" and 88° 04' 21");

5. Section of the land frontier lying between the point where the river Torola is joined by the Manzupucagua stream and the ford known as Paso de Unire. From the confluence of the Manzupucagua mountain stream with the Torola river (13° 54' 00" and 87° 54' 30"), following the river Torola upstream along the middle of its bed to its source, the mountain stream known as La Guacamaya stream (13° 53'30" and 87° 48' 22"); from this point, in a straight line, to the pass of La Guacamaya (13° 53' 20" and 87° 48' 19"); thence in a straight line to a point on the river Unire (13° 52'37" and 87° 47'04"), close to the place known as El Coyolar, and from there, following the Unire river downstream, as far as the Paso de Unire or Limon ford (13° 52'07" and 87° 46' 00"), on the said river;

6. Section of the land frontier lying between Los Amates and the Gulf of Fonseca. From the point known as Los Amates on the river Goascoran (13° 26' 28" and 87° 43' 20"), following the said river downstream along the middle of the bed by way of the Rincon de Muruhuaca and Barrancones, as far as its mouth to the north-west of the Ramaditas islands (13° 24' 26" and 87° 49' 05") in the Bay of La Union;

— to reject the submissions of the Government of El Salvador including those set forth in item I, paragraph 2, of the submissions of the CounterMemorial and that relate to the delimitation of the land frontier, included in its Memorial, Submissions Nos. 1 and 2.

B. With respect to the island dispute :

— to adjudge and declare that only Meanguera and Meanguerita islands are in dispute between the Parties and that the Republic of Honduras has sovereignty over them.

C. With respect to the maritime dispute:

(1) To adjudge and declare that the régime of the waters in the Bay of Fonseca, the delimitation of the maritime areas in that Bay, and the rights of Honduras beyond the closing line of the Bay of Fonseca, in the Pacific Ocean, and the delimitation of the maritime areas attaching to the two Parties by means of a line are matters of dispute to be decided by the Chamber of the Court in accordance with the Special Agreement concluded by the Parties in 1986.

(2) Concerning the zone subject to delimitation within the Gulf :

— to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras by reason of their both being coastal States bordering on an enclosed historic bay produces between them a perfect equality of rights, which has nevertheless never been transformed by the same States into a condominium ;

— to adjudge and declare, therefore, that each of the two States is entitled to exercise its powers within zones to be precisely delimited between El Salvador and Honduras ;

— to adjudge and declare that the course of the line delimiting the zones falling, within the Gulf, under the jurisdiction of Honduras and El Salvador respectively, taking into account all the relevant circumstances for the purpose of arriving at an equitable solution, shall be defined as follows :

the line equidistant from the low-water line of the mainland and island coasts of the two States, starting within the Bay of La Union, from the mouth of the Rio Goascorán (13° 24' 26" and 87° 49' 05") and extending to the point situated at a distance of 1 nautical mile from the Salvadorian island of Conchaguita and from the Honduran island of Meanguera, to the south of the first and to the west of the second ;

from that point, the line joining points situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the Salvadorian coast as far as the point where it meets the closing line of the Gulf (see illustrative chart C.5, Memorial of Honduras, Vol. II);

— to adjudge and declare that the community of interests existing between El Salvador and Honduras as coastal States bordering on the Gulf implies an equal right for both to exercise their jurisdictions over maritime areas situated beyond the closing line of the Gulf ;

— to adjudge and declare that the closing-line across the mouth of the Bay from Punta Amapala to Punta Cosiguina is the baseline from which a delimitation line outside the Bay shall be projected into the Pacific, and further to determine that this should be from a point which lies 3 miles from the low-water mark on the coast of El Salvador.

(3) Concerning the zone outside the Gulf :

— to adjudge and declare that the delimitation line productive of an equitable solution, when account is taken of all the relevant circumstances, is represented by a line extending for 200 miles on such a bearing as will give to Honduras a maritime area which is equitable and proportionate to the length of the Honduran coast, starting from the closing line of the Gulf at a point situated at a distance of 3 nautical miles from the coast of El Salvador, thus delimiting the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of El Salvador and Honduras (see illustrative Chart C.6 in the Memorial of Honduras)."

25.
In its written statement submitted pursuant to Article 85 of the Rules of Court, Nicaragua presented a summary of its conclusions which reads as follows:

"The Government of Nicaragua submits that no régime of a community of interests has ever existed in respect of the Gulf of Fonseca. The legal considerations supporting this conclusion can be summarized thus :

(a) The issues presented in the pleadings of El Salvador and Honduras relate to the law of the sea, except in so far as they relate to the question of condominium.

(b) The relevant principles of maritime delimitation cannot be displaced by the unjustified introduction of a concept of ‘the perfect equality of States’.

(c) The consistent practice of the riparian States has recognized the absence of any special legal régime within the Gulf, apart from its having the character of an historic bay.

(d) The contentions of Honduras are designed to produce advantages for Honduras which would not be obtainable by the application of the equitable principles relating to maritime delimitation forming part of general international law. It is not equality but privilege which is the objective."

26.
In the course of the oral proceedings, the Government of Nicaragua submitted conclusions entitled "formal conclusions" as follows :

" 1. The status quo in the region of the Gulf of Fonseca is based upon the definitive boundary between Nicaragua and Honduras recognized in Acta //adopted in 1900, together with the principles and rules of general international law relating to the entitlements of coastal States, and the recognition by the coastal States of the right of innocent passage for Honduran vessels in accordance with local custom.

2. The Honduran claims presented in the form of a concept of a community of interests may affect the legal interests of Nicaragua directly and substantially, in particular, because, as the pleadings and submissions reveal, the community of interests would entail an entitlement to areas of maritime territory incompatible with the inherent rights of Nicaragua.

3. International law does not recognize a concept of community of interests, either in a form which could override the application of the principles of the law of the sea, or in any other form.

4. The Honduran claim to an entitlement involving a corridor of maritime territory or exclusive jurisdiction to the west of the legally definitive terminus of the boundary established between Honduras and Nicaragua is invalid in general international law and consequently is inopposable to any other State, whether or not a party in the present proceedings.

5. The legal entitlements of the coastal States, including Nicaragua, remain the same whether the waters of the Gulf are classified as internal waters or as territorial sea or as continental shelf.

6. Without prejudice to the above, there are substantial considerations of judicial propriety on the basis of which Honduran maritime claims, which form part of the submissions relating to a community of interests, should be treated as inadmissible.

7. No régime of condominium exists in the Gulf of Fonseca or any part thereof.

8. The Republic of Nicaragua reaffirms its position in respect of all questions of delimitation contained in its Written Statement of 14 December 1990."

General Introduction

27.
As will be apparent from the terms of the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986, set out above, the dispute brought before the present Chamber of the Court by that Agreement is composed of three main elements : the dispute over the land boundary ; the dispute over the legal situation of the islands ; and the dispute over the legal situation of the maritime spaces. Each of these three elements is further subdivided : the land boundary dispute relates to six distinct sectors of the frontier; the island dispute involves not only determination of sovereignty over certain islands, but also disputes as to which islands are involved, and as to the applicable law ; the maritime spaces concerned are both those within the Gulf of Fonseca, of which the two Parties and the intervening State — Nicaragua — are the coastal States, and the waters outside the Gulf ; and there is also a dispute whether the role of the Chamber in that respect is or is not to delimit the waters. The Chamber will deal in turn with each of the elements of the dispute referred to above, but will first refer briefly to the background and history of the dispute.
28.
The two Parties (and the intervening State) are States which came into existence with the break-up of the Spanish Empire in Central America, and their territories correspond to administrative sub-divisions of that empire. While it was from the outset accepted that the new international boundaries should be determined by the application of the principle generally accepted in Spanish America of the uti possidetis juris, whereby the boundaries were to follow the colonial administrative boundaries, the problem, as in the case of many other boundaries in the region, was to determine where those boundaries actually lay. In the words of the 1933 Award of the Arbitral Tribunal presided over by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the case concerning the border between Guatemala and Honduras, in which the task of the arbitrator was to determine the "juridical line" of the "uti possidetis of 1821",

"It must be noted that particular difficulties are encountered in drawing the line of 'uti possidetis of 1821’, by reason of the lack of trustworthy information during colonial times with respect to a large part of the territory in dispute. Much of this territory was unexplored. Other parts which had occasionally been visited were but vaguely known. In consequence, not only had boundaries of jurisdiction not been fixed with precision by the Crown, but there were great areas in which there had been no effort to assert any semblance of administrative authority." (United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. II, p. 1325.)

29.
The independence of Central America from the Spanish Crown was proclaimed on 15 September 1821. Thereafter until 1839, Honduras and El Salvador made up, together with Costa Rica, Guatemala and Nicaragua, the Federal Republic of Central America, which broadly corresponded to what had formerly been the Spanish Captaincy-General of Guatemala, or Kingdom of Guatemala. On the disintegration of the Federal Republic, El Salvador and Honduras, along with the other component States, became, and have since remained, separate States.
30.
It was in respect of the islands of the Gulf of Fonseca, all of which had been under Spanish sovereignty, that a dispute first became manifest. In 1854 there was a proposal that the Consul of the United States of America might purchase from Honduras land on the island of El Tigre. El Salvador, by a diplomatic Note of 12 October 1854, referred to this proposal, to which it objected, and made a clear claim to the islands of Meanguera and Meanguerita (see paragraph 352 below), where certain survey operations by Honduras had come to its notice. No response by Honduras to this communication has been produced, but no sale of islands was proceeded with.
31.
Seven years later, on 14May 1861, the El Salvador Minister for Foreign Relations addressed a Note to the Government of Honduras proposing that negotiations be entered into to demarcate the lands of the villages of Perquin and Arambala, in El Salvador, and Jucuara (or Jocoara), in Honduras (see paragraphs 203-207 below). This may be taken to mark the inception of the dispute over the land boundary, which subsequently expanded to extend to practically the whole land frontier at different dates between 1880 and 1972. The tripoint between the territories of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, from which the boundary between the latter two States runs to the Gulf of Fonseca, was finally agreed only in 1935, after the arbitration of Chief Justice Hughes already referred to (see paragraph 28 above).
32.
The maritime dispute was slower to come to light. An attempt was made in 1884 to delimit the waters of the Gulf between El Salvador and Honduras, by the inclusion of such a delimitation in a boundary convention, the Cruz-Letona Convention of 1884, which was however not ratified by Honduras, but the negotiation of this Convention enabled both Parties to indicate the nature of their claims. A delimitation of part of the waters of the Gulf was concluded between Nicaragua and Honduras in 1900; the effect of this in relation to El Salvador will be considered later in this Judgment. In 1916 proceedings were brought by El Salvador against Nicaragua before the Central American Court of Justice, which raised the question of the status of the waters of the Gulf. Subsequently with the development of the law of the sea, each Party modified its maritime legislation so as to indicate claims as to the legal régime of the waters outside the Gulf.
33.
The dispute — particularly the land boundary dispute — has over the years been the subject of a number of direct negotiations between the Parties in conferences, starting with the El Mono Conference in July 1861, and continuing with the Montana de Naguaterique negotiations of 1869, and those held in the village of Saco (today Concepcion de Oriente in El Salvador) in 1880. The Parties at that stage agreed to resort to the arbitration of the President of Nicaragua, General Joaquin Zavala, who however subsequently withdrew as arbitrator when he ceased to hold the Presidency. At meetings in March/April 1884 the delegate of Honduras, Francisco Cruz, and that of El Salvador, Lisandro Letona, drafted the Convention of 10 April 1884, already mentioned, which was rejected by the Honduran Congress and was therefore never ratified by Honduras. On 28 September 1886 another convention was concluded in Tegucigalpa, the Zelaya-Castellanos Convention, which contemplated arbitration if direct negotiations did not succeed, and provided that the authorities on each side should

"maintain and respect the line of demarcation which was accepted as valid in 1884 and ratified by the status quo agreement between the governments of the two Republics, without regard to the boundary line traced by"

the Cruz-Letona Convention of 1884.

34.
In November 1888 new negotiations took place at La Union and Guanacastillo, which resulted in agreement on the Goascorán river as the recognized frontier, "uncontested and incontestable". At a later stage however the question was raised whether the current course of the river, or an older course, reaching the Gulf of Fonseca at a different point, was meant (see paragraphs 306 ff. below). In 1889 another arbitration convention, the Zelaya-Galindo Convention, was concluded, but the arbitration was never carried out. This Convention in turn inspired the Convention of 1895 which reaffirmed the principle of the uti possidetis juris. On 13 November 1897 new negotiations took place at the Hacienda Dolores, resulting in a further convention which was also never ratified. Negotiations in San José de Costa Rica in 1906 and Tegucigalpa in April 1918 also had frustrating results for lack of ratification by one side or the other. Further efforts towards settlement of the dispute failed likewise in 1949 and 1953, and attempts for settlement were only resumed with the "Third Convention of El Amatillo" of 1962, providing for a Commission of Enquiry and the establishment of a Boundary Commission. This was the last attempt to settle the problem of delimitation before armed conflict broke out in 1969.
35.
In 1969 a series of border incidents occurred, which gave rise to tension between the two countries, the suspension of diplomatic and consular relations and, finally, armed conflict, which lasted from 14 to 18 July 1969. After one hundred hours of hostilities, the Organization of American States succeeded in bringing about a cease-fire and the withdrawal of troops ; nevertheless the formal state of war between the two States was to persist for more than ten years. The XIIIth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of American States appointed a Special Commission, which set up the basis for the approval on 27 October 1969 of seven resolutions: (1) Peace and Treaties, (2) Free Transit, (3) Diplomatic and Consular Relations, (4) Frontier Questions, (5) Central American Common Market, (6) Claims and Disputes, (7) Human Rights and the Family. In December 1969 negotiations in Managua, Nicaragua, with a view to enforcing the resolutions of the Organization of American States, under the aegis of a Moderator (José A. Mora, a former Secretary-General of that Organization), did not achieve more than the establishment of a 3-kilometre security zone.
36.
In June 1972 delegations of the two countries met in Antigua, Guatemala, and came to agreement regarding the major part of the land boundary, leaving only six sectors to be settled. On 24 November 1973, El Salvador denounced the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, known as the Pact of Bogotá, and on the 26th of the same month communicated to the United Nations Secretary-General its new declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, with reservations in effect excluding the dispute with Honduras (I.C.J. Yearbook 1973-1974, p. 56). Honduras also replaced its declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction with a new one effectively excluding the present dispute, on 6 June 1986, after the conclusion of the Special Agreement seising the Court (I.C.J. Yearbook 1986-1987, p. 70). On 6 October 1976 there was concluded in Washington a "Convention for the Adoption of a Mediation Procedure between the Republics of El Salvador and Honduras", under the auspices of the Organization of American States, and the former President of the International Court of Justice, José Luis Bustamante y Rivero, was chosen as Mediator, the procedure of mediation to be conducted in Lima, Peru. The mediation process began on 18 January 1978 and led to the conclusion of a General Treaty of Peace, signed on 30 October 1980 in Lima, which was ratified by El Salvador on 21 November 1980 and by Honduras on 8 December 1980.
37.
The General Treaty of Peace recorded, in Article 16, the agreement of the Parties to delimit seven sections of the land boundary "which do not give rise to controversy"; it further provided that a Joint Frontier Commission, which had been established on 1 May 1980, should, inter alia, delimit the frontier line in the remaining six sectors, and "determine the legal situation of the islands and the maritime spaces". The Commission worked from 1980 to 1985, holding 43 meetings, but did not succeed in delimiting the frontier in the six sectors "not described" in Article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace, or in determining the legal situation of the islands and maritime spaces. Articles 31 and 32 of the General Treaty of Peace provided that :

"Articulo 31. — Si a la expiración del plazo de cinco años establecido en el artículo 19 de este Tratado, no se hubiere llegado a un acuerdo total sobre las diferencias de límites en las zonas en controversia, en la situación jurídica insular, o en los espacios marítimos, o no se hubieren producido los acuerdos previstos en los artículos 27 y 28 de este Tratado, las Partes convienen en que, dentro de los seis meses siguientes, procederán a negociar y suscribir un compromiso por el que se someta conjuntamente la controversia o controversias existentes a la decisión de la Corte Internacional de Justicia.

Artículo 32. — El compromiso a que se refiere el artículo anterior deberá contener:

a) El sometimiento de las Partes a la jurisdicción de la Corte Internacional de Justicia para que decida la controversia o controversias a que se refiere el artículo anterior.

b) Los plazos para la presentación de los escritos y el número de éstos; y

c) La determinación de cualquier otra cuestión de naturaleza procesal que fuese pertinente.

Ambos Gobiernos acordarán la fecha para la notificación conjunta del compromiso a la Corte Internacional de Justicia, pero, en defecto de acuerdo, cualquiera de ellas podrá proceder a la notificación, comunicándolo previamente a la otra Parte por la vía diplomática. " [Translation]

"Article 31. — If, upon the expiry of the period of five years laid down in Article 19 of this Treaty, total agreement has not been reached on frontier disputes concerning the areas subject to controversy or concerning the legal situation in the islands or maritime areas, or if the agreements provided for in Articles 27 and 28 of this Treaty have not been achieved, the Parties agree that, within the following six months, they shall proceed to negotiate and sign a special agreement to submit jointly any existing controversy or controversies to the decision of the International Court of Justice.

Article 32. — The Special Agreement referred to in the preceding Article shall include;

(a) the submission of the Parties to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice so that it may settle the controversy or controversies referred to in the preceding Article;

(b) the time-limits for the presentation of documents and the number of such documents;

(c) the determination of any other question of a procedural nature that may be pertinent.

Both Governments shall agree upon the date for the joint notification of the Special Agreement to the International Court of Justice but, in the absence of such an agreement, any one of them may proceed with the notification, after having previously informed the other Party by the diplomatic channel."

Article 35 of the Treaty provided that the express submission thereby made to the jurisdiction of the Court "deprives of any effect, as far as relations between the Parties are concerned", any reservations to their declarations under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute.

38.
In view of the failure of the Joint Frontier Commission to accomplish its mandate within the period laid down in the General Treaty of Peace, Article 31 of the same Treaty came into effect, requiring the referral of the dispute to the International Court of Justice. In accordance with the provisions of that Article, the six-month period allowed to the parties to negotiate and sign a special agreement began to run from 10 December 1985. Negotiations began in January 1986 and were concluded on 24 May 1986, with the signature in Esquipulas, Guatemala, of the Special Agreement set out at the beginning of this Judgment.
39.
Article 36 of the Treaty provides as follows :

"Las Partes convienen en ejecutar en un todo y con entera buena fé el fallo de la Corte Internacional de Justitia, facultando a la Comisiôn Mixta de Limites para que initie, dentro de los seis meses contados a partir de la fecha de la sentencia de la Corte, la demarcation de la linea fronteriza establecida en dicho fallo. Para dicha demarcation se aplicarân las normas establecidas sobre la materia en este Tratado. " [Translation]

"The Parties agree to execute in its entirety and in complete good faith the decision of the International Court of Justice, empowering the Joint Frontier Commission to initiate, within six months from the date of the Court’s decision, the demarcation of the frontier laid down in that decision. For the demarcation in question the norms laid down in this respect in this Treaty shall be applied."

However, by an Agreement of 11 February 1986, the Parties established a Special Demarcation Commission, and it is provided in the Special Agreement that that Commission "will begin the demarcation of the frontier line fixed by the Judgment not later than three months after the date of the said Judgment and will diligently continue to work until the demarcation is completed". In the light of these provisions, there was some discussion between counsel at the hearings as to the respective roles of the Chamber and the Commission. In response to a suggestion by counsel for El Salvador that "once the basic legal concepts have been established by the Chamber", the Commission should identify and locate the boundary markers referred to in the ancient titles, counsel for Honduras insisted that the task of the Commission was demarcation only, and it was for the Chamber "to delimit" the boundary, i.e., "indicate what are the geographical points of a line susceptible of defining the frontier". Counsel for El Salvador agreed in principle, but reserved

"the possibility of complementary demarcations [by the Commission] on the basis of the concepts and decisions adopted by the Chamber only with respect to certain concrete points, if and when it is found impossible, or enormously difficult, to determine, for instance, the actual location of a given geographical accident".

In the view of the Chamber, it is its duty to give such indications of the line of the frontier in the disputed sectors as will enable the Special Demarcation Commission to demarcate it by a technical operation.

The Land Boundary : Introduction

40.
Both Parties are agreed that the primary principle to be applied for the determination of the land frontier is the uti possidetis juris; even though this, unusually for a case of this kind, is not expressly mentioned in Article 5 of the Special Agreement, nor in the General Treaty of Peace, to which, as explained below, the Chamber is referred by the Special Agreement. For Honduras the norm of international law applicable to the dispute is simply the uti possidetis juris; El Salvador, relying on the terms of Article 26 of the General Treaty of Peace, strongly contests that this is the sole law applicable, and invokes, as well as the uti possidetis juris, what have been variously called "arguments of a human nature" or "effectivités", to be examined further on in this Judgment.
41.
There can be no doubt about the importance of the uti possidetis juris principle as one which has, in general, resulted in certain and stable frontiers throughout most of Central and South America, or about the applicability of that principle to the land boundary between the Parties in the present case. Nevertheless these certain and stable frontiers are not the ones that find their way before international tribunals for decision. These latter frontiers are almost invariably the ones in respect of which uti possidetis juris speaks for once with an uncertain voice. It can indeed almost be assumed that boundaries which, like the ones in this case, have remained unsettled since independence, are ones for which the uti possidetis juris arguments are themselves the subject of dispute. It is not a matter of surprise, therefore, that the Chamber has not found these land-frontier questions easy to determine; and it may be useful briefly to indicate some of the considerations that have tended to be common to the sectors submitted to the Chamber.
42.
The meaning of the principle of uti possidetis juris is authoritatively stated in the Judgment of the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute case :

"The essence of the principle lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term." (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 566, para. 23.)

And in the Arbitral Award of the Swiss Federal Council of 24 March 1922 concerning certain boundary questions between Colombia and Venezuela, it had been observed that :

"This general principle offered the advantage of establishing an absolute rule that there was not in law in the old Spanish America any terra nullius; while there might exist many regions which had never been occupied by the Spaniards and many unexplored or inhabited by non-civilized natives, these regions were reputed to belong in law to whichever of the Republics succeeded to the Spanish province to which these territories were attached by virtue of the old Royal ordinances of the Spanish mother country. These territories, although not occupied in fact were by common consent deemed to be occupied in law from the first hour by the new Republic..." (UNRIAA, Vol. I, p. 228.)

Thus the principle of uti possidetis juris is concerned as much with title to territory as with the location of boundaries ; certainly a key aspect of the principle is the denial of the possibility of terra nullius.

47.
The 1980 General Treaty of Peace does not specify the criteria employed for the determination of the sectors of the land boundary which were recorded in it as already agreed. There is however a link between the task of the Chamber and the task of the Joint Frontier Commission initially entrusted by the General Treaty of Peace with the delimitation of the non-agreed sectors ; this link is provided by the reference in Article 5 of the Special Agreement itself to the provisions of that Peace Treaty. That Article provides :

"In accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Chamber, when delivering its Judgment, will take into account the rules of international law applicable between the Parties, including, where pertinent, the provisions of the General Treaty of Peace."

This reference to the rules of international law and to the "first paragraph" of Article 38 obviously excludes the possibility of any decision ex aequo et bono. The reference to the General Treaty of Peace which, as a treaty between the Parties, would in any event have to be applied by the Chamber by reason of Article 38 of the Court’s Statute is presumably intended to make it clear to the Chamber that it should also apply, "where pertinent", even those Articles which in the Treaty are addressed specifically to the Joint Frontier Commission. The treaty provision that has played the greatest part in the pleadings before the Chamber is Article 26. It reads :

"Para la delimitation de la linea fronteriza en las zonas en controversia, la Comisiôn Mixta de Limites tomarâ como base los documentas expedidos por la Corona de Espana o por cualquier otra autoridad espanola, seglar o eclesiâstica, durante la época colonial, que senalen jurisdicciones o limites de territorios o poblaciones. Igualmente serân tornados en cuenta otros medios probatorios y argumentas y razones de tipo Juridico, histôrico o humano o de cualquier otra indole que le aporten las Partes, admitidos por el Derecho Internacional. " [Translation]

"For the delimitation of the frontier line in areas subject to controversy, the Joint Frontier Commission shall take as a basis the documents which were issued by the Spanish Crown or by any other Spanish authority, whether secular or ecclesiastical, during the colonial period, and which indicate the jurisdictions or limits of territories or settlements. It shall also take account of other evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind, brought before it by the Parties and admitted under international law."

48.
For an understanding of the meaning and intent of this Article, it is well to have in mind, however, that it was, as mentioned above, originally addressed to the Joint Frontier Commission; a body whose task was juridically different from the Chamber’s, for the Commission’s task, as regards the land boundary, was not to decide but to propose a frontier line to the two Governments (General Treaty of Peace, Art. 27). It is clearly, therefore, not drafted as an applicable law clause, but rather a provision about evidence submitted to the Commission by the Parties, intended to make sure that all such evidence was duly taken account of, for what it might be worth, in the Commission’s work. This is reinforced by the phrase "where pertinent" in Article 5 of the Special Agreement ; and it is obviously for the Chamber to decide on pertinence. For Article 26 is, as might be expected, in comprehensive terms; and it seems to the Chamber to be doubtful whether any list of priorities of one kind of evidence over another can properly be read into this very general provision. It is very clear, however, that the kind of evidence first referred to in Article 26, namely documents indicating the jurisdictions or limits of territories or settlements, is directed to establishing the boundaries according to the uti possidetis juris of 1821 ; even though that principle is not expressly mentioned in either the Special Agreement or the General Treaty of Peace.
49.
It is in this light that a contention of El Salvador has to be examined concerning the interpretation of Article 26 of the General Treaty of Peace in relation to one particular kind of document issued by the Spanish authorities which constitutes the main basis of the claims of El Salvador in respect of the land boundary, namely the "formal title-deeds to commons" — the so-called titulos ejidales. As the matter was put by counsel for El Salvador :

"As the Chamber is aware, El Salvador is relying on as evidence of the uti possidetis juris, and thus as the fundamental basis of its claims, the following six Formal Title-Deeds to Commons : that of Citalá of 1776; those of Arambala y Pirquín of 1815; that of Torola of 1743; that of Polorós of 1760 ; that of Arcatao of 1724 ; and, lastly, that of La Palma of 1829."

Drawing attention to the word "poblaciones" (settlements) in Article 26 (quoted in paragraph 47 above) of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace, El Salvador contends that

"To determine the limits between the municipal territories of these Indian ‘poblaciones’ or settlements and not between ancient Spanish provinces or the limits of private land properties, is what has been agreed in Article 26, as the method to be applied in order to implement in this case the principle of uti possidetis juris. And this may done only on the basis of the titulos ejidales invoked by El Salvador."

This does not however signify that the formal title-deeds to commons are, in El Salvador’s contention, the only documents to be taken into consideration, but that they are "the best possible evidence, the supreme means of proof, in relation to the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris".

50.
El Salvador, in this connection, also draws attention to the word "senalan ’’("indicate") in Article 26 of the General Treaty, and argues that the use of this verb means that

"the evidence which the Chamber must take into account for the purpose of applying the principle of uti possidetis juris must consist of the precise and definite boundaries consisting of geographical features and of boundary markers ('mojones'). These mojones only emerge from the Formal Title-Deeds to Commons of the sort being relied upon by El Salvador."

In arguing the relevance of a title of 1776 to the first disputed sector, coun-sel for El Salvador said (in a proposition presumably intended to be valid in general terms and not only for the first sector) :

"What El Salvador is contending is that the discovery and resurrection of ancient colonial provincial boundaries is not the objective nor the purpose which was intended by the first sentence of Article 26 of the General Peace Treaty of 1980. What are supposed to be established under this provision are the boundaries between territories and ‘poblaciones and this means, in relation to the present sector, the boundary between Ocotopeque and Citalá."

If El Salvador is arguing that the Parties have by treaty adopted a special rule or method of determination of the uti possidetis juris boundaries, for the purposes of the present dispute, the Chamber is not persuaded by this contention. It was the administrative boundaries between Spanish colonial administrative units, not the boundaries between Indian settlements as such, that were transformed, by the operation of the uti possidetis juris, into international boundaries in 1821. The Chamber is unable to read the text of the General Treaty of Peace as contemplating that the international boundaries should instead follow the limits of poblaciones.

51.
El Salvador refers also to the words of the first sentence of Article 26 in support of its contention that the commons whose formal title-deeds are being relied on by El Salvador were not private properties, but belonged to the municipal councils of the poblaciones in question; and that once a particular common was adjudicated to a particular indigenous settlement, the administrative and financial control over those communal lands was exercised by the municipal authorities, and over and above them, by the governing authorities of the colonial province to which the commons had been declared to belong. The practical consequence which El Salvador deduces from this is that if such a grant of commons was made to a community in one province, extending to lands situated within another province, while this did not bring about any "automatic" modification of the provincial boundaries — which would have required a Cédula Real from the Spanish Crown, or at least a decision of the superior government, the Captaincy-General of Guatemala — it was nonetheless the administrative control of the province to which the community belonged which was material, or indeed determinative, for the application of the uti possidetis juris; i.e., that on independence the whole area of the commons appertained to the State within which the community was situated.
52.
A further aspect of the argument about the "formal title-deeds to commons" granted to Indian communities was whether, if they were to be capable of having this effect, they had to fall within the category called by some experts in Spanish legal history that of "ejidos de reduction ", and not that of "ejidos de composition". The distinction, broadly stated, appears to be that ejidos de reduction were granted to Indian communities in an endeavour to settle permanently those whose nature was to be nomadic; and ejidos de composition were granted against a payment to the Crown and, it was urged, were creative of proprietary interests in land and were for that reason irrelevant to the question of administrative boundaries. Accordingly, counsel on each side spent considerable time arguing whether each ejido did or did not fall into the former category.
53.
It will be apparent that the controversy described in the previous paragraph is only of practical relevance in cases where it is claimed that the land comprised in a grant of this kind is situated on the other side of a pre-existing provincial boundary from the community to which it was granted, or straddles such a boundary. The Chamber is in fact faced with a situation of this kind in three of the six disputed sectors. However, in each of these cases, the Chamber, on examination of all the material facts and evidence, has found that it is possible to resolve the issue in dispute between the Parties in the sector concerned without having to determine this question, and therefore sees no reason to attempt to do so, or to examine it further in the present Judgment.
54.
It need not be doubted that some of these instruments may have been of great importance in a period when the progressive settlement of the land must have been a prime aim of governmental policy ; but most of the instruments relied on in this case date from the 18th century. In the absence of legislative instruments formally defining provincial boundaries, not only the grants to Indian communities but also land grants to private individuals afford some evidence which might indicate where the boundaries were thought to be or ought to be. Titles of the kind under discussion were granted, following enquiries and surveys by the authorities of a particular province, by the Audiencia of the Kingdom of Guatemala, and both Parties have emphasized to the Chamber the strict respect for limits of territorial jurisdiction which was required of servants of the Spanish Crown. There must be a presumption that such grants, for jurisdictional reasons and for reasons of administrative convenience, would normally avoid the straddling of an existing, established, and working boundary between different administrative authorities. And indeed where the provincial boundary location was doubtful — as could well be the case in often partially explored country — the common boundaries of two grants by different provincial authorities could well have become the provincial boundary. The Chamber will therefore consider the evidence of each of these grants on their merits in each of the sectors and in relation to other arguments, but will not treat them as necessarily conclusive.
55.
At the time of the independence of the two States, much — but not all — of the land making up the territory of the administrative units to which they succeeded had thus been the subject of grants of various kinds by the Spanish Crown, either to Indian communities or to individuals. These are the titulos of which so much has been made in argument. The remaining land in the relevant Spanish colonial provinces remained in the ownership of the Crown, and fell into the category of "crown lands", tierras realengas. In the same category fell, as the Parties agree, land which had been granted to an Indian community which had ceased to exist, like that of San Miguel de Sapigre, discussed in relation to the boundary in the fifth sector. The Parties agree that such land was not however unattributed for purposes of administrative control and jurisdiction, but appertained to the one province or the other, and accordingly passed, on independence, into the sovereignty of the one State or the other. The absence of any specific grant of the land, for which a survey would have been effected, merely makes it more difficult to ascertain the position of the provincial boundary in areas of this kind.
56.
There is one further problem concerning the grants or titles which requires mention; and that is how far so-called "republican titles", grants made after independence, in the time of the Federal Republic of Central America, 1821 -1839, and thereafter, may be considered as evidence of the 1821 boundary. This question has arisen as an issue between the Parties in more than one sector of the land boundary, as will appear below. There seems to the Chamber to be no sensible reason to reject the whole category of these grants as evidence just because they are subsequent to 1821. Such republican titles, particularly those granted in the years immediately following independence, may well provide some evidence of what the position was in 1821, and both Parties have offered them as such. The Chamber will, therefore, consider republican titles on their merits, as possible evidence of the uti possidetis juris position in 1821, wherever they have been pleaded as such by the Parties. The matter has however a certain relationship with what have been referred to by the Parties as effectivités, which are now to be examined.
57.
As already mentioned above, El Salvador contends that the uti possidetis juris principle is the primary, but not the only, legal element to be taken into consideration for the determination of the land boundary. It has put forward in addition in that respect a body of arguments referred to either as "arguments of a human nature" or as arguments based on "effectivités". In terms of the governing texts, the justification for invoking these human arguments or effectivités is the second part of Article 26 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace, already quoted above, which provides that the Joint Frontier Commission "shall also take into account other evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind, brought before it by the Parties and admitted under international law". Honduras also recognizes a certain confirmatory role for effectivités, and has submitted evidence of acts of administration of its own for that purpose, or to show that its own effectivités in the areas concerned were stronger than those of El Salvador; but at this stage of the Chamber’s analysis, it will be convenient to examine in particular certain arguments of El Salvador.
58.
The factual considerations which El Salvador has brought to the attention of the Chamber fall into two categories. On the one hand, there are arguments and material relating to demographic pressures in El Salvador creating a need for territory, as compared with the relatively sparsely populated Honduras; and on the other the superior natural resources (e.g., water for agriculture and hydroelectric power) said to be enjoyed by Honduras. On the first point, El Salvador apparently does not claim that a frontier deriving from the principle of the uti possidetis juris could be adjusted subsequently (except by agreement) on the grounds of unequal population density, and this is clearly right. It will be recalled that the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute case emphasized that even equity infra legem, a recognized concept of international law, could not be resorted to in order to modify an established frontier inherited from colonization, whatever its deficiencies (see I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 633, para. 149). El Salvador claims that such an inequality existed even before independence, and that its ancient possession of the territories in dispute, "based on historic titles, is also based on reasons of crucial human necessity". The Chamber will not lose sight of this dimension of the matter; but it is one without direct legal incidence. For the uti possidetis juris, the question is not whether the colonial province needed wide boundaries to accommodate its population, but where those boundaries actually were; and post-independence effectivités, where relevant, have to be assessed in terms of actual events, not their social origins. As to the argument of inequality of natural resources, the Court, in the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), took the view that economic considerations of this kind could not be taken into account for the delimitation of the continental shelf areas appertaining to two States (I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 77, para. 107); still less can they be relevant for the determination of a land frontier which came into existence on independence.
59.
A further category of considerations urged by El Salvador relates to the alleged occupation of the disputed areas by Salvadorian citizens, their ownership of land in those areas, the supply of public services there by the Government of El Salvador, and its exercise there of judicial, administra-tive and political competences, and military jurisdiction. On this basis, El Salvador makes the following claims :

" 1. That, by virtue of the practice of effective administrative control, the ‘animus’ on the part of the administrative organs of State of El Salvador to possess these disputed territories has been expressly demonstrated.

2. That, in consequence, El Salvador has satisfied the requirements of ‘effectivité’ by means of the effective exercise of State authority over the territories claimed by Honduras, such authority having been exercised continuously and notoriously through a quite incontrovertible administrative system.

3. That, alongside the ‘animus occupandi’, El Salvador has exercised and continues to exercise a physical possession of these territories which can in no sense be categorized as fictitious.

4. That, by means of these ‘effectivités’, El Salvador has sufficiently proven the existence of the two elements which are necessary in order to establish sovereign title and the manifestation of State authority."

These claims by El Salvador relate both to areas which it asserts appertain to it on the basis of the uti possidetis juris boundary derived from consideration of titulos ejidales, and to areas lying outside the lands comprised in those titulos. It appears however that El Salvador no longer maintains the far-reaching reliance on administrative control and effectivités presented in its Reply and quoted in the preceding paragraph; at the hearings, its counsel contended only that effectivités could be taken into account to confirm the titulos ejidales, or independently of them, in some marginal areas of limited size, where there is no such applicable title.

60.
Honduras rejects the applicability of any argument of "effective control" ; it suggests that that concept only refers, in the terms of the Arbitral Award in the Guatemala/Honduras arbitration (quoted in paragraph 28 above), to administrative control during the period prior to independence, based on the will of the Crown of Spain, and that El Salvador’s theory of "administrative control" is anachronistic. So far as acts of administrative control subsequent to independence are concerned, Honduras considers that, at least since 1884, no acts of sovereignty in the disputed areas can be relied on in view of the duty to respect the status quo in an area of dispute. It has however presented considerable material (as an Annex to its Reply) to show that Honduras also can rely on arguments of a human kind, that there are "human settlements" of Honduran nationals in the disputed areas in all six sectors, and that various judicial and other authorities of Honduras have exercised and are exercising their functions in those areas. This material has been presented under such headings as: criminal proceedings; police or security; appointment of Deputy Mayors ; public education ; payment of salaries of employees and remuneration to public officials; land concessions; transfer or sale of immovable property; registration of births; registration of deaths; and miscellaneous, including parish baptismal records.
61.
Both Parties have invoked, in relation to this claim of El Salvador, the analysis in the Judgment of the Chamber of the Court in the Frontier Dispute case of the relationship between "titles" and "effectivités" (I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 586-587, para. 63). As already noted above, the Chamber in that case was dealing with the "colonial effectivités", i.e., the conduct of the administrative authorities during the colonial period, whereas the acts relied on by El Salvador in the present case occurred after the independence of the two States, and in some cases in very recent years. The Chamber in the Frontier Dispute case referred also (inter alia) to the hypothesis of administration of a disputed territory by a State (not a colonial sub-division) other than the one possessing legal title (loc. cit., p. 587); it may be taken to have had post-colonial effectivités also in mind. The passage in question reads as follows :

"The role played in this case by such effectivités is complex, and the Chamber will have to weigh carefully the legal force of these in each particular instance. It must however state forthwith, in general terms, what legal relationship exists between such acts and the titles on which the implementation of the principle of uti possidetis is grounded. For this purpose, a distinction must be drawn among several eventualities. Where the act corresponds exactly to law, where effective administration is additional to the uti possidetis juris, the only role of effectivité is to confirm the exercise of the right derived from a legal title. Where the act does not correspond to the law, where the territory which is the subject of the dispute is effectively administered by a State other than the one possessing the legal title, preference should be given to the holder of the title. In the event that the effectivité does not co-exist with any legal title, it must invariably be taken into consideration. Finally, there are cases where the legal title is not capable of showing exactly the territorial expanse to which it relates. The effectivités can then play an essential role in showing how the title is interpreted in practice." (I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 586-587, para. 63.)

62.
With regard to the interrelation of title and effectivité, it should however be borne in mind that the titulos submitted to the Chamber by both Parties, including the "formal title-deeds to commons" are not what are here referred to as "the titles on which the implementation of the principle of uti possidetis is grounded" ; as already explained, they can be compared to "colonial effectivités", to the extent that they are acts of effective administration by the colonial authorities, not acts of private individuals. What the Chamber has to do in respect of the land frontier is to arrive at a conclusion as to the position of the 1821 uti possidetis juris boundary; to this end it cannot but take into account, for reasons already explained, the colonial effectivités as reflected in the documentary evidence of the colonial period submitted by the Parties. The Chamber may have regard also, in certain instances, to documentary evidence of post-independence effectivités when it considers that they afford indications in respect of the 1821 uti possidetis juris boundary, providing a relationship exists between the effectivités concerned and the determination of that boundary.
63.
It is in connection with evidence of effectivités after the date of independence that El Salvador made a particular application to the Chamber, which should here be mentioned. During the hearings, counsel for El Salvador observed that that Government had

"experienced serious difficulties in furnishing to the Chamber the full evidence of its effectivités in certain disputed areas of the land frontier which it would have liked to present. These have arisen as a consequence of sporadic acts of violence which have been occurring in some of the disputed areas. These have not only produced a certain amount of interference with some of the governmental activities normally carried out by the Government of El Salvador in these areas, but have also brought about a significant exodus on the part of the normal population thereof..."

In reply to a suggestion by counsel for Honduras that evidence of acts of administration in remote areas could be found not only in the areas concerned but also in central archives, counsel also stated that, "for all sorts of reasons that it is not feasible for me to go into now", there are no duplicate records available in central registries and archives in El Salvador. The Chamber fully appreciates the difficulties experienced by El Salvador in collecting its evidence, caused by the interference with governmental action resulting from acts of violence. It cannot however apply a presumption that evidence which is unavailable would, if produced, have supported a particular party’s case ; still less a presumption of the existence of evidence which has not been produced.

64.
In view of the difficulties, however, El Salvador made a specific request to the Chamber. Counsel observed that both Parties had repeatedly stated that they were exercising authority over the disputed sectors of the land boundary, and both Parties had maintained that these sectors were populated by inhabitants of their respective nationality and origin, and asked: "How then is the Chamber to decide on these conflicting claims when one of the Parties, through no fault whatsoever of the other Party, has been unable to present full evidence of its ‘effectivités’)" On behalf of the Government of El Salvador, counsel then presented the following request :

"the Government of El Salvador hereby requests that the Chamber consider exercising its functions pursuant to Article 66 of the Rules of Court with regard to the obtaining of evidence in situ in the disputed areas of the land frontier. The objective would be to establish the true situation of these disputed territories, over which both Parties to this litigation have alleged that they maintain authority and control.

In addition, the Government of El Salvador would welcome any order by the Chamber pursuant to Article 67 of the Rules of Court, arranging for an enquiry or an expert opinion on these matters and to the same ends."

This request was reaffirmed by the Agent of El Salvador in his closing address at the hearings. The Government of Honduras made no objection to the course proposed by El Salvador.

65.
At the close of the oral proceedings, the President of the Chamber stated that the Chamber considered that it was not yet in a position to reach a decision on whether it would be appropriate in the case to exercise its powers under Articles 66 and 67 of the Rules of Court, and would announce its decision in due course. The Parties were subsequently informed that, after deliberation, the Chamber had decided that it did not consider it necessary to exercise its functions with regard to the obtaining of evidence, as contemplated by Article 66 of the Rules of Court, in the disputed areas of the land frontier, as suggested by El Salvador, nor did it consider it necessary to exercise its powers, under Article 50 of the Statute and Article 67 of the Rules of Court, to arrange for an enquiry or expert opinion in the case.
66.
The Chamber will examine in relation to each disputed sector of the land boundary the evidence of post-independence effectivités presented by each Party. It cannot be excluded, however, that even when such claims of effectivités are given their due weight, the situation may arise in some areas whereby a number of the nationals of the one Party will, following the delimitation of the disputed sectors, find themselves living in the territory of the other, and property rights apparently established under the laws of the one Party will be found to have been granted over land which is part of the territory of the other. The Chamber has every confidence that such measures as may be necessary to take account of this situation will be framed and carried out by both Parties, in full respect for acquired rights, and in a humane and orderly manner. In this regard, the Chamber notes with satisfaction the recognition, in a joint declaration made by the Presidents of the two Parties in San Salvador on 31 July 1986, of the need to set up "... una Comisiôn Especial que estudiey proponga soluciones a losproblemas humanos, civiles y econômicos que pudieran afectar a sus connacionales, una vez resuelto el problema fronterizo..."("... a Special Commission to study and propose solutions for the human, civil and economic problems which may affect their compatriots, once the frontier problem has been resolved...").
67.
There has also been some argument between the Parties about the "critical date" in relation to this dispute. The principle of uti possidetis jurists sometimes stated in almost absolute terms, suggesting that the position at the date of independence is always determinative ; in short, that no other critical date can arise. As appears from the discussion above, this cannot be so. A later critical date clearly may arise, for example, either from adjudication or from a boundary treaty. Thus, in the previous Latin American boundary arbitrations it is the award that is now determinative, even though it be based upon a view of the uti possidetis juris position. The award’s view of the uti possidetis juris position prevails and cannot now be questioned juridically, even if it could be questioned historically. So for such a boundary the date of the award has become a new and later critical date. Likewise there can be no question that the parts of the El Salvador/ Honduras boundary fixed by the General Treaty of Peace of 1980 now constitute the boundary and 1980 is now the critical date. If the uti possidetis juris position can be qualified by adjudication and by treaty, the question then arises whether it can be qualified in other ways, for example, by acquiescence or recognition. There seems to be no reason in principle why these factors should not operate, where there is sufficient evidence to show that the parties have in effect clearly accepted a variation, or at least an interpretation, of the uti possidetis juris position.

First Sector of the Land Boundary

68.
The first disputed sector of the land boundary runs from the agreed tripoint where the frontiers of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras converge, a point referred to in Article 16 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace as the first of the "sections which do not give rise to controversy", and defined as the "point known as El Trifinio on the summit of the Cerro Montecristo". This tripoint was defined by a Special Commission comprised of representatives of the three States in a document drawn up on 23/24 June 1935 in Chiquimula, Republic of Guatemala. There is nevertheless a discrepancy between the contentions of the Parties as to the coordinates of latitude and longitude to define the position of the agreed tripoint. It however appears that the different co-ordinates given by the Parties in fact designate the same point, the discrepancy resulting from the choice of a different datum; as explained below (paragraph 103), the Chamber will, when defining the boundary line, use the co-ordinates appropriate to the maps used to illustrate the Judgment. The disputed sector is bounded at the other end by the most westerly point of the second agreed section of the boundary, referred to in Article 16 of the General Treaty of Peace as the "summit of the Cerro Zapotal". These two points are indicated as points A and E on sketch-map No. A-l annexed, which also indicates the claims of the two Parties as to the course of the boundary between them; according to El Salvador, it should follow the line A-B-B'-C-D-E on sketch-map No. A-l ; according to Honduras it should follow the line A-J-H-G'-F-E.
69.
It is recognized by both Parties that the greater part of the area between the lines put forward by them as defining the boundary corresponds to the area of land the subject of a titulo ejidal granted in 1776 to the Indian community of San Francisco de Citalá, which was situated in, and under the jurisdiction of, the province of San Salvador. There is some dispute between the Parties as to the interpretation of the survey record contained in the title. First, there is a small discrepancy as to the course of the southern boundary of the land in the title; according to El Salvador, the land granted in 1776 was bounded by the line E-F-G-H on sketch-map No. A-l, while according to Honduras the line was E-F-G'-H. Secondly there are two versions, also indicated on the sketch-map, of the course of the boundary of the ejido in the north-west comer : El Salvador argues for the line H-J-B-B'-C, and Honduras for the line H-H'-B'-C. Honduras also claims that a subsequent titulo, that of Ocotepeque of 1818-1820 (see paragraph 83), a community in the province of Gracias a Dios, and thus now in Honduras, includes a triangular piece of land (marked C-C'-D on sketch-map No. A-l) which El Salvador regards as included in the Citalá ejido. El Salvador does not claim that the Citalá ejido extended so far to the north-west as the international tripoint of Cerro Montecristo, but claims an intervening area (ABJ on sketch-map No. A-l), which was formerly "crown lands" (tierras realengas), on the basis of effectivités, a claim disputed by Honduras. These questions will be considered in due course (paragraphs 95 ff. below).
70.
The main issue in dispute between the Parties is as follows. The Citalá title was based on a survey and grant carried out in 1776 by the subordinate land judge (juez de tierras) based in the judicial district of Chalatenango in the province of San Salvador, and was granted to the Indian community of San Francisco de Citalá under the jurisdiction of that province. The survey and grant was carried out in the context of a long-standing dispute, which involved also other areas, between the Indians of Citalá and those of the community of Ocotepeque, in the province of Gracias a Dios, which province became part of Honduras at the time of independence. It is the contention of El Salvador that in 1821, the boundary of the two provinces was, in this area, defined by the north-eastern boundary of the Citalá ejido.
71.
Honduras however draws attention to what it regards as an exceptional feature of the procedure whereby the area in question was granted to the Indians of Citalá. When on 10 February 1776 the Indians of San Francisco de Citalá requested the Chalatenango district sub-delegate judge, Don Lorenzo Jiménez Rubio, to survey the land of the "mountain of Tepanquisir", adjacent to their village, the decision of the judge was

"Estas partes ocuran a su señoría el Sr Jues principal de Tierras deste Reino para que en vista de lo que espresan, y de no residir jurisdicsion en mi para lo que pretenden, por estar las Tierras en estrada Provincia..."1

[Translation]
"Let these parties apply to His Lordship the Juez Principal de Tierras of this Kingdom so that in view of what they say and since I have no jurisdiction for what they claim, as the lands are in another province..."

The request was then brought by the community of Citalá before the Juez Principal de Tierras, whose decision was:

"... libro el presente por el qual conzedo Facultad al Subdelegado del partido de Chalatenango don Lorenzo Ximenez Rubio, para que prozeda a la medida de la montaña de Tecpanguisir, que solicita el Común de Yndios del Pueblo de San Francisco Sitalá, arreglándose en Todo a la Real instrucción, y pasando noticia al Subdelegado de la Provincia de Gracias a Dios, para que este enterado, de que por este Juzgado pribatibo se le ha allanado la Jurisdiccion para solo el presente Caso. Y no se haga en contrario por ningún pretexto..."

[Translation]
"... I deliver these presents to confer power on the Subdelegado of the partido of Chalatenango, Don Lorenzo Jiménez Rubio, to proceed to survey the mountain of Tecpanguisir as requested by the Indians of the village of San Francisco de Citalá, complying in all respects with the Royal regulations, and giving notice to the Subdelegado of the province of Gracias a Dios so that he may be aware that this Juzgado privativo has entered into his area of jurisdiction for the present case only and that no action inconsistent with this be taken on any pretext..

When the Citalá Indians were granted a title over the Tepanguisir lands in July 1776, those lands were specifically stated to be "tierras realengas [crown lands] on the mountain of Tepanguisir in the province of Gracias a Dios". On this basis, Honduras contends that the area of the ejido so granted then fell within the jurisdiction of the Honduran province of Gracias a Dios. The provincial boundary in 1821, according to Honduras, therefore coincided, not with the north-eastern boundary of the Citalá ejido, dividing it from the lands of the community of Ocotepeque, but with the other boundaries of that ejido, dividing it from the lands of the Citalá community within the province of San Salvador; and this is the line (H-G'-F-E) claimed by Honduras, indicated on sketch-map No. A-l. El Salvador disputes this view of the matter, principally on the ground that the effect of the grant of an ejido over lands in one province, to a community situate in another, was that the administrative control over the lands of the ejido was thereafter exercised from the province of the community to which the grant had been made, and that, for the purposes of the uti possidetis juris, this signified that the lands of the ejido would come under the sovereignty of the State which succeeded to that province.

72.
The Chamber considers however that it is not required to resolve this question, since there is a further important element which the Chamber finds to be decisive, which requires to be carefully stated. The evidence before the Chamber shows that it was only in 1972 that Honduras first advanced its contention that the west, south and east boundaries of the lands of the Citalá ejido (the line H-G'-F-E) should be the boundary between the two States. During all previous negotiations, while the Parties had been in dispute as to the location of the frontier in this sector, and no admission had been made by Honduras on that point, the negotiations were conducted on the basis, accepted by both sides, that it was the boundary between the ejidos of Citalá and Ocotepeque that defined the frontier.
73.
It will be useful in this connection to recall negotiations between the Parties in the years 1881 and 1884, as well as events in 1914 and 1935, which will be dealt with in turn ; but the Chamber will first consider the question of the propriety of recourse to the record of previous negotiations. It is of course well established, according to the jurisprudence of the Court, and of the Permanent Court of International Justice, that it is not open to the Chamber to

"take account of declarations, admissions or proposals which the Parties may have made in the course of direct negotiations which have taken place between them, declarations which, moreover, have been made without prejudice in the event of the points under discussion forming the subject of judicial proceedings",

when the negotiations in question have not led to an agreement between the parties (Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9,p. 19; see also Factory at Chorzów (Claims for Indemnity), Merits, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, pp. 51, 62-63). This observation however refers to the common and laudable practice — which, indeed, is of the essence of negotiations — whereby the parties to a dispute, having each advanced their contentions in principle, which thus define the extent of the dispute, proceed to venture suggestions for mutual concessions, within the extent so defined, with a view to reaching an agreed settlement. If no agreement is reached, neither party can be held to such suggested concessions. The situation in the present instance is quite different. As will appear, in 1881 and 1884, the extent of the dispute was simply to determine where was the limit between the Citalá and Ocotepeque lands. It was the common understanding that that limit was also the international frontier. No account could be taken by the Chamber of any negotiating concessions which might have been made as to the position of the limit; but the Chamber is entitled to take account of the shared view in 1881 and 1884 of the Parties as to the basis and extent of their dispute.

74.
In 1881 it was agreed between the Governments of El Salvador and Honduras that, in order to resolve a boundary dispute between the municipalities of Ocotepeque and Citalá there should be a demarcation by a commission including two surveyors, with possible recourse to a third surveyor, of Guatemalan nationality, in case of disagreement. The official record of the survey commission recorded that one member "represented the Government of Honduras" and the other "represented the Government of El Salvador", and the two surveyors had each been nominated by one of those Governments; they had met "... to begin the delimitation of the ejidos of the town of Ocotepeque and hamlet of La Hermita, with the village of Citalá, which delimit the territories of the two Republics..." (emphasis added) ("... dar principio al deslinde de los ejidos de la Ciudad de Ocotepeque y aldea de la Hermita y con el pueblo de Citalá que marcan los territorios de ambas Repüblicas..."). The result of the work of the commission was inconclusive; but it is clear that its brief was to establish the line between Ocotepeque lands and Citalá lands, not between the former province of Gracias a Dios and the former province of San Salvador.
75.
Although the only 18th century title incorporated in the record of the 1881 negotiations is a 1740 titulo of Jupula, Honduras recognizes that those negotiations involved the confrontation of the 1776 Citalá title over the mountain of Tepanguisir and the title of the lands of Ocotepeque of 1818-1820 (paragraph 83 below). Honduras’s interpretation (cf. the plan drawn up in 1881) is that indicated on sketch-map No. A-1 annexed by the lines C-C'-D-E, as shown by a map incorporated in the Honduran Memorial ; and in its Reply Honduras states that

"the line discussed during these negotiations ran down to the southwest as far as the Peña de Tepanguisir, south of the line of the 1776 title, and back up to the north again; the negotiations having taken into account the Honduran title of Ocotepeque of 1818-1820 to form this triangle".

76.
The significant aspect of the 1881 negotiations is, as noted above, the shared view of the Parties as to the basis and extent of their dispute. They were concerned with the dividing line between the lands comprised in the 1776 Citalá title and those in the title of Ocotepeque, on the basis that that line corresponded to a delimitation "of the territories of the two Republics". There is no trace in the records of the 1881 negotiations of any insistence by Honduras that the line between the Tepanguisir lands of Citalá and the Ocotepeque lands was no more than the division between lands, all situate in Honduras, of two communities, one of which communities was in El Salvador. The frontier line corresponding to Honduras’s current interpretation of the legal effect of the 1776 Citalá title was, according to the material laid before the Chamber, first put forward by Honduras in the context of the negotiations which took place between the two Governments at Antigua in Guatemala in 1972, as recorded on 11 June 1972.
77.
A similar picture emerges from the negotiations which led to the signature, in 1884, of a treaty between the two States known as the Cruz-Letona Convention, which for lack of ratification by Honduras never came into force. The delimitation, in the sector now under consideration, which would have resulted from the adoption of this treaty follows, so far as relevant at the present stage of discussion, a line which was clearly intended to represent the delegates’ understanding of the position of the north-east boundary of the ejido of Citalá. The records of the work of the representatives of the Governments appointed for the delimitation of the frontier show that they considered the documents produced on each side, and noted that the documents concerning Citalá were "more ancient" and had "greater authority". The Chamber is aware that by a subsequent treaty (the Zelaya-Castellanos Convention, paragraph 33 above) the Parties agreed that no legal effect was to be attached to the unratified Cruz-Letona Convention; but what is relevant for present purposes is that in 1884, as in 1881, the shared view of the Parties was that the boundary in this part of the disputed sector ran somewhere through the area where the northern limit of the 1776 Citalá title was generally supposed to be located.
78.
A further indication that the Parties, while not necessarily in agree-ment as to the position of the boundary between Citalá and Ocotepeque, were agreed that that boundary defined the frontier between them, is afforded by the republican title of San Andrés de Ocotepeque, to the north of Citalá, granted by Honduras in 1914, to be considered further below (paragraph 85). According to Honduras’s own interpretation of this title, it coincided, in the area with which the Chamber is concerned, with the Ocotepeque title of 1818-1820, also to be examined below (paragraph 83), save that the overlapping triangle C-C'-D on sketch-map No. A-l, which Honduras claims was included in the 1818 title, was excluded from the 1914 title. For the present all that needs to be noted from the 1914 survey is that the Honduran surveyors reported that the boundary marker of Tepanguisir, between those of Talquezalar and Piedra Menuda, and to the south-west of the latter marker, "is today in Salvadorian territory" ; i.e., in 1914 the Honduran surveyors regarded the Citalá lands to the south-west of the Ocotepeque lands as part of El Salvador.
79.
Yet again, in 1934-1935 tripartite negotiations between El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras were held for the purpose of fixing the tripoint where the frontier of the three States met, following the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal presided over by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the frontier dispute between Guatemala and Honduras. In the course of those negotiations, to be examined further below (paragraph 99), the representatives of El Salvador put forward a proposal as to the course of the frontier which included the stretch between Talquezalar and the river Lempa. The line proposed was the line corresponding, in El Salvador’s contention, to the north-eastern boundary of the title of Citalá of 1776. The representatives of Honduras explained that they were not empowered to deal with the question of the frontier east of Talquezalar, but observed that "the line proposed by the delegates of El Salvador varied only slightly from that suggested by Honduras".
81.
The disagreement between the Parties as to the course of the southern boundary of the title thus becomes irrelevant, since it is in any event not that boundary that defines the frontier. In order to complete the Chamber’s task in this sector, however, there still remain two questions to be settled. From point B' to point C and from point D to point E on sketch-map No. A-l annexed the Parties agree on the interpretation of the Citalá title ; but there remain, first, the question of the triangular area (C-C'-D on sketch-map No. A-l annexed) where, according to Honduras, the title of Ocotepeque overlaps the boundary of Citalá, and secondly the disagreement between the Parties as to the interpretation of the Citalá survey as regards the north-western area (A-B-B'-H-J-A). On the first point, it is necessary to define precisely the scope of the acquiescence of Honduras. If Honduras were to be taken to have acquiesced in a boundary following the northern limit of the Citalá title as granted in 1776, then there is no need to enquire what the effect might have been on that boundary of the grant of the Ocotepeque title of 1818 ; but the Chamber does not consider that Honduras’s position can be equated with acquiescence to that effect. Honduras, in the Chamber’s view, acquiesced in a boundary corresponding to the boundary, as it stood in 1821, between the lands of Ocotepeque and Citalá. Another way of defining its position, as seen by the Chamber, is that Honduras in effect waived the point as to the possible appurtenance of the Tepanguisir lands of Citalá to the province of Comayagua in 1821, and thus treated them as having then appertained to El Salvador.
82.
The Chamber has thus to resolve the question whether there was a penetration of the Citalá lands by the Ocotepeque survey of 1818, and if so, what was the effect of this. The 1776 Citalá survey, which was expressed to relate to an area called the "montana de Tecpanguisir", started from a place "... que es un serrito depiedra menuda, el que no tiene Nombre, y se halla en vista del serro que nombran tecpanguisir..." ("... which is a small hill of small stones, with no name, in sight of the hill they call Tecpanguisir..."). The Parties agree in identifying this point with Piedra Menuda, point D on sketch-map No. A-l. The survey party took a west-north-west direction, and arrived at the "... quebrada que llaman de pomola" (the "... quebrada1 called the Pomola...") after measuring 54 cords (2,241 metres). The distance on the maps between point D and point C — the marker on the Pomola — is some 2,900 metres. The survey closed on the starting point by arriving from a "... cerro que dizen llamarse el sapotal que es aseranado, alto, y redondo a hill which they say is called El Sapotal, which is flat-topped, high and rounded..."), the distance from this hill to Piedra Menuda being 26 cords (1,079 metres) ; on the maps produced these two landmarks are however 3,500 metres apart. There is no indication that the course of the 1776 survey ran through the hill of Tepanguisir, or that there was a boundary marker of that name. Such a boundary marker is first mentioned in an 1817 survey of the lands of Ocotepeque. This survey arrives at "the high crest of the Pomola hill", and from there runs south, "passing by the high rounded hill of Tepanguisir, which is a landmark of the ejidos of the village of Citalá", and continues "in a straight line to the confluence of the quebrada Gualcho with the river Lempa".
83.
In 1820, following a survey in 1818 a title was granted to the community of Ocotepeque, in the province of Gracias a Dios, by the authorities of that province, over land lying to the north of the Citalá lands. The relevant passage of the 1818 survey record reads as follows :

"... dejando la quebrada de Pomola se bused para el Serro de Tepanguisir adonde se llegô con sesenta y una Cuerdas y se abivô el mojon antiguo poniendole mas piedras y otra Cruz y cambiando el rumbo se siguio al oriente y con sesenta y ocho Cuerdas se llegô a un serrillo que llaman de Piedra menuda y en efecto tiene bastante alii estaban todos los Justicias y principales del Pueblo de Citala, con sus titulos y haviendo ensenado un mojon que alli estava dixeron los de Citalá ser el que divide sus tierras y las de Ocotepeque... "

[Translation]

"... leaving the quebrada de Pomola the hill of Tepanguisir was looked for, and was reached after 61 cords, and the old landmark was restored, with additional stones and a new cross, and changing direction we proceeded to the east and with 68 cords we came to a small hill which they call Piedra menuda [small stone] where there are indeed a good many such, and here were all the justices and principal men of the community of Citala, with their titles, and when a landmark at this place was indicated those of Citalá said that that is the one which divides their lands from those of Ocotepeque..."

84.
In Honduras’s contention, the 1817 Tepanguisir marker and the 1818 "hill of Tepanguisir" is the point marked C' on sketch-map No. A-l, the "Piedra Menuda" being the same as the 1776 landmark of that name, i.e., at point D on that map. It does not however seem to be possible that this can be the "hill of Tecpanguisir" mentioned in the 1776 survey, at least assuming the Piedra Menuda to have been correctly identified. The 1776 record calls the Tepanguisir hill a "cerro" and the Piedra Menuda a "cerrito"; but the maps show point D (Piedra Menuda) as an elevation of over 1,500 metres, and point C' as around 1,400 metres, surrounded, and almost blocked from sight from Piedra Menuda, by markedly higher hills. Furthermore, there seems some uncertainty as to its exact position in relation to the Piedra Menuda and Talquezalar markers: on the maps produced to the Chamber it is 2,500 metres from Talquezalar and 2,350 metres from Piedra Menuda; the Honduran geographer José Maria Bustamante in 1890 however gave these distances as 1,300 and 1,912 metres respectively. The same distances were given in the report made the same year by the civil engineer A. W. Cole, together with compass bearings. Of these distances and bearings, only that defining the relationship between Piedra Menuda and Tepanguisir are consistent with the placing of Tepanguisir at point C'; the other figures given are quite irreconcilable with the position now identified with the Talquezalar marker, or with the further course of the line westward. This discrepancy must cast doubt on the position of the "hill of Tepanguisir".
85.
The 1914 Honduran republican title of Ocotepeque adopts this one consistent distance and bearing among those given by Cole in 1890. In 1914 the surveyors, having arrived at Piedra Menuda (point D on sketch-map No. A-l annexed), recorded that

"En esta linea se ha hecho abstraction del mojón de Tepangüicir en virtud de quedar hoy en territorio Salvadoreno; pero se halla con respecto a Piedra Menuda al Sur sesenta y très grados treinta y très minutos Oeste (S. 63° 33' O) y a una distancia de mil novecientos dos metros. "

[Translation]

"On this line, we have disregarded the Tepangüicir boundary marker, since it is today in Salvadorian territory; but we can say that it is situate S 63° 33' W from Piedra Menuda, at a distance of 1,902 metres."

86.
At the time of the negotiations in 1935 for the establishment of the El Salvador/Guatemala/Honduras tripoint, a map was drawn up by the surveyor Sidney H. Birdseye (see sketch-maps Nos. A-2 and A-3 annexed) and signed as approved by the representatives of the three States on the Demarcation Commission. This map shows the hill in question as "Pena de Tepanguisir", marked with a symbol which the legend of the map explains as used for "Cerrosy mojones"; "hills and boundary markers". It is also to be noted that an annotation on the map records that "(Hond.) (El Salv.)... indican aceptaciôn de nombres por el pais respectivo cuando hay controversia en la designation..." ("(Hond.) (El Salv.)... indicate acceptance of names by the country referred to, when there is controversy as to such designation..."). No such indication appears at Tepanguisir, from which it may be deduced that both States accepted the identification of the Tepanguisir hill with point C'. Indeed, both sides have argued their cases before the Chamber on that basis, and on the basis that the Talquezalar and Piedra Menuda markers are at C and D on sketch-map No. A-l.
87.
Honduras does not deduce from its interpretation of the Ocotepeque title that the triangular area, which it contends was included in that title, was not included in the Citalá title ; it accepts, as already noted, the northern boundary of that title as presented by El Salvador. It rather asserts that the Ocotepeque title "penetrates" the Citalá lands as far as the hill of Tepanguisir, "to the south of the limits drawn by the Citalá title of 1776". El Salvador does not accept that any such overlap occurred, but contends that the boundaries of the Ocotepeque lands coincided with those of Tepanguisir, and was in any case irrelevant in view of the terms of the later, republican, title of San Andrés de Ocotepeque (see paragraph 78 above).
88.
In the view of Honduras, this overlap would have been without importance, because it contends that the triangular area was in any event part of the jurisdiction of Gracias a Dios, as indicated in the Citalá title itself. It suggests further that the existence of the overlap confirms the appurtenance of the lands referred to in the Citalá title to the province of Gracias a Dios, implying that since if the Citalá lands had been in the neighbouring province, such an encroachment would have required special authorization like that given to the judge of Chalatenango in 1776 (paragraph 81 above). Even on the basis, however, that both titles were in Gracias a Dios, the Chamber does not consider that such an overlapping, involving a derogation from a previous grant to an Indian community, would have been consciously made. It appears to the Chamber that, whatever the legal powers of the authorities empowered to grant ejidos, in practical terms the system of surveys, with convocation of the inhabitants of neighbouring villages, was designed to prevent inclusion in the lands surveyed and to be granted to one community, of any part of the lands already surveyed and granted to another. The 1818 title of Ocotepeque gives no hint that there was any intention to penetrate the Tepanguisir lands; on the contrary, the Indians of Citalá had been summoned and were present to indicate their boundaries (see paragraph 83 above). This, in the Chamber’s view, also militates against the conclusion that an overlap came about by mistake, which should only be accepted if there is no doubt that the two titles are not compatible.
89.
The text of the documents produced by the Parties does not appear to the Chamber to bear out the theory of a "penetration" of the Citalá title. It is clear from the 1776 survey (quoted in paragraph 91 below) that the quebrada de Pomola was a limit of the Citalá lands ; yet the 1817 survey of the lands of Ocotepeque does not mention the quebrada, but only a Pomola hill, before reaching "the high rounded hill of Tepanguisir, which is the boundary marker of the ejidos of the village of Citalá" (emphasis added). The 1818 survey mentions the quebrada, not the hill of Pomola, and then the hill of Tepangüisir; the representatives of Citalá are not mentioned as present until the point called Piedra Menuda. They there drew attention to a boundary marker "which divides their lands from those of Ocotepeque", and followed the surveyor to check that the survey did not prejudice them in any way, but there is no indication that they had similarly verified the status of Tepanguisir as a boundary point, and its position. In short, the geographical identification of the Tepanguisir hill or Tepanguisir marker is dubious.
90.
In 1914, when the Ocotepeque title was re-issued (paragraph 78 above), the Honduran surveyors, presumably following — to this extent only — the 1890 Cole survey, considered that the boundary marker referred to as "Tepanguisir hill" in 1818 was at point C' on sketch-map No. A-l, and at the time of the tripartite negotiations of 1935, this was recognized by both sides. This however does not persuade the Chamber to accept that the identification in 1890 of the "Tepanguisir hill" was correct. The identification of the various geographical locations referred to in the survey records of 1776,1817 and 1818 cannot, it seems to the Chamber, be achieved with sufficient certainty to demonstrate an overlap between Ocotepeque and Citalá. It follows that the boundary line between points B' and E on sketch-map No. A-1 annexed, which both Parties recognize as to follow the north-eastern boundary of the Citalá title, should follow the line B-B'-C-D, and should not diverge to the south to pass through point C'.
91.
As regards the position of the boundary of the Citalá title, the main disagreement between the Parties concerns the area to the west of point B' on sketch-map No. A-l. The dispute arises out of the following passage in the survey record of the 1776 title of Citalá:

"... y al mencionado rumbo desde dicho serrillo se continuo caminando hasta vajar á la quebrada que llaman de Pomola y á ella se llegó con cinquenta y cuatro cuerdas, donde para maior claridad de esta medida mande poner Un montón de piedras por señal y mojon, y mudando de rumbo y tirando para el Oeste aguas arriva de dicha quebrada de Pomola por entro de una cañada honda de precipicios se tantearon á ojo por la asperidad de la montaña quarenta cuerdas hasta la cavesera de Pomola, en donde se deja esta medida para proseguirla el dia de mañana por ser las seis horas de la tarde...en prosecución de la Medida en que estoy entendiendo... mande á los medidores tendiesen la cuerda lo que con efecto hicieron en este paraje que es la cavesera de Pomola donde el dia de ayer se suspendió esta dicha medida, desde donde al rumbo del sudueste, llevando á la Derecha tierras realengas, y á la ysquierda las que se Van midiendo, se caminó á dicho rumbo por la junta de la quebrada que nombran de Taguilapa, y aguas abajo de ella se continuo por entre la espesura de la montaña, dando á ojo por lo yntransitable quarenta cuerdas hasta Un paraje que llaman de las Cruzes... "

[Translation]

.. and we continued climbing down the hill in question, heading in the direction stated, until we reached the quebrada called Pomola. Up to that point we counted 54 cords and, in order to make for greater clarity in the measurements, I had a large heap of stones set up to serve as boundary marker and, changing direction so as to head west and following the quebrada de Pomola upstream through a deep gully formed by precipices, we estimated visually, on account of the ruggedness of the terrain, 40 cords up to the source of the Pomola. We thus completed our work for today, to be resumed tomorrow, since it was 6 in the afternoon... continuing the survey with which I am charged... I asked the surveyors to stretch out the cord, which they did, at the source of the Pomola, where we had left off the survey yesterday, and from there, heading south-west, and having on our right-hand side crown lands [tierras realengasjand on the left side the ones we are measuring, we walked in the said direction along the confluence of the quebrada called Taguilapa, and continued downstream through the thick vegetation covering the mountain, estimating by eye on account of the impracticable nature of the terrain, 40 cords up to a place called Las Cruces..

The two interpretations of this passage in geographical terms are illustrated on sketch-map No. A-1 annexed: El Salvador contends that the boundary follows the line C-B'-B-J-H, and Honduras the line C-B'-H'-H.

92.
The first objection of Honduras to the interpretation by El Salvador is that the point identified by El Salvador as the "cavesera [or cabecera] del Pomola " (point B on sketch-map No. A-1 annexed) cannot be right, because it lies not to the west, as indicated in the survey, of the previous marker (point C on the sketch-map), but to the north-west, and because that point is more than 4,000 metres in a straight line from the previous marker, which is far more than the "40 cords" (about 1,660 metres) referred to in the survey. So far as this objection is concerned, El Salvador contends that on setting out upstream along the quebrada de Pomola, the surveyor began moving to the west, and recorded that direction, but then had to follow the undulations of the stream. The Chamber notes that while the quebrada identified by El Salvador as the quebrada de Pomola runs generally north-west to south-east, that selected by Honduras (indicated on El Salvador’s maps as the quebrada Cipresales) runs, in its relevant portion, generally south-west to north-east, so that while neither corresponds precisely to the western direction of the survey as recorded in the 1776 title, the explanation of the discrepancy of direction offered by El Salvador applies equally well to both quebradas. So far as can be discerned from the contour indications on the maps produced, either could fit the description in the survey record of passing through "a deep gully formed by precipices".
93.
Secondly, Honduras points out that the direction of the survey from the "source of the Pomola" was to the south-west, whereas the course of El Salvador’s line from what it identifies as the source of the Pomola (point B on sketch-map No. A-l) was to the south. El Salvador retorts that the latter objection could also be made to the Honduran version of the line from the "cabecera del Pomola" (point H' on sketch-map No. A-l) to the next marker point (point H on the sketch-map), but on inspection of the maps, this does not appear to the Chamber to be so. On the contrary, it is this consideration which entitles a choice to be made, in the view of the Chamber, between the two competing identifications of the "cabecera del Pomola". In the interpretation of El Salvador, the line from the source of the Pomola to what is marked on its map as the "La Chicotera gorge" (line B-J on sketch-map No. A-l annexed) — which apparently, in El Salvador’s contention, corresponds to, or leads to, the "quebrada called Taguilapa" — runs at only 5 degrees west of due south. On Honduras’s interpretation the line from the "cabecera del Pomola" to the "quebrada de Taguilapa" (line H'-H on sketch-map No. A-l) runs for most of its course some 55 degrees west of south, only turning to a more southward orientation for the last 1,000 metres or so of its course. Honduras has also drawn attention to a contemporary scaled plan of the area of the Citalá title surveyed in 1776 ; neither the area identified by Honduras as the Citalá lands nor that so identified by El Salvador coincides to a really satisfactory degree with this 1776 plan, but the shape of El Salvador’s version of the surveyed lands departs far more radically from the sketch-map than does Honduras’s version.
94.
The Chamber, for all the above reasons, concludes that on this point the Honduran interpretation of the 1776 survey-record is to be preferred, and therefore that, prima facie, in 1821 the uti possidetis line west of Talquelazar was as indicated on sketch-map No. A-l annexed by the line C-B'-H'-H. However in order to complete the international frontier in this sector, the Chamber has still to consider the area to the west of that line.
95.
As will be apparent from sketch-map No. A-l annexed, the lands included in the 1776 Citalá title do not extend, even in the interpretation of El Salvador of that title, so far west as the international tripoint from which the first sector of the disputed frontier runs. From the terms of the 1776 title itself, it is clear that the land to the west of the line from the "cabecera del Pomola" to the place called "Las Cruzes" was tierras realengas, since the survey states that the land to the right of the surveying party, as they moved south-west, was such land (see paragraph 91 above); and Honduras observes that since the survey was being effected, according to the record of it, in the province of Gracias a Dios, these must have been tierras realengas of that province, and consequently now part of Honduras. El Salvador does not, as it does in other sectors of the frontier, base any claim to this area on its status as tierras realengas. The absence of any justification in the 1776 Citalá title for El Salvador’s claim to this area is recognized by El Salvador, which claims that "this triangular area forms part of the forestry reserve of El Salvador and is inhabited by citizens of El Salvador...". El Salvador however claims this area on the basis that, by Article 26 of the General Peace Treaty of 1980, the Joint Frontier Commission, and consequently the Chamber (see paragraphs 47 ff. above), should "take into account other evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind, brought before it by the Parties and admitted under international law". In its Reply El Salvador lists a number of villages or hamlets belonging to the municipality of Citalá which fall within the disputed area, and has produced some material relating to rural schools in these places, but of these only the Hacienda de Montecristo (marked south-west of point A on sketch-map No. A-l) lies in the tierras realengas and not in the area covered by the Citalá title.
96.
No evidence has however been adduced that the Hacienda de Montecristo, or more generally this area, or its inhabitants, have been under the administration of the municipality of Citalá. It has been stated by counsel for El Salvador that the Hacienda de Montecristo was donated to the Government of El Salvador by its former owners, to be used as a forestry reserve. The only evidence of effectivités to which attention has been drawn, and which El Salvador apparently regards as sufficient, and as applicable to this area, is a report by a Honduran Ambassador, H.E. Mr. Max Velâsques Diaz, dated October 1988, entitled "Observations sur les chapitres 2 et 7 du mémoire d’El Salvador" ; in this report the Ambassador states that the lands of the disputed area of Tepanguisir "form part of the property of the inhabitants of the municipality of San Francisco de Citalá in El Salvador" ; the report however continues ; "but the right to them belongs to the Republic of Honduras...". The report is, it is suggested, a recognition by Honduras of the existence of effectivités in the form of occupation and possession of the lands by citizens of El Salvador. The Chamber cannot however regard this as sufficient ; to constitute an effectivité relevant to the delimitation of the frontier, what would be required is, at least, some recognition or evidence of the effective administration of the municipality of Citalá in the area, which has been asserted but not proved. Nor has any evidence been offered to show the extent of the Hacienda de Montecristo, or other Salvadorian interests in the area, so as to justify the line claimed rather than any other line connecting the international tripoint with the limits of the 1776 Citala title.
97.
El Salvador has drawn attention to a provision in the Constitution of Honduras whereby land within 40 kilometres of the Honduran frontier can only be acquired or possessed by native Hondurans, on which it bases two arguments. First, it asserts that the ownership of land by Salvadorian nationals in the disputed area less than 40 kilometres from the line which Honduras asserts to be the frontier is in itself sufficient to show that the disputed area is not part of Honduras, and therefore part of El Salvador. The Chamber cannot accept this contention. At the very least, some recognition on the part of Honduras of the ownership of the land by citizens of El Salvador would have to be shown; but there is no evidence of this beyond the Ambassador’s report of October 1988, which is in too general terms. El Salvador argues that

"the existence of even a few Salvadorian landowners in a disputed sector claimed by Honduras produces a strong argument of a human nature for not delimiting the boundary in such a way that that land becomes part of the Republic of Honduras".

The effect of the Chamber’s Judgment will however not be that certain areas will "become" part of Honduras ; the Chamber’s task is to declare what areas are, and what are not, already part of the one State and the other. If Salvadorians have settled in areas of Honduras, neither that fact, nor the consequences of the application of Honduran law to their properties, can affect the matter. Furthermore, counsel for Honduras has indicated to the Chamber that the Honduran constitutional provision referred to could not be applied retroactively to dispossess Salvadorian landowners.

98.
In the Honduran Reply, attention has been drawn to the granting by Honduras of a number of republican titles extending to the south of the line claimed by El Salvador between the tripoint of Montecristo and the headwaters of the Pomola: the titles of Montecristo (1886), Malcotal (1882) and Tontolar(1845), the extent of which, as interpreted by Honduras, is illustrated on sketch-map No. A-4 annexed. These are relied on by Honduras as showing that the area in question which, according to the Citalá title, was in 1776 tierras realengas of the province of Gracias a Dios, was treated as Honduran territory after independence. Neither the fact of the granting of these titles by Honduras nor their extent as indicated on the map annexed to the Honduran Reply, has been challenged by El Salvador.
99.
Reference has already been made above (paragraph 79) to the negotiations held between El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras in 1934-1935 for the purpose of fixing the tripoint where their frontiers meet. In the course of the negotiations, both El Salvador and Honduras advanced claims as to the position of their frontier running eastwards from the agreed tripoint. Eventually agreement was reached on a frontier line lying between the lines asserted by the Parties, though the agreement by the representatives of El Salvador was only ad referendum, since they did not consider that they were empowered to agree to it on behalf of the Government of El Salvador. In the official records of the negotiations, this line, which is indicated on sketch-maps Nos. A-2 and A-3 annexed, was described as follows :

"Las Delegaciones de El Salvador y Honduras convinieron en la siguiente sección de línea fronteriza entre sus respectivos Países, al Este del trifinio :de la cima del Cerro Montecristo a lo largo de la divisoria de las aguas de los ríos Frío o Sesecapa y del Rosario, hasta la conjunción de esta divisoria con la divisoria de las aguas de la cuenca de la Quebrada de Pomola; de aquí en dirección general hacia el Noreste, a lo largo de la divisoria de la cuenca de la Quebrada de Pomola, hasta la conjunción de dicha divisoria con la divisoria de las aguas entre la Quebrada de Cipresales y las Quebradas del Cedrón, Peña Dorada y Pomola propiamente dicha; de este punto, a lo largo de la divisoria de aguas últimamente mencionada, hasta la confluencia de las líneas medias de las Quebradas de Cipresales y de Pomola; de éste, aguas abajo por la línea media de la Quebrada de Pomola, hasta el punto de dicha línea media, más próximo al mojón de Pomola en El Talquezalar; y de este punto en línea recta hasta dicho mojón. "

[Translation]

"The delegations of El Salvador and Honduras have agreed on the following section of the frontier line between their two respective countries to the east of the tripoint : from the top of the Montecristo mountain along the watershed between the rivers Frio or Sesecapa and Del Rosario as far as the junction of this watershed with the watershed of the basin of the quebrada de Pomola; thereafter in a north-easterly direction along the watershed of the basin of the quebrada de Pomola until the junction of this watershed with the watershed between the quebrada de Cipresales and the quebradas del Cedrôn, Peña Dorada and Pomola proper ; from that point, along the last-named watershed as far as the intersection of the centre-lines of the quebradas of Cipresales and Pomola; thereafter, downstream along the centre-line of the quebrada de Pomola, until the point on that centre-line which is closest to the boundary marker of Pomola at El Talquezalar; and from that point in a straight line as far as that marker."

100.
So far as the Chamber is informed, while the Government of El Salvador did not ratify the terms which had been agreed ad referendum by its representatives, neither did it denounce them ; and Honduras gave no indication that it regarded the consent given by its representatives as retracted on the grounds of non-endorsement by El Salvador of the settlement. The matter remained in abeyance at least until 1972. During the discussion of 1985, Honduras proposed the adoption of the line agreed ad referendum in 1934 between Cerro Montecristo and Talquezalar, coupled with a particular line between Talquezalar and the Cerro Zapotal; El Salvador had no difficulty in accepting the first line, but rejected the second.
101.
In the circumstances, the Chamber considers that it may adopt the 1935 line, taking account primarily of the fact that the line for the most part follows the watersheds, which provide a clear and unambiguous boundary. As the Chamber has stated (paragraph 46 above) the suitability of topographical features to provide a readily identifiable and convenient boundary is a material aspect where no conclusion unambiguously pointing to another boundary emerges from the documentary material. The line also leaves to Honduras the areas comprised in the Honduran republican titles referred to in paragraph 98 above, and leaves to El Salvador the Hacienda de Montecristo. It is however also material that the line was agreed — if only ad referendum — in 1934, probably in view of its practical merits, and the provisional agreement was so long left unchallenged.
102.
In this first sector the Chamber has finally to deal with the material put forward by Honduras in its Reply concerning settlement of Honduran nationals in the disputed areas and the exercise there by Honduran authorities of judicial and other functions (paragraph 60 above). In this sector the evidence offered, apart from some 19th century minor criminal procedures, which appear to the Chamber to be without significance in view of the Honduran acquiescence in the Citalá/Ocotepeque limit as the boundary, consists of material relating to the administration of rural schools at El Penasco, La Laguna, Montecristo, San Rafael and El Volcan, and dating from the period 1952-1969; registration of births in places called Los Planes, La Montanita, Talquezalar, La Laguna, Zapotal, Ton-tolar and Malcotal (1926 to 1975), and baptismal records back to 1791 in the parish of San José, Ocotepeque, relating to births in La Cuestona, Talquezalar, La Ermita, Los Planes, El Penasco, and some isolated records of other places. Even assuming that all these localities fall on the El Salvador side of the line of the boundary indicated in this Judgment, which the Chamber is unable to determine without specific map indications, this material does not appear sufficient by way of effectivités to be capable of affecting the decision.
103.
The conclusion at which the Chamber arrives in respect of the first disputed sector of the land frontier is as follows. It begins at the tripoint with Guatemala, the "point known as El Trifinio on the summit of the Cerro Montecristo", indicated as point A on Map No. 11 annexed. The co-ordinates of this point are given by the Parties as follows: Honduras: 14° 25'20" N, 89° 21' 28" W; El Salvador: 14° 25' 10,784" N, 89° 21' 21,568" W. As explained in paragraph 68 above, the discrepancy results solely from the choice of datum; the co-ordinates to be used in this Judgment are derived from the maps used to illustrate the Judgment (supplied by the United States Defense Mapping Agency : see below), and are for this point : 14° 25' 10" N, 89° 21' 20" W. From this point, the frontier between El Salvador and Honduras runs in a generally easterly direction, following the direct line of watersheds, in accordance with the agreement reached in 1935, and accepted ad referendum by the representatives of El Salvador, namely the line drawn on the aerial survey map produced by the surveyor Sidney H. Birdseye, signed by him at Chiquimula, Guatemala, in June 1935, and approved by the delegations of the three States engaged in the Chiquimula negotiations (see sketch-maps Nos. A-2 and A-3). In accordance with the 1935 agreement (paragraph 99 above), the frontier runs "along the watershed between the rivers Frio or Sesecapa and Del Rosario as far as the junction of this watershed with the watershed of the basin of the quebrada de Pomola" (point B on Map No. I annexed); "thereafter in a north-easterly direction along the watershed of the basin of the quebrada de Pomola until the junction of this watershed with the watershed between the quebrada de Cipresales and the quebradas del Cedrôn, Peña Dorada and Pomola proper" (point C on Map No. I annexed) ; "from that point, along the last-named watershed as far as the intersection of the centre-lines of the quebradas of Cipresales and Pomola" (point D on Map No. I annexed) ; "thereafter, downstream along the centre-line of the quebrada de Pomola, until the point on that centreline which is closest to the boundary marker of Pomola at El Talquezalar; and from that point in a straight line as far as that marker" (point E on Map No. I annexed). From the boundary marker of El Talquezalar, the frontier continues in a straight line in a south-easterly direction to the boundary marker of the Cerro Piedra Menuda (point F), and thence in a straight line to the boundary marker of the Cerro Zapotal (point G). For the purposes of illustration, the line is indicated on Map No. I annexed, which is composed of the following sheets of the United States of America Defense Mapping Agency 1:50,000 maps, supplied to the Chamber by the courtesy of the United States Government :

Series E752 Sheet 2359 II Edition 2-DMA

Series E754 Sheet 2359 III Edition 1-DMA.

The Chamber notes that concrete boundary markers were erected on the Cerro Piedra Menuda and the Cerro Zapotal for the purposes of the 1935 aerial survey, and that the co-ordinates of the Cerro Zapotal are agreed by both Parties to be 14° 23' 26" N and 89° 14' 43" W, which also correspond to the co-ordinates derived from the United States Defense Mapping Agency maps annexed to the Judgment.

Second Sector of the Land Boundary

104.
The second disputed sector of the land boundary lies between the Peña de Cayaguanca, the most easterly point of the second agreed section of the frontier (point A on sketch-map No. B-l annexed), and the confluence of the stream of Chiquita or Oscura with the river Sumpul, the most westerly point of the third agreed section (point E on sketch-map No. B-l annexed). That sketch-map shows the area in dispute, as defined by the divergent claims of the Parties as to the position of the frontier : Honduras claims that the boundary should run in a straight line from point A to point E on the map, while El Salvador claims that it should follow the course A-D'-D-E. Honduras bases its claim principally on a titulo of 1742, that of Jupula. El Salvador, while referring also to 17th century records, relies principally on a Salvadorian republican title granted shortly after independence : it has been referred to as that of Dulce Nombre de la Palma, though the lands to which it applies were called Rio Chiquita and Sesesmiles, and were granted in 1833 to the community of La Palma in the Republic of El Salvador on the basis of a survey effected in 1829. In the contention of Honduras, its rights on the basis of the uti possidetis juris of 1821, based on the 1742 Jupula title, extend to the whole of the area in dispute. El Salvador concedes that the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma does not extend to the whole of the area : it claims that the boundary of the title, in the relevant area, followed the line A-B-C-D-E on sketch-map No. B-l, thus excluding a narrow triangular strip of land, between that line and the line A-D'-D-E, which El Salvador originally characterized as tierras realengas, but claimed at the hearings solely on the basis of Salvadorian effectivités in the area. This claim will be examined in due course ; it will first be convenient to examine the main titles relied on by the Parties in chronological order, reserving for the present the question of the weight to be attached to a republican title of 1829-1833 for purposes of the uti possidetis juris of 1821 (see paragraph 56 above).
105.
The title of 1742, relied upon by Honduras, was issued in the context of the long-standing dispute, already referred to (paragraph 70 above) between the Indians of Ocotepeque in the province of Gracias a Dios, and those of Citalá, in the province of San Salvador. Application was made to the Juez Privativo del Real Derecho de Tierras of the Audiencia of Guatemala, who designated a Juez Subdelegado from each of the two provinces concerned to summon the two communities and to endeavour to settle the dispute. The principal outcome, as recorded in the title, was the confirmation and agreement of the boundaries of the lands of Jupula, over which the Indians of Ocotepeque claimed to have rights, which were attributed to the Indians of Citalá. These lands lie to the south-west of the area now in dispute, and on the El Salvador side of the second agreed section of the international frontier, as indicated on Map B.6.3 to the Honduran Memorial ; no question therefore arises for the Chamber so far as they are concerned. It was however recorded that the inhabitants of Ocotepeque, having recognized the entitlement of the inhabitants of Citalá to the land surveyed, also made the following request :

"... solo suplican se les deje libre una montaña llamada Cayaguanca que está arriba del río de Jupula que es realenga y tienen cultivada los naturales del barrio del Señor San Sebastián del dicho su pueblo con las que quedan contentos y recompensados por las de Jupula... "

[Translation]

"... they merely request that there be left free for them a mountain called Cayaguanca which is above the Jupula river, which is crown land, and which the natives of the quarter of San Sebastian of the said town have cultivated, with which they would consider themselves satisfied and compensated for those of Jupula..."

106.
A further indication of the location of the "mountain called Cayaguanca which is above the Jupula river" is provided by the following passage in the title : the landmarks indicating the division between Citalá lands and Ocotepeque lands were surveyed

"... hasta que se llegó al pie de un peñasco blanco que está en la cumbre de un cerro muy alto en donde se refrendó montón de piedras que se halló en el título mencionado en cuyo paraje los naturales del pueblo de Ocotepeque dijeron que la montaña que tenían pedida como consta de estos qutos era la que corría de este mojón último para el Oriente que llamen 'Cayaguanca' que es la que cultivan los de Ocotepeque y que dejándoles esta montaña quedan contentos... "

[Translation]

"... until reaching the foot of a white rock which is on the summit of a very high hill, where it was confirmed that there was a pile of stones mentioned in the said title-deed, at which place the natives of the town of Ocotepeque said that the mountain they had asked for, as is herein recorded, was the one which ran from this landmark to the east, called Cayaguanca, which is the one the people of Ocotepeque cultivate, and that if this mountain were left to them they would be satisfied..

The two land judges in 1742 recorded further that

"... mandamos a los de Ocotepeque usen de la dicha montana..."[Translation]

"... we command the people of Ocotepeque to make use of the said mountain..

107.
On this basis, Honduras claims pursuant to the uti possidetis juris of 1821, that the "mountain of Cayaguanca" must fall within Honduras; and it identifies the whole area in dispute in this sector, and further land to the north-west, with the "mountain of Cayaguanca". It therefore claims that the frontier should follow the line A-E indicated on sketch-map No. B-l annexed hereto. It is conceded that the 1742 Jupula title gives no indication of the boundaries of the mountain, other than that it lay to the east of the boundary marker described in the extract from the title set out above; both Parties accept that that boundary marker corresponds to the point now known as the Peña de Cayaguanca, the point from which the boundary in this second disputed sector will run. Honduras suggests that the limits of the mountain of Cayaguanca were well known to those concerned in 1742, and argues that the line it puts forward "is in conformity with a reasonable interpretation of an imprecise title", and "in harmony with the text and context" ; it also states that this is the line which it has always claimed to be the boundary between the two Republics.
108.
Independently of the problem of ascertaining the precise location and extent of the "mountain of Cayaguanca", a number of objections of substance have been made by El Salvador to the reliance of Honduras on the Jupula title. Honduras claims that by virtue of the 1742 proceedings, the community of Ocotepeque acquired rights over the mountain of Cayaguanca which was tierras realengas. El Salvador claims that on the contrary the provision for the use of the mountain by the community of Ocotepeque was not a grant of a formal title, but merely a permission to use the land, did not constitute an element of the operative part of the deed, and did not comply with contemporary legal requirements. In the view of the Chamber, however, it is not necessary for it to go into the question of the precise legal effect, under Spanish colonial law, of the Jupula title as regards the mountain of Cayaguanca. The title is evidence that in 1742 the mountain of Cayaguanca was tierras realengas (see the first passage quoted above); and since the community of Ocotepeque, situate in the province of Gracias a Dios, was authorized to cultivate it, it may be concluded, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the mountain was tierras realengas of that province. On this basis, if there was no relevant change in the provincial boundaries between 1742 and 1821, the mountain of Cayaguanca must on independence have formed part of Honduras on the basis of the uti possidetis juris. It is however another matter to determine the location and extent of the mountain.
109.
El Salvador disputes the claim of Honduras that the "mountain of Cayaguanca" is in, and extends over the whole of, the disputed area in this sector. In this respect it interprets the words "arriba del rio de Jupula" ("above the river Jupula") as signifying that the mountain of Cayaguanca is in Honduras north of the second agreed section of the frontier, because on the Honduran map "the rio de Jupula is shown as ending before the meridian of the peak of Cayaguanca", so that the "the mountain called Cayaguanca is situated symmetrically above the rio de Jupula in the territory of Honduras". However, El Salvador’s own maps show the Rio Jupula rising some 2-3 kilometres further east. Furthermore, in the view of the Chamber, to interpret "above" in the sense of "to the north of’ is to strain the ordinary meaning of the word "above", and could be misplaced, with reference to a period when the convention of placing the north at the top of a map was not habitual. The various contemporary sketch-plans produced with the survey records in these proceedings are aligned in whatever way most conveniently fits the paper, so that north may be at the top, bottom or side of the sheet. The meticulously drawn map of the parishes of the province of San Miguel drawn in 1804 and submitted by Honduras places the north at the bottom of the map. The Chamber considers that the expression "arriba del rio de Jupula ’’does not detract from — nor add anything useful to — the geographical indication elsewhere in the 1742 document that the mountain was to the east of the most easterly boundary marker of Jupula.
110.
El Salvador also relies on the 1818 title of Ocotepeque, which has already been referred to (paragraphs 87-89 above) in connection with the first disputed sector of the land boundary. This title was issued to the community of Ocotepeque for the purpose of re-establishment of the boundary markers of their lands, and it is the contention of El Salvador that the "mountain of Cayaguanca" would necessarily have been included in the 1818 title if it was truly awarded to the inhabitants of Ocotepeque in 1742. The survey of 1818 began and ended at the "Cerro de Cayaguanca", which appears to be identical with the "Pena de Cayaguanca", which is the endpoint of the present disputed sector. Counsel for Honduras conceded at the hearings that what is claimed as the "mountain of Cayaguanca" did not fall within the title of Ocotepeque as surveyed in 1818. El Salvador contends that this indicates that the community of Ocotepeque did not possess rights over the "mountain of Cayaguanca", but the Chamber does not consider that this conclusion follows. In view of the status of the mountain of Cayaguanca in 1742 as tierras realengas of the province of Gracias a Dios, the fact that an Indian community could enjoy rights of various kinds, and the fact that only the community of Citala, not that of Ocotepeque, received a titulo in 1742 (paragraph 105 above) over lands over which Ocotepeque had claimed rights, the Chamber considers that the fact that Cayaguanca does not appear in the 1818 Ocotepeque title does not imply that the Ocotepeque community had no right to land further south-east, from which it could be argued that the provincial boundary was defined, in the area now under consideration, by the south-east boundary of the 1818 Ocotepeque title. It may be noted in passing that the lands of Ocotepeque were the subject of the republican title of San Andres de Ocotepeque, granted by Honduras in 1914 (see paragraph 78 above); the 1914 survey apparently covered the same ground as the 1818 Ocotepeque survey, so that this 1914 title does not appear to assist the Chamber further, in this respect.
111.
The position then appears to the Chamber to be that in 1821 the Indians of Ocotepeque, in the province of Gracias a Dios, were entitled to the lands re-surveyed in 1818, but were in addition entitled to rights of usage over the "mountain of Cayaguanca" somewhere to the east — which could also mean north-east or south-east; and that the area subject to these rights, being tierras realengas of the province of Gracias a Dios, became Honduran territory with the accession of the two States to independence. The problem however remains of determining the extent of the area in question. The Chamber sees no evidence of its boundaries, and in particular none to support the Honduran claim that the area referred to in 1742 as the "mountain of Cayaguanca" extended as far east as the river Sumpul, and was bounded by the line A-E on sketch-map No. B-1, as claimed by Honduras (see paragraph 107 above). It is possible to regard as doubtful an interpretation of the 1742 title as generating a straight line connecting the two endpoints, only to be defined in 1980, of a disputed sector of the inter-State frontier.
112.
It is appropriate therefore next to consider what light may be thrown on the matter by the republican title of Dulce N ombre de la Palma. As already explained (paragraph 56 above), the Parties have disputed the relevance or value as evidence of the republican titles. In this specific case the Chamber considers that the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma is a piece of evidence which the Chamber is entitled to take into account, because the 1742 Jupula title is not capable of showing exactly the territorial expanse of the mountain of Cayaguanca to which it refers, one of the situations contemplated in the dictum of the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute case quoted in paragraph 61 above. Thus the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma is of significance, in that it shows how the uti possidetis juris position was understood at that time ; for it was granted very shortly after the independence of the two States from Spain, and indeed at a time when they were both still constituent States of the Federal Republic of Central America. It shows that the system for surveying and granting lands to Indian communities had changed very little with the breaking of the link with Spain ; it covers most of the areas in dispute ; the record shows that the neighbouring Honduran community of Ocotepeque was notified of the survey; there is no comparable pre-independence title, or other evidence of the pre-independence period, with which it can be shown to conflict; and it has not been suggested that the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title was issued in order to strengthen the territorial claim of the Republic of El Salvador.
113.
One of the boundaries of the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma about which there can be no dispute is the river Sumpul, which determines the eastward extent of the lands included in the title. Honduras excludes from its claim the southern part of those lands, between the Cerrito de Llarunconte (point Z on sketch-map No. B-1 annexed) and the Penasco Blanco (point X on the sketch-map), i.e., the area A-X-Y-Z-A (but see paragraph 126 below). The boundary of the title which is disputed is the north-western side, between the junction of the Sumpul river with the quebrada del Copantillo (point D on sketch-map No. B-l), and the Penasco Blanco (point X on the sketch-map). The two versions of this boundary line of the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma put forward by the Parties are indicated on sketch-map No. B-l : the line claimed by El Salvador is the line X-Y-Z-A-B-C-D; that claimed by Honduras is the line X-Y-D. The passage in the title itself which has provoked these conflicting interpretations is as follows ;

"En treinta y uno del presente mes siguiendo el mismo rumbo desde la dicha Piedra hasta la union de la quebrada del Copantillo con el Rio Sumpul aguas arriba de este, llegamos treinta y nueve cuerdas, y aqui se plantô una Cruz calzada de piedras por mojón, y de este punto se cambio el rumbo aguas arriba de la quebradita al Sud-Oeste cuatro grados al Sud-SudOeste y se midieron treinta y cinco mâs hasta el parage llamado el pital, donde quedando otra igual cruz, y piedras por mojón,... En primero de agosto... en el dicho parage el pital siguiendo el mismo rumbo se tirô la cuerda y llegamos a la cercania del copo de Cayaguanca con sesenta dichas, de donde prosiguiendo todavia este rumbo se tiraron treinta y siete mas para llegar a la cabecera del rio de Jupula, y quedando por mojón otra Cruz y piedras... "

[Translation]

"On the thirty-first of the present month and following the same course from the afore-mentioned Rock [sc., the Piedra del Pùlpito] to the confluence of the quebrada del Copantillo with the Sumpul River, following the river upstream, we extended the cord 39 times, and here we planted a cross surrounded with stones as landmark, and from here we changed course as follows : upstream of the quebradita to the south-west with four degrees of declination to the south-southwest, and walking along this route we measured 35 cords more, to the place called El Pital, where we left another similar cross and stones as landmark... On August the first,... beginning at the place of El Pital and following the same direction as yesterday, we extended the cord and came near to the Copo de Cayaguanca, which was 60 of the said cords, wherefrom and still in that direction 37 more were measured to reach the headwaters of the Jupula River, and we left as landmark another cross and stones..."

114.
The contention of Honduras, on the basis of this text, is that from the confluence of the quebrada del Copantillo with the river Sumpul, the survey party travelled continuously in a straight line, in the direction south-south-west ; it follows that they left to the west of the line of Honduras’s interpretation of the La Palma title, not merely the Cerro El Pital but also the Cerro de Cayaguanca. El Salvador however contends that the survey party turned up the quebrada del Copantillo, in a generally south-south-west direction, and followed it to the "place called El Pital". The Chamber considers that this is the more convincing interpretation of the document. From the contours drawn on the maps submitted, it is clear that to follow a straight line on a consistent bearing would have been so difficult as to be barely practicable ; and it is highly unlikely that the survey party, who were engaged in laying down a boundary, would have ignored so clear a landmark as a stream flowing in an appropriate direction, to follow a straight line roughly parallel to it, whose position would be difficult to define and re-establish. Some significance may also be attached to the fact that two of the Honduran republican titles brought to the Chamber’s notice (see paragraph 120 below), those of the Volcân de Cayaguanca, granted in 1824 and 1838, are bounded to the south-east, according to Honduras’s delineation of them on the map, by the quebrada del Copantillo (though the text of the Honduran republican titles themselves makes no mention of it).
115.
On the other hand, from the head of the quebrada del Copantillo onwards, the Chamber does find the interpretation of the title advanced by Honduras more convincing than that of El Salvador. The question to be resolved is the interpretation of the expression "el parage llamado el pital", the place called El Pital, in the 1829 survey record. In the view of El Salvador, this refers to the peak called the Cerro El Pital; but Honduras observes that this would signify that the survey party climbed the Cerro El Pital, which is 2,780 metres high, and if they had done so in one day, the fact would surely have been recorded. This is however to overlook that the survey party was not starting from sea-level ; the Piedra del Pulpito, where they started from that day, is already at an elevation of some 1,850 metres, according to the maps submitted by the Parties. Honduras however also draws attention to the use of the word "parage’’("place") rather than any word signifying a peak, which would surely have been used if the Cerro El Pital had been meant. The Chamber thinks that this is a valid point: if it had been intended to indicate that the survey line passed over the summit of the Cerro El Pital, the neutral word "parage ’’would not have been used. For reasons now to be considered, the line of the survey, in the view of the Chamber, passed over the lower peak or spur indicated on the map produced by El Salvador as "El Burro", and this is probably therefore the "parage called El Pital".
116.
After passing the "parage called El Pital", the "Copo de Cayaguanca" and the headwaters of the river Jupula (see quotation above), the survey continued as follows :

"En très del citado mes yo el referido comisionado y asistentes advertido de la inaccecibilidad del antedicho mojón a la loma de Santa Rosa me constitui a ella por diverso camino en donde hallé el lindero divisorio que empalma con los egidos de este pueblo conforme al dicho general y al piano del Ciudadano agrimensor Camino. Estando pues en el, puse la brùjula en la rosa hacia el anterior mojón y apuntô al Oeste NorOeste, dos grados al NorOeste, quedando este de Santa Rosa (Alias Marrano) con respecto de aquel almismo rumbo que trajo la cuerda de la quebrada del Copantillo. En este citado me convenci de lo impenetrable de los quebrados que se preparan de este punto al Penasco Blanco, con los que me resolvi a hacer otra igual operacion que en el anterior, y apuntô hacia el Este-Sud-Este, dos grados al Sud-Este. Demarcado asi este lugar por la coincidencia de los rumbos, tomé el compas de la escala y medi al mojón cabecera del rio de Jupula ochenta y cuatro y media cuerdas, y al dicho Penasco Blanco, ciento veinte y una. "

[Translation]

"On the third of the said month, I, the said Commissioner and assistants, having observed the inaccessibility from the beforesaid landmark to the hillock of Santa Rosa, I reached it by a different route, where I found the dividing boundary with the common lands of this town according to general report and to the sketch of the citizen Surveyor Caminos. From there, therefore, 1 set the magnetic needle on the Nautical rose, and oriented towards the preceding landmark it pointed to the west-north-west, two degrees to the north-west, so that to this of Santa Rosa (also named Marrano) in relation to that one, is the same direction kept by the cord from the quebrada del Copantillo. The same day I reached the conviction of the impenetrability of the ravines that lie between here and the point of Penasco Blanco, so that I decided to make the same operation as with the precedent landmark, and it pointed to the east-south-east, two degrees to the southeast. Having thus demarcated this place by means of the coincidence of courses, I took the scaled compass and measured 84.5 cords to the landmark of the headwaters of the Jupula, and 121 to the said Penasco Blanco."

117.
This survey record does not make clear what procedure the surveyor followed to locate the position of the Santa Rosa hillock. The record was referred to a contemporary Salvadorian revising surveyor, who found some ambiguities in the bearings; from the original record and plan, the comments of the revising surveyor and his revised plan it can be deduced that the hillock of Santa Rosa is at the intersection of the prolongation of the general direction of the quebrada del Copantillo the bearing of which was recorded by the surveyor as SW 4° SSW (or S 41° W in more modem notation), with a bearing of WNW 2° NW (or W 24.5° N) from Penasco Blanco. The distances from the Santa Rosa hillock to the headwaters of the Jupula river and to Penasco Blanco were presumably scaled by the surveyor from his sketch-plan. The title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma was granted on this basis. It is thus clear that from the point where the survey left the quebrada del Copantillo to the Santa Rosa hillock the line was essentially a straight one on a consistent bearing of S 41° W, corresponding to the general direction of the quebrada del Copantillo itself, and this is consistent with the sketch-plan prepared by the surveyor and included in the title. Since magnetic variation in the region at the time was some 7° E, the 1829 magnetic bearing of S 41 ° W is equal to about S 48° W true.
118.
However the line mapped by El Salvador as corresponding to this survey makes two changes of direction, each amounting to almost a right angle, at the points identified by El Salvador as the "Copo de Cayaguanca" and the "headwater of the Jupula river". Without these angles, it is impossible to make the line arrive at the Peña de Cayaguanca, the terminal point of the second agreed section of the frontier, and which El Salvador identifies with the "Copo de Cayaguanca" referred to in the 1829 survey. The 1829 survey does not however state that the line ran to the Copo de Cayaguanca, but merely near it: ... se tiró la cuerda y llegamos a la cercanía del Copo de Cayaguanca.. ("... we extended the cord and came to near the Copo de Cayaguanca..."). In the Chamber’s view, furthermore, the identification of the 1829 Copo de Cayaguanca with the agreed position of the Peña de Cayaguanca is not self-evident. The 1980 General Treaty of Peace indicates that the Peña de Cayaguanca is near (or above) the source of the quebrada known as, inter alia, the quebrada Pacaya (Art. 16, Second Section); this apparently follows the identification in the records of the Cruz-Letona negotiations in 1884, where mention is made of "the mountain of Cayaguanca, between the villages of Citalá and Ocotepeque, where the quebrada de Las Pacayas has its source". In 1889, the geographer Bustamente referred to the Jupula boundary marker of the "penasco blanco" as being "... on the summit of the mountain called Cayaguanca..." ("... que está en la cumbre de la montaña llamada Cayaguanca... On the other hand Honduras, as already noted, interprets the reference in the 1742 title of Jupula to the "mountain of Cayaguanca" as signifying the whole massif of which the Cerro El Pital is the highest point.
119.
Similarly, the point at which the line drawn by El Salvador meets the river Jupula is identified as the "headwaters" (cabecera) of the Jupula, mentioned in the 1829 survey; yet, as noted above (paragraph 109), on El Salvador’s own map, the river is shown as rising some 2-3 kilometres to the east of this point, fed by the quebrada El Aguacate and the quebrada El Botoncillal. It appears, from a map attached to the El Salvador Counter-Memorial, that this interpretation has the effect of making the 1833 Dulce Nombre de la Palma title contiguous, on the west, with the Jupula title of 1742 even though the two marker points in that title are differently specified. Furthermore, El Salvador’s identification of the "Penasco Blanco" referred to in the 1829 title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma is inconsistent with its placing of the north-west landmark of the Jupula title, also referred to as "Penasco Blanco".
120.
The Chamber considers that the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma must be interpreted according to its terms, and that if it is impossible to read it as extending as far west as what is today called the Peña de Cayaguanca and the source of the quebrada de Pacaya, or as coterminous with the land surveyed in 1742 for the Jupula title, the conclusion has to be accepted that there was an intervening area not covered by either title. The presence of such an area was in fact to be expected, given the reference in 1742 to the rights of the Indian community of Ocotepeque over the "mountain of Cayaguanca" eastwards of the Jupula title. In this connection, the Chamber notes that the community of Ocotepeque was summoned to appear when the survey of Dulce Nombre de la Palma was to be carried out, but did not do so, or present a rival title. This however is quite consistent with the existence of rights of Ocotepeque over the mountain of Cayaguanca since 1742, which rights had not been recorded in a formal title embodying a survey, which could be produced.
121.
The Chamber concludes that the north-western boundary of the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma runs from the confluence of the quebrada del Copantillo with the river Sumpul, up the quebrada del Copantillo to its source, from there to the ridge or peak marked on El Salvador’s Map 6.II as "El Burro", and on Honduran maps as "Piedra Rajada", and thence in a straight line on a bearing of approximately S 48° W (see paragraph 115 above) to a hill indicated on the maps of both Parties as the Loma de Los Encinos. This hill, which lies on the correct bearing and close to a settlement marked on those maps as Santa Rosa, appears to the Chamber to be, in all probability, the "Santa Rosa hillock" referred to in the 1829 survey. The further course of the boundary of Dulce Nombre de la Palma is not material to the dispute before the Chamber, since the Loma de Los Encinos is already in territory recognized by Honduras as part of El Salvador.
122.
The title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma is not the only republican title granted in this area. Honduras has drawn attention to the existence of three republican titles in the disputed area issued by the authorities of Honduras : Volcân de Cayaguanca (1824); Volcân de Cayaguanca (1838); and Las Nubes (1886). The first of these, that of 1824, in fact antedates the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma; as already noted, neither this title nor that of 1838 conflicts with the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title, but on the contrary appear to be coterminous with it along the two banks of the quebrada del Copantillo (paragraph 113 above). The republican title of Las Nubes on the other hand, according to Honduras’s delineation of it on the map, falls within the area of land which the Chamber has found to be covered by the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title. The Chamber does not, however, consider that the Honduran mapping of the title of Las Nubes is correct. From the text of the title submitted to the Chamber it is clear that the lands surveyed abutted to the south-east on lands of a title of 1856 called Botoncillal, or San Martin de Cayaguanca, the text of which was reproduced in the Las Nubes title. From that title it is clear that the Botoncillal lands abutted in turn on those of La Palma. The Chamber concludes that there is here no conflict with republican land-titles of Honduras which might throw doubt on the Chamber’s interpretation of the title of Dulce Nombre de La Palma of El Salvador.
123.
Mention has been made of the effectivités claimed by each of the Parties, which the Chamber considers that it should examine, to ascertain whether they support the conclusion based on the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma. Reference to the map supplied in the Memorial of El Salvador to show the human settlements in this sector which, it is claimed, are composed of Salvadorians and administered by El Salvador, shows that, with one possible exception, they all lie within the area of the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title as interpreted by the Chamber. The exception is the Hacienda de Sumpul, the precise position of which is not clear: in the Memorial of El Salvador it is referred to as being to the north of the quebrada del Copantillo, which would place it outside the 1829 title: on the map presented during the hearings the name "Sumpul" is placed to the south of that quebrada, within the area claimed as the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title. In any event, the Chamber notes that none of the evidence of administration by El Salvador in this sector supplied with the Memorial relates to Sumpul. Honduras has also presented evidence (cf. paragraph 60 above) of the existence of settlements of Honduran nationals and the exercise by Honduran authorities of their functions in the area. This consists essentially of records of administration of a rural school at Rio Chiquito, real property transactions registered in Ocotepeque of various pieces of land (including "Las Nubes" : see paragraph 122 above), a few birth and death registrations and baptismal registrations with indications of place of birth. Assuming Rio Chiquito to be where indicated on both Parties’ maps, this shows that the school in question will lie on the El Salvador side of the boundary line; but neither this circumstance nor the other material presented appear to the Chamber to rank as an effectivité capable of affecting the decision. The Chamber concludes that there is no reason to alter its finding as to the position of the boundary in this region.
124.
It is appropriate at this point to turn to the area in this sector which is claimed by El Salvador outside the lands of Dulce Nombre de La Palma, namely the narrow triangular strip of land along and outside the north-west boundary of the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title (i.e., as interpreted by El Salvador, between the lines A-D'-D and A-B-C-D on sketch-map No. B-l). In its Memorial El Salvador referred in support of this claim to documents of 1695 and 1718 referring to lands in the "Valle de Sumpul", but it does not appear possible to identify the location of these. According to the 1829 Dulce Nombre de La Palma title, the representatives of Citalá then stated that the land then surveyed abutted to the north on the State of Honduras. It was stated by counsel at the hearings that "This marginal area is totally occupied by citizens of El Salvador, and is administered and run by the authorities and public services of El Salvador". However no evidence to that effect has been laid before the Chamber. El Salvador relies on a passage in the Reply of Honduras which it regards as an admission by Honduras of the existence of Salvadorian effectivités in this area. The passage in question reads as follows :

"After the critical date of 1821, effective practice in this sector proves to be incomplete in itself and perhaps insufficient for Honduran sovereignty over the Cayaguanca mountain sector to be claimed independently and beyond doubt. But this is not Honduras’s argument in the present case. On the contrary, what it is doing is submitting to the Chamber of the Court complementary a posteriori arguments to confirm the uti possidetis juris, not as a substitute for it."

125.
The Chamber is unable to read this as an admission of El Salvador’s effectivités in the sector. The Chamber recognizes a Honduran entitlement, on the basis of the 1821 uti possidetis juris, outside the bounds of the Dulce Nombre de la Palma title, so that the question whether "effective practice" is sufficient to show Honduran sovereignty does not arise. In any event, in a remote and mountainous region like this, the absence of Honduran effectivités does not necessarily imply the presence, throughout the region, of Salvadorian effectivités. There being no other evidence to support the claim of El Salvador to the narrow triangular strip between the source of the Sumpul and the Peña de Cayaguanca, the Chamber holds that it appertains to Honduras, having formed part of the "mountain of Cayaguanca" attributed to the community of Ocotepeque in 1742.
126.
The only question remaining in this sector is that part of the boundary which extends between the Peña de Cayaguanca (point A), terminus of the second agreed sector of the boundary, and the western boundary of the area covered by the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma. The Chamber considers that El Salvador has not made good any claim to any area further west than the Loma de Los Encinos or "Santa Rosa hillock", the most westerly point of the title of Dulce Nombre de la Palma. Honduras has only asserted a claim, on the basis of the rights of Ocotepeque to the "mountain of Cayaguanca", so far south as a straight line (line A-X-E on sketch-map No. B-1) joining the Peña de Cayaguanca to the beginning of the next agreed sector — the confluence of the river Sumpul and the quebrada Chiquita or Oscura. The Chamber, however, considers that neither the principle ne ultra petita, nor any suggested acquiescence by Honduras in the boundary asserted by it, debars the Chamber from enquiry whether the "mountain of Cayaguanca" might have extended further south, so as to be coterminous with the eastern boundary of the Jupula title. In view of the reference in that title to Cayaguanca as lying to the east of the most easterly landmark of Jupula, the Chamber considers that the area between the Jupula lands and the La Palma lands belongs to Honduras, and that in the absence of any other criteria for determining the southward extent of that area, the boundary line between the Peña de Cayaguanca and the Loma de Los Encinos should be a straight line.
127.
Accordingly, the conclusion of the Chamber as to the course of the frontier in this sector is as follows; for purposes of illustration, the line is indicated on Map No. II1 annexed, which is taken from Series E752, Sheet 2359 II, Edition 1-DMA of the United States of America Defense Mapping Agency 1:50,000 maps. From point A on Map No. II annexed, the Peña de Cayaguanca, the frontier runs in a straight line somewhat south of east to the Loma de Los Encinos (point B on Map No. II), and from there in a straight line on a bearing of N 48° E, to the hill shown on the map produced by El Salvador as El Burro (and on the Honduran maps and the United States Defense Mapping Agency maps as Piedra Rajada) (point C on Map No. II). The frontier then takes the shortest course to the head of the quebrada del Copantillo, and follows the quebrada del Copantillo downstream to its confluence with the river Sumpul (point D on Map No. II), and follows the river Sumpul in turn downstream until its confluence with the quebrada Chiquita or Oscura (point E on Map No. II).

Third Sector of the Land Boundary

128.
The third sector of the land boundary in dispute is that between the boundary marker of the Pacacio, on the river of that name, and the boundary marker called Poza del Cajón, on the river known as El Amatillo or Gualcuquín. The respective claims of the Parties are illustrated on sketch-map No. C-l annexed, and are as follows. El Salvador claims that from the boundary marker of the Pacacio (point A on sketch-map No. C-l), the line should follow the Pacacio river upstream to its source, identified by El Salvador as point B on sketch-map No. C-1 ; from there in a straight line to the La Pintal Hill (point C) ; from there in a straight line to the El Fraile Hill (point D) ; from there in a straight line to the headwaters of the Gualcuquín river (point E), and along that river downstream to the Poza del Cajón (point F). Honduras claims that the following should be the line (the names given to the various boundary markers are those given to them by Honduras) : from the boundary marker of the Pacacio in a straight line to the confluence of the quebrada La Puerta with the Gualsinga river (point Z on sketch-map No. C-l), and from there downstream along the river to its confluence with the river Sazalapa (or Zazalapa), the Poza del Toro (point Y); from there up the river Sazalapa (through points G and H on the sketch-map) to the Poza de la Golondrina (point X) ; from there in a series of straight lines to the La Cañada, Guana-caste or Platanar boundary marker (point W), the El Portillo boundary marker (point V), the Guampa boundary marker (point U), the Loma Redonda (point T), the El Ocotillo boundary marker (point S), the Barranco Blanco boundary marker (point R), the Cerro de la Bolsa (point Q), and finally from there in a straight line to the Poza del Cajón (point F). In terms of the grounds asserted for the claims of the Parties, the disputed area may be divided into three parts.
129.
In the first of these three parts, the north-western area, between the lines A-B-C-D and A-Z-Y-G-H-X-D, Honduras invokes the uti possidetis juris of 1821, in reliance on a number of land titles granted between 1719 and 1779. El Salvador on the contrary claims the major part of the area on the basis of effectivités or arguments of a human nature, namely "long term exercise of effective jurisdiction over the diverse aspects of the life of the communities affected" ; it does however claim the area bounded by the line G-G'-H'-H as part of the lands of the title of San Bartolomé de Arcatao of 1724. In the second part, the section between the line X-W-V-U-T-S-R and the line X-D'-D-E'-I-J-K-L-M-N, the essential question is the validity, extent and relationship to each other of the Arcatao title relied on by El Salvador and two titles, of 1741 and 1779, invoked by Honduras. In this region El Salvador is not claiming the area D-E'-I-J-D, notwithstanding the fact that it considers that this area lies within the limits of the 1724 Arcatao title. In the third part, the south-east section, between the lines S-R-Q-F and J-E-F, there is a similar conflict between the Arcatao title and a lost title, that of Nombre de Jesus in the province of San Salvador, on the one hand, and the Honduran title of San Juan de Lacatao, supplemented by the Honduran republican titles of La Virtud and San Sebastian del Palo Verde, on the other. El Salvador claims a further area, outside the asserted limits of the Arcatao and Nombre de Jesüs titles, on the basis of effectivités and human arguments : this area is defined by the lines J-K-L-M-N (eastern limit of the Arcatao title as interpreted by El Salvador) and J-E (eastern limit of area claimed).
130.
In the first, north-western, part of this sector, west of point G on sketch-map No. C-1, El Salvador has not expressed any view on where the line of the 1821 uti possidetis juris should be drawn ; it confines itself to a claim on the basis of post-independence effectivités. Before examining that claim, the Chamber will however briefly consider the Honduran contentions as to the uti possidetis juris line in this area, in order to arrive at a complete picture of the situation in 1821 throughout this sector, before considering the possible impact on it of subsequent events.
131.
Honduras asserts that the limits of the jurisdiction of the pre-independence provinces can be derived from 18th century titles: specifically, those of San Juan El Chapulin of 1766, San Pablo of 1719, Concepcion de las Cuevas of 1719, and Hacienda de Sazalapa of 1746. The location of these, according to Honduras, is indicated on sketch-map No. C-4 annexed to this Judgment. With regard to the titles of San Juan El Chapulin (which, El Salvador emphasizes, was a grant to a private individual) and Concepcion de las Cuevas, El Salvador objects that "in neither of these titles were the inhabitants of Arcatao" — or of any other community in the neighbouring province — "either cited or present and as a result these Title-Deeds did not fix the jurisdictional boundaries of the two provinces". The lands of the 1724 title of Arcatao as mapped by El Salvador did not overlap with or abut on these two Honduran titles; the Chamber has no information as to what titles (if any) in the province of San Salvador were so placed as to justify the relevant communities or owners being so cited to appear. In any event, the question is not whether the said titles relied on "fixed" the provincial boundaries, but simply whether they are evidence from which the position of the provincial boundary can be deduced.
132.
While El Salvador thus has objections in principle to reliance on these 18th century titles, it has only addressed specific criticisms to the Honduran interpretation of that of the Hacienda de Sazalapa, not to the other three ; it has offered its own geographical interpretation only of the Sazalapa title. As will be seen from sketch-map No. C-2, it is not contended that the title of San Pablo abuts on the provincial boundary. Each of the others contains a survey record, and each of them clearly states that the lands measured appertained to the jurisdiction of Gracias a Dios. The Chamber upholds Honduras’s contention in principle that the position of the provincial boundary is defined by the two titles of San Juan El Chapulin and Concepcion de las Cuevas, between the boundary marker of the Pacacio and the point on the river Sazalapa where, according to Honduras, the eastern boundary of the title of Concepcion de las Cuevas is formed by the river Gualsinga, which joins the Sazalapa at point Z on sketch-map No. C-1. The question of where precisely the southern limit of those two titles lay is reserved, since if the Chamber finds in favour of El Salvador’s claim based on effectivités, that question will not need to be decided. Further to the east, the interpretation advanced by Honduras of the title of Hacienda de Sazalapa is contested by El Salvador insofar as it would, according to that interpretation, include the area G-G'-H'-H, claimed to be part of the Salvadorian title of San Bartolomé de Arcatao ; and it is to that title, which is the principal plank in El Salvador’s case in this sector, that the Chamber must now turn.
133.
The Parties disagree over the geographical interpretation to be given to the survey record of the Arcatao title: on sketch-map No. C-l annexed the two versions of the boundary of the land comprised in the title are indicated by the line G-G'-H'-H-X-D'-D-E'-I-J-W, advanced by El Salvador and the line G-H-X-W advanced by Honduras. The survey record of Arcatao at certain points states specifically the location of the provincial boundary at the time of the survey, in 1723. In particular, the surveyor, who was commissioned by the Spanish colonial authorities of the province of San Salvador, reports that he arrived at a quebrada which ran down into the confluence of the rivers Gualquire and Sazalapa (identified by El Salvador as point H on sketch-map No. C-l); he then continues :

"Y siguiendo el mismo rumbo arriba de Zazalapa, lindando con la provincia de Gracias a Dios, que son tierras de la hacienda de Zazalapa..." [Translation]

"And following the same direction above Zazalapa, bordering with the province of Gracias a Dios, which are lands of the Hacienda de Zazalapa..."

The identity and location of the river Zazalapa or Sazalapa are agreed by both Parties; it runs from east to west following the course D'-X-H-G-Y indicated on sketch-map No. C-1, to unite with the river Gualsinga. In this area, where the Parties differ is as to the position and extent of the section of it which the surveyor followed on the Arcatao survey, and whether he in fact crossed it on two occasions.

134.
It will be apparent from sketch-map No. C-1 that according to El Salvador’s interpretation of the title of Arcatao the survey party crossed the Sazalapa river from south to north at a point identified by El Salvador as the "Colmariguan Gorge" referred to in the survey (point G), and recrossed it from north to south, following what El Salvador identifies as the Gualquire river, which merges with the Sazalapa at point H. The result is to produce a protrusion, about a square kilometre in extent, to the north of the Sazalapa. Honduras, on the other hand identifies the various features mentioned in the survey, including the "Colmariguan Gorge" and the confluence with the Gualquire, with appropriate features further southwest, producing thus an interpretation whereby the Arcatao lands would at no point extend north of the Sazalapa.
135.
The title document of Arcatao does not (as does, for example, the title of the Dulce Nombre de la Palma) give precise compass bearings, but merely directions such as "north to south", "west to east" ; distances are given with greater precision, in terms of numbers of cords of defined length, but these are insufficient in themselves to define the situation of the area without more precise bearings or clearly identifiable landmarks. The landmarks in fact referred to, such as "a big hill where there are many large rocks" are far from being unmistakably recognizable; and where watercourses are mentioned, there is often no way of telling which of the watercourses indicated on modern maps corresponds to that named in the title. After careful consideration of the maps and documents produced to it, the Chamber has to conclude that, simply on the basis of matching the terms of the survey record with the features of the terrain, either of the interpretations offered by the Parties could be correct.
136.
The Chamber has therefore to base its decision in this part of the sector on certain salient points of a circumstantial kind. First and most important, Honduras has drawn attention to the undisputed fact that the survey nowhere mentions specifically that the survey party crossed the river Sazalapa. El Salvador argues in reply, first, that

"the surveyor had no reason to mention the crossing of the rio Zazalapa at this particular point of their measurement, simply because at this point this river was not used either to constitute or to denote the boundary..

The Chamber however notes that a few lines before the reference to the river which has been quoted above, the survey record mentions the crossing of a mere quebrada ("habiendo atravesado una quebrada") which also does not serve as a boundary; and a similar mention appears later in the survey record (see the passage quoted in paragraph 151 below). Furthermore, the survey record mentions specifically that the river Sazalapa constituted the provincial boundary, at least for some of its course ; since what is claimed is a protrusion across the river, if the surveyor crossed it, then it was the provincial boundary either to the left or to the right of his crossing point, and one would expect this fact to be recorded (but cf. paragraph 194 below).

137.
There is a passage in the survey record which El Salvador interprets as showing that the survey party did cross the river: the passage immediately precedes the text concerning the river already quoted, and reads :

"... hasta llegar a una quebradita que hasta alli hubo ocho cuerdas, la cual baja al encuentro del río Gualquire y Zazalapa..."

[Translation]

... so as to arrive at a small quebrada, up to which 8 cords were measured, which descends to meet the river Gualquire and Zazalapa..."

It is argued by El Salvador that the use of the word "baja", "descends", indicates that the surveyor must have been to the north of the river, "that is to say above the line of that river" ; and that this is confirmed by the use, in the passage quoted in paragraph 133 above, of the expression "arriba de Zazalapa", "above Zazalapa". On this, the Chamber would repeat the observation already made in paragraph 109 above, that to interpret the word "above", in a document of this period, in the sense of "to the north of’, on the basis of the convention of placing the north to the top of a map, is an argument of very doubtful weight.

138.
The shape of the protrusion G-G'-H'-H to the north of the river Sazalapa, claimed by El Salvador, is such as to suggest, not a demarcation in unclaimed tierras realengas of a suitable area of land cultivated or to be cultivated by an Indian community, but rather a delimitation of an area already hemmed in by existing titles. It is however noteworthy that the part of the survey record which El Salvador interprets as signifying the protrusion across the river makes no mention of any need to respect existing titles, whereas it does do so in other parts of the survey, both preceding and following the passage under consideration.
139.
Honduras contends that the land to the north of the river was surveyed some 20 years later, for the purpose of the grant in 1741 of the title of Hacienda de Sazalapa in the province of Gracias a Dios, and that this latter title confirms Honduras’s interpretation of the Arcatao title; in particular that no protrusion of the Arcatao lands north of the river Sazalapa is compatible with the title of Hacienda de Sazalapa. El Salvador observes that this document is a "title to private proprietary interests in land", not a grant of an ejido to an Indian community; in its view the title of San Bartolomé Arcatao, which is such a "formal title-deed to commons", has "greater probative value" than deeds to private proprietary interests. The Chamber does not share this view, for the reasons already indicated (paragraphs 49-54 above); but the question at present is simply whether the record of the survey of Hacienda de Sazalapa can throw light on the interpretation of the title of San Bartolomé Arcatao.
140.
Unfortunately the title document of Hacienda de Sazalapa is damaged, so that the transcription and translation which has been supplied to the Chamber by Honduras contain gaps and incoherences. Honduras produced a map purporting to indicate the extent of the lands comprised in the title, but the Chamber does not feel able to interpret the incomplete text of the title with sufficient certainty to accept Honduras’s map as necessarily reflecting the terms of the survey record. What is clearly to be found in the Sazalapa title is a record that the inhabitants of the village of Arcatao recognized that the quebrada of Sazalapa was "... the boundary and the division of the lands, of the jurisdiction of San Salvador.. . los naturales del Pueblo de Arcatao... dixeron ser la dicha quebrada raya y division de unas y otras tierras,... que son de la jurisdicción de San Salvador... "). The reference is to the quebrada upstream of the confluence with the Gualsinga, but there is no indication that it was only a particular section of the quebrada which was the boundary (cf. also paragraph 133 above and paragraph 142 below).
141.
It is thus established that at least some part of the river Sazalapa constituted the boundary between the provinces of San Salvador and Gracias a Dios, and that there is no specific indication that the survey party crossed the river. On this basis, the Chamber takes the view that, of the two possible interpretations of the title of San Bartolomé de Arcatao, each sustainable on the basis of matching the survey record to the terrain, that interpretation is to be preferred which does not involve any protrusion of the lands surveyed north of the Sazalapa. The Chamber therefore cannot uphold the claim of El Salvador to the area indicated by G-G'-H'-H on sketch-map No. C-1, so far as that claim is based on the title of San Bartolomé de Arcatao.
142.
A further dispute between the Parties as to the area of the title of San Bartolomé de Arcatao concerns its extent to the north-east : in the view of Honduras, it is bounded by a straight line running south-east from the upper reaches of the Sazalapa river (the line X-W on sketch-map No. C-1), while in the view of El Salvador it includes an anvil-shaped area extending some way further to the north-east (defined by the points X-D'-D-E'-I-W on sketch-map No. C-l). The disputed passage in the title, which is the continuation of the passage already quoted in paragraph 133 above, reads as follows :

" Y siguiendo el mismo rumbo arriba de Zazalapa, lindando con la provincia de Gracias a Dios, que son tierras de la hacienda de Zazalapa, hasta llega y a la cumbre de unos cerros muy altos, donde esta un árbol de Guanacaste, donde se puso una cruz, y un mojón de piedras, y hasta alli hubo seis cuerdas. Y mudando de rumbo de norte a sur, se vino por la cumbre de un cerro que tiene un portezuelo donde va el camino que va para la ciudad de Gracias a Dios, el cual cerro se nombra Arcataguera, y hasta dicho cerro hubo veinticinco cuerdas... "

[Translation]

"And following the same course above Zazalapa, bordering with the province of Gracias a Dios, which are lands of the Hacienda de Zazalapa, till getting to the top of some very high hills, where there is a Guanacaste tree, where a cross was placed and a landmark built of stones, and to this point the distance was 6 cords. And changing the course from north to south, we passed by the crest of a hill that has an opening [portezuelo] through which passes the road that leads to the town of Gracias a Dios, which hill is named Arcataguera, and to the said hill there were 25 cords..

143.
The Chamber does not consider that the localities here mentioned can be identified with any confidence on modern maps, simply on the basis of the text of the title taken in isolation. For the present two points can be noted. First, there has been some argument between the Parties as to whether the reference to a tree (a "guanacaste’) means that the place referred to is the same as that referred to in other, later, titles as the "place called El Guanacaste" where there was a boundary marker. The Chamber considers that it is, at the least, a reasonable presumption that the same landmark is meant (particularly since the place was called "El Guanacaste", not just "Guanacaste"), and such an identification seems to produce a reconciliation of the successive titles more easily and more convincingly than an interpretation which would suppose that there were two distinct boundary markers placed by a guanacaste tree. Secondly, the justification for El Salvador’s identification of the Cerro El Fraile (point D' on sketch-map No. C-l) with the most northerly point of the Arcatao title is that the surveyor was "proceeding up the river looking for its source until he reached the summit of some very high hills". There is however nothing in the title to say that the surveyor was looking for the source of the river, and he must in fact have left the river at some point to reach the summit of a high hill ; the reference to a distance of 6 cords appears to be the distance from the river bank to the summit of the hill. In the Chamber’s view, it is equally likely that the surveyor left the river at some point further south, for example at the point proposed by Honduras, and called by it the Poza La Golondrina (point X on sketch-map No. C-l), the high hill being that nearby, marked on the Honduras map as Cerro El Flor and on the Salvadorian map as Loma Rancho Quemado.
144.
It is however appropriate next to consider the other 18th century titles produced by Honduras, which relate to areas bordering on the lands of Arcatao, to see what light they throw on the interpretation of the Arcatao title. The Arcatao title itself records, some lines below the passage just quoted, that the survey was bordering lands of San Juan de la Catao ("... va lindando con tierras de San Juan de la Catao... "), and again that "... from El Guanacaste to this point we have come bordering on lands of San Juan de la Catao, which belongs to Captain Don Ramôn Perdomo..."... desde el Guanacaste, hasta este paraje hemos venido lindando contierras de San Juan de la Catao, que es del Capitán Don Ramón Perdomo... ").
145.
Furthermore, Honduras has produced, inter alia, the titles of Colopele (1779) and San Juan Lacatao (1786), and the survey of Gualcimaca (1783), said to border on the Arcatao title on the north-east and east. As regards the Colopele title, El Salvador has objected that this cannot be relied on because while it was requested by an Indian community, it was never issued, and consequently it does not fulfil the requirements of Article 26 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace. The Chamber has already disposed of that general point (paragraphs 49-54 and 62 above). The reason why the Colopele title was not issued was solely because the Indian community could not raise the money to pay the necessary composition, not because, for example, there was any question as to the reliability or accuracy of the survey. The Chamber considers that a record of a survey effected under the Spanish colonial régime which records what were then claimed to be the existing limits not only of the Colopele lands but also of the title of Arcatao itself falls within the terms of Article 26 of the 1980 Treaty, whether or not it ultimately led to the issue of the titulo of the lands surveyed.
146.
The titles of San Juan de Lacatao, Colopele and Gualcimaca are indicated on sketch-map No. C-2 with the position and extent attributed to them by Honduras. Both the Arcatao title and the Colopele title refer to the boundary point called El Guanacaste, which was the tripoint where Arcatao (to the west), Colopele (to the north-east), and San Juan de Lacatao (to the south-east), met. The relevant passage in the title of Colopele, recording a survey made in March 1779, reads as follows:

"Y andando rumbo al sudeste recto segun pinto la Bruxula, se tendió la cuerda por una loma de Sacate vajando por un camino que llaman de los Tierra Fria, y salimos a un ojo de agua que lo nombran el sesteadero y dejando dicho camino prociguio la Loma avajo asta dar en unos peñasquitos sobre la profundidad de una quebrada a la que se vajo con cinquenta y cuatro cuerdas y no pudiéndose pasar Midiéndose por lo eminente y áspero de un cerro que teníamos delante dando por raya una sanja que vaja de dicho cerro a la quebrada tantie a ojo seis querdas a un parage que nombran el Guanacaste donde esta un mojon del exido del Pueblo de Arcatao donde halle a los naturales del con su título. Y haviendo lindado, hasta la quebrada dicha a la derecha con las tierras de Sasalapa desde ella se vino lindando a la misma mano con las tierras de Arcatao hasta el citado mojon del Guanacaste. Y haviendo reconocido el dicho Título de Arcatao y dando por mojon el mismo que halle. Se mudo el rumbo, y se tomo por la Bruxula el Nord-estey sobre el se tendió la cuerda por un camino real que viene del dicho. Pueblo de Arcatao para el de Tambla y varias partes es que fuimos siguiendo lindando a la derecha con el citio de San Juan de Lacatao segun dijeron todos y se paso por una piedra que nombran la piedra del tigre o piedra pintada..."

[Translation]

"Changing to a south-easterly direction in a straight line and following the directions of the compass, the cord was stretched along some high pasture land down along a path called the Tierra Fria, and we emerged near a pool called Sesteadero; leaving that path, we continued to go down until we came to some small rocks above a deep quebrada, into which we descended, having counted 54 cords and, as we were blocked by a steep, high hill in front of us, we took as the boundary a ditch [sanja] which runs down the said hill to the quebrada, I made a visual measurement of 6 cords as far as a place called El Guanacaste where there is a marker of the ejido of the village of Arcatao where I found the inhabitants of this village with their title-deed. Having proceeded as far as this quebrada to the right of the lands of Sasalapa, we remained on the same side of the lands of Arcatao as far as the said marker of El Guanacaste; after recognizing the title-deed to Arcatao, and adopting the existing marker, we changed direction turning, in accordance with the compass, to the north-east, extending the cord along a camino rea/which runs from Arcatao village towards Tambla village. We continued for several cords keeping to the right of the property of San Juan de Lacatao, as everybody said, and we passed by a stone called Piedra del Tigre or Piedra Pintada..."

147.
If the quebrada here referred to is the same as the upper reaches of the Sazalapa (cf. the reference to the Sazalapa as a quebrada in the title of Hacienda de Sazalapa, above, paragraph 140), this passage confirms the conclusion already reached that the Arcatao lands did not extend north of the river. It also shows, however, that from the river to the El Guanacaste marker the survey proceeded to the south-east, not to the east as shown on El Salvador’s mapping (this marker being, according to El Salvador, at point D on sketch-map No. C-l). This easterly direction was justified by El Salvador on the grounds of the words ... siguiendo el tnismo rumbo arriba de Zazalapa... ("... following the same course above Zazalapa..."), the "same course" being that last mentioned, i.e., west to east. Yet, according to El Salvador’s interpretation, the survey had already veered north to follow the course of the river upstream, so that the reference to a west-east movement must have ceased to apply.
148.
Honduras identifies the El Guanacaste marker with a hill marked on its maps as Cerro La Cañada (point W on sketch-map No. C-l annexed), close to a settlement indicated on the Salvadorian map also as La Cañada. In support of this it cites a survey carried out in 1837 for the purpose of the granting of the republican title of San Antonio de las Cuevas, which refers to arriving

"... al lugar de la Cañada antiguamente llamada del Guanacaste en donde encontré dos mojones de piedras apañados, los cuales dijeron perteneser uno a las tierras del Pueblo de Arcatao de la jurisdicción del Estado del Salvador y el otro a las de la espresada hacienda de San Juan y a las del Ciudadano Clemente Navarro y hacienda de Sasalapa;..

[Translation]

"... at the place of La Cañada, called in former times El Guanacaste, where two stone markers were found together, and I was informed that one of them belonged to the lands of the village of Arcatao of the jurisdiction of the State of El Salvador and the other to the lands of the said property of San Juan and to those of the citizen Clemente Navarro and of the property of Sasalapa..."

The difficulty however with this interpretation is, first, that both the Arcatao title and the Colopele title state that the distance from the Sazalapa river or quebrada to the El Guanacaste landmark was 6 cords (246 metres, approximately); whereas the Cerro La Cañada is approximately 2 kilometres from the nearest point on the Sazalapa. Secondly, if the place referred to is the Cerro La Cañada as indicated on the Honduran map, the reference to the boundary being also that of the property of Sazalapa is incomprehensible : neither the old property of Hacienda de Sazalapa, nor the 1844 title of San Francisco de Sazalapa extend, according to Honduras, so far south as that cerro. This identification must therefore be regarded with some doubt.

149.
The title of San Antonio de las Cuevas has to be read in conjunction with other republican titles granted by Honduras between 1836 and 1844, and it will be convenient to consider these before proceeding further. On 2 March 1836, a survey was effected of the lands of Colopele, and on 3 March 1837, the lands of San Antonio de las Cuevas, carved out of the old Hacienda de San Juan de Lacatao; on 20-22 November 1843 the lands of Sazalapa, to the west of these, were surveyed. These three titles were stated to contact the boundary with the lands of the village of Arcatao; it is described as follows in the successive surveys:

Colopele:

"... nos dirijimos al Serró de la Cañada, en donde ya encontramos al Alcalde y común de Indígenas del Pueblo de Arcatao, y con vista (del) titulo de sus exidos, en el propio mojon que dividen las tierras de ambos Estados de Honduras y el Salvador..."

[Translation]

.. we went to the Cerro de la Cañada, where me met the mayor and community of natives of the village of Arcatao, and on inspection of the title of their ejidos, at the very boundary marker which divides the lands of the two States of Honduras and El Salvador..."

San Antonio de las Cuevas:

"... se varió de rumbo al Sud-Oestey con diez y seis cordadas se llegó al lugar de la Cañada, antiguamente llamada del Guanacaste en donde encontré dos mojones de piedras apariadas, los cuales dijeron perteneser uno a las tierras del Pueblo de Arcatao de la Jurisdicción del Estado del Salvador, y el otro alas de la espresada hacienda de San Juan y alas del ciudadano Clemente Navarro y hacienda de Sasalapa y teniendo presente [illegible] ... el título del dicho pueblo de Arcatao que manifestó su Alcalde y Común en Este lugar de la Cañada con arreglo alas voses de el, se tomó el rumvo del Sur, y se dan por medidas las veinte y sinco cordadas que expresa haver havido de Este lugar al portillo del Cerro del tambor antes conocido por el nombre del Sapo..." [Translation]

"... we changed direction to the south-west counting 16 cords, whereupon we arrived at the place of La Cañada, called in former times El Guanacaste, where two stone markers were found together and I was informed that one of them belonged to the lands of the village of Arcatao of the jurisdiction of the State of El Salvador and the other to the lands of the said property of San Juan [de Lacatao] and to those of the citizen Clemente Navarro [i.e., Colopele] and the property of Sasalapa and regard being had to [illegible]... the title of the said

village of Arcatao that was exhibited by the Mayor and community in this place of La Cañada in accordance with its provisions, we headed south and took as measured the 25 cords that are said to have existed between this place and the breach in the Tambor hill, formerly called del Sapo hill..."

Sazalapa: [Note: the survey was proceeding along the river Sazalapa, upstream]

"Despues de haber pasado por las faldas fragosas de un cerro grande, llegamos con gran trabajo a un lugar peñascoso donde cae al río la quebrada que se llama de la Golondrina que separa las tierras del Señor Clemente Navarro de las del pueblo de Arcatao; hasta donde llegaron los Medidores, con ciento veinte y tres cordadas con las que se dió por mojón la propia peña que forman las dos zanjas del río y la quebrada, las cuales forman el ángulo de la medida que practicó el Señor Vicente Lopez de seis y tres cuartas caballerías, doce cordadas y setecientas una vara de tierra, en el año de 1836, del sitio del Colopel que linda con las que al presente practicamos en tiro siguiente que va en la dirección del río de Sasalapa por el Norte veinte y cuatro grados Oeste — al mojón del Liquidámbar. "

[Translation]

"After traversing the rugged sides of a large hill, we arrived with great difficulty at a precipitous place where the quebrada called La Golondrina, which separates the lands of Clemente Navarro [i.e., Colopele] from those of the village of Arcatao, flows into the river; the surveyors reached this place after measuring 123 cords and they took as a marker the rock formed by the two banks of the river and the quebrada, which form the angle of the survey carried out by Vicente Lopez in 1836, of 6 caballerías and three-quarters, 12 cords and 701 varas of lands, which was for the piece of land called Colopel, which adjoins the lands we are now surveying, following the direction of the river Sasalapa, N 24° W, to the Liquidambar boundary marker."

150.
It thus appears that the boundary of the lands of Sazalapa and Colopele was the river Sazalapa, the general direction upstream here being approximately N 24° W. A quebrada flowed into the river at the tripoint Sazalapa/Arcatao/Colopele; the general direction upstream of this quebrada is given in the Colopele survey as "NE 40° N". (The representation by Honduras in the maps in its pleadings of the south-east boundary of the 1837 Colopele title, and of the extent of the title of San Antonio de las Cuevas, reproduced in sketch-map No. C-3 annexed, does not correspond with any precision to the contemporary plans of these two titles.) At or near this point was the Cerro de la Cañada, which was the landmark of the Arcatao lands: when delimiting the Sazalapa lands, the junction of the river and the quebrada was taken as boundary, while the San Antonio de las Cuevas survey used the El Guanacaste marker. The four titles therefore did not all meet: east of the tripoint Arcatao/ Sazalapa/Colopele was the tripoint Colopele/Arcatao/San Antonio de las Cuevas.
151.
However, before attempting to reach a definite decision on this sector of the boundary, it is necessary to read further on in the survey record of the Arcatao title, and to consider the identification of the subsequent boundary markers. The survey record continues as follows:

.. y de allí fui atravesando una joya grande montaña a dar a la loma de Sapo donde se puso otro mojón de piedras, y hubo quince cuerdas, y de allí fuimos a dar a la loma de guampa, que es muy alta, y se puso otro mojón de piedras, y hasta aquí hubo diez cuerdas, y es a saber que va lindando con tierras de San Juan de la Catao, y siguiendo el mismo rumbo con veinticinco cuerdas llegamos a unos talpetates blancos, que están a vista de un obrajito de Juan de Lemus que está poblado en las tierras de la Hacienda de la Catao atravesando una quebradita seca que va de sur a norte, y es a saber que los Talpetates blancos sirven de mojón, y están en una joyita de sabana donde se pusieron dos mojones de piedras, y de allí se tiró para la punta del cerro del Caracol, y hasta dicho cerro hubo quince cuerdas. Y con el mismo rumbo de norte a sur, se llegó al Ocotal que está encima de un cerro, y con veinticinco cuerdas llegamos al dicho Ocotal, y mudando de rumbo de poniente a oriente llegamos con diez cuerdas a un cerro que hallamos encima de él, un mojón de piedra antiguo, y este cerro divide las dos jurisdicciones, la de San Salvador, con la de Gracias a Dios. "

[Translation]

.. and from there 1 went across a deep depression on a mountain to the Sapo hillock where another landmark of stones was placed, the distance being 15 cords, and from there we arrived at the Guampa hill, which is very high, and another landmark of stones was built, and the distance was 10 cords, and it is to be noted that it borders lands of San Juan de la Catao, and following the same course for 25 cords we reached some white talpetates, which are visible from a little indigo factory that belongs to Juan de Lemus and which is a settlement in the lands of the Hacienda de la Catao, across a little dry gorge that goes from south to north, and it is to be noted that the white talpetates are used as a landmark, and are in a depression of the plain where two landmarks of stones were erected, and from there we went to the summit of the Cerro del Caracol and to that hill the distance was 15 cords. And in the same direction from north to south, we arrived at the Ocotal, that is on top of a hill, and we did it with 25 cords, and changing the course from west to east with 10 cords we reached a hill on whose top we found an old stone landmark, and this hill divides the two jurisdictions, the one of San Salvador from that of Gracias a Dios."

152.
The two Parties have offered radically different placings of the Cerro de Caracol; on sketch-map No. C-l it is identified by Honduras with point T (the Loma Redonda). The maps of both Parties indicate a "Cerro de Caracol" just to the south of point W on sketch-map No. C-l, and this corresponds to the interpretation of El Salvador. Furthermore, there is a reference to this landmark in the title of San Juan Lacatao, produced by Honduras. The survey of that title carried out in 1766, recorded that the judge and surveyor had reached a point called the Platanar:

"... en donde estava el Alcalde y demas común del Pueblo de San Bartholome Arcatao, y hisieron Manifestasion de su Título, y dize ser alii los linderos de sus tierras, en donde el medidor volvio a tender la cuerda, y fue caminando por sobre el filo del serró que le llaman el caracol llevando a la Vista a la parte del Poniente el dicho Pueblo de Arcatao, y lindando siempre con sus tierras de dichos Naturales, y se llego a otro serró picudo donde hase un portillo, donde atraviesa el camino que biene de dicho Pueblo a esta hacienda hasta donde dijo el medidor abia llegado con quarenta, y quatro cuerdas..

[Translation]

.. where, we found the Mayor and the inhabitants of the village of San Bartolomé Arcatao, who exhibited their title-deed and declared that that spot was the limit of their lands, where the surveyor took up the cord again, walking on the crest of the mountain known as El Caracol, being able to see on the west side the said village of Arcatao and, proceeding constantly along the boundaries of those inhabitants, we arrived at another sharp-pointed peak where there is a small mountain pass through which runs the road connecting the said village with that hacienda. The surveyor said he had measured 44 cords up to that point..(Emphasis added.)

This reference, in the view of the Chamber, clearly identifies the cerro as that marked on the maps as the "Cerro El Caracol" to the east of the village of Arcatao. The cerro could not be at the point where Honduras’s argument places it, since the village of Arcatao lies 3 kilometres to the north-west of it, and beyond the hill shown as the Cerro Las Ventanas.

153.
The 1783 survey of Gualcimaca, produced by Honduras, also refers to a hill called Caracol, described as

"... a high stony hill, arid and steep, where there is a factory, so that it is called the hill of the factory, and on the title of the inhabitants of the village of Arcatao it is called the hill of El Caracol..

No satisfactory map can however be made of the Gualcimaca title on the basis simply of this survey record: if the bearings and distances recorded there are plotted, they produce a line which not only fails to meet its starting point so as to produce a closed polygon, but cuts across itself. This was in fact noted at the time: the revising surveyor reported in October 1783 that

"... habiendo el Revisor empezado a formar planillo para su regulación y área, encuentra no estar conforme los rumbos y que el Subdelegado padeció notable equivocación en el tiempo de expresarlos, poniendo unos por otros…"

[Translation]

"... having begun to construct a plan to regulate the area the revisor found that the directions are inconsistent, and that the sub-delegate [land judge] had made a substantial error, having mixed things up when indicating the directions...",

as appears from the revisor’s attempted plan attached to the survey record; therefore no title was issued at that time for Gualcimaca. El Salvador has contended that for that reason the Gualcimaca survey should be disregarded; however the Chamber considers that that record can afford some corroborative evidence of the position of the boundary markers of the Arcatao title.

154.
From the title of Arcatao itself it seems clear that there was in 1723, when that land was surveyed, no area of land allotted to Gualcimaca. Travelling southwards along the eastern boundary of the Arcatao lands, the judge noted that from the Guanacaste tree marker to a certain portillo, the survey had bordered the lands of "San Juan de la Catao", but that at that point he changed direction "from east to west bordering on lands of the Hacienda del Nombre de Jesús, jurisdiction of the town of San Salvador". From the record of the 1786 re-survey of San Juan de Lacatao, it is however clear that, in the meantime, and notwithstanding the frustration of the 1783 survey proceedings, a separate area of lands of Gualcimaca had come into existence, bordering on the lands of Arcatao, Nombre de Jesús and San Juan de Lacatao. It is stated that the Gualcimaca lands were under the jurisdiction of the judge carrying out the survey of San Juan de Lacatao, i.e., in the jurisdiction of Gracias a Dios, later Honduras, and it was the judge of that jurisdiction who effected the 1783 Gualcimaca survey. It therefore seems that the Gualcimaca lands were carved out of the lands of San Juan de Lacatao as they stood at the time of the 1724 survey of the Arcatao title, i.e., that the provincial boundary remained along the eastern boundary of the 1724 Arcatao survey. Some confirmation of this is found in the fact that in the 1783 survey of Gualcimaca certain boundary markers are mentioned as being the limits of the Arcatao lands which have the same names as those in the 1726 Arcatao title. There is the hill called El Sapo, the Cerro El Caracol already mentioned, and the hill called Ocotillo. The same sequence appears in the 1837 republican title of Gualcimaca, with the additional consistent reference to a hill known as the Guapa (referred to in other contexts as the Guanpa). The Chamber therefore concludes that the Gualcimaca lands were some way further to the north than where Honduras places them on its map.
155.
The Chamber considers that it is impossible to reconcile all the landmarks, distances and directions given in the various 18th century surveys in this region: the most that can be achieved is a line which harmonizes with such features as are identifiable with a high degree of probability, corresponds more or less to the recorded distances, and does not leave any major discrepancy unexplained. The features which the Chamber does consider to be identifiable with such a high degree of probability are only three in number: the Sazalapa river; the Cerro de Caracol as located by El Salvador to the east of the village of Arcatao; and the Portillo Las Lagunetas where the camino real passes over a col. With these three significant reference points, the Chamber considers that it is possible to reconstruct the boundary between the province of Gracias a Dios (or Comayagua) and that of San Salvador in the area now under consideration, and thus the uti possidetis juris line. This line will now be described.
156.
According to the 1779 title of Colopele (quoted in paragraph 146 above), the survey party crossed a quebrada, to be identified with the river Sazalapa, and took as boundary a ditch (sanja) running down the hill into the quebrada, the hill ahead being steep and high. This point should, in the Chamber’s view, be identified with the confluence with the quebrada marked on the Honduran map as the quebrada Llano Negro, shown on sketch-map No. C-4 annexed as point A. The judge surveying the boundary of the Arcatao title did however climb the hill, and the point known as the El Guanacaste marker is to be identified, in the Chamber’s view, with the hill to the south-east of the quebrada Llano Negro, whose summit is about 6 cords (246 metres) from the river (indicated as point B on sketch-map No. C-4 annexed). The boundary thus runs from the confluence of that quebrada with the river Sazalapa (point A) to the hill shown on the maps with a spot height of 875 metres (point B), and then turns southwards to the landmark described as the "crest of a hill that has an opening [portezuelo] through which passes the road that leads to the town of Gracias a Dios". Of the several hills in the region, the most likely is, in the Chamber’s view, the one which El Salvador’s interpretation identifies with the Guampa hill (marked as point C on sketch-map No. C-4): it is shown on the maps as being an elevation of 1,017 metres, and the road from Arcatao to Los Patios, which El Salvador apparently identifies as that which leads to Gracias a Dios, passes just south of the crest. From there the line, inclining still more to the south, runs through the triangulation point marked as La Cañada (point D on sketch-map No. C-4) to the ridge joining the hills indicated on the El Salvador map as Cerro El Caracol and Cerro El Sapo and the hill indicated with a spot height of 947 metres (point E on sketch-map No. C-4). The survey of Arcatao (quoted in paragraph 151 above) refers to intervening markers of the Sapo and Guapa hills and the "talpetates"; in the view of the Chamber these cannot be identified with certainty on modem maps — indeed, as regards the "talpetates" trees, this is hardly to be expected after two hundred years. From the Caracol hill, the survey of San Juan de Lacatao ran to "a pointed hill, where there is a small col which forms the road from the village to this hacienda". This may, in the Chamber’s view, reasonably be identified with the feature marked on the Salvadorian map as the Portillo El Chupa Miel (indicated as point F on sketch-map No. C-4). From there the San Juan de la Catao surveyor estimated 40 cords to the Portillo de Las Lagunetas, the tripoint of Arcatao, Nombre de Jesús and San Juan de Lacatao.
157.
The same tripoint is described in the 1783 Gualcimaca survey as "a dry quebrada where there is a portillo" — that is to say something in the nature of a pass — "called Las Lagunetas". This corresponds to what in the Arcatao title is described as a "portillo "through which goes the camino real; this portillo "has on its east side a quite high hill". The Chamber considers that this can be identified with the point where the present-day road from Arcatao to Nombre de Jesús passes between the Cerro El Ocotillo and the Cerro Las Lagunetas (indicated as point H on sketch-map No. C-4 annexed). The identification of the camino reo/with the modem road over this col appears to the Chamber more likely than its identification with a mere track between remote settlements, like that proposed by El Salvador. The confluence of the nearby quebrada with the quebrada de Junquillo lies some 20 cords down the first quebrada, as indicated in the Arcatao title. The hill with a landmark on top, referred to in the Arcatao title, can be identified, in the Chamber’s view, with the Cerro El Cajete (indicated as point G on sketch-map No. C-4); the conclusion that this hill was appropriate to be established as a landmark is strengthened by the fact that it bears a modern triangulation point. The hill of the "Ocotal", 10 cords north of the landmark, will then lie on the ridge which culminates in the Cerro El Cajete. The complete line in the middle sector as far as Las Lagunetas so defined is shown on sketch-map No. C-4 annexed (which also shows the line in the next sub-sector, now to be discussed).
158.
Turning now to the third part of this third sector, in the region to the south-east of the Portillo de Las Lagunetas, the Arcatao title was here bounded on the south-east by the title of Nombre de Jesús, the lands of which, the Parties agree, were also in the jurisdiction of the province of San Salvador. The provincial boundary therefore left the Arcatao boundary and followed the dividing line between the Hacienda de Nombre de Jesús, to the south-west, and the Hacienda de San Juan de Lacatao, to the north-east. The title of Nombre de Jesús, granted in 1742, is no longer in existence, having apparently been destroyed in a fire. However, that title was referred to in the 1766 survey of the adjacent lands of San Juan de Lacatao; it was also still in existence in the mid-19th century when Honduras granted certain republican titles in this area, and was produced by the then owner of the Nombre de Jesús property, and referred to or quoted in the republican titles. One of these (La Virtud, 1837) purports to quote the terms of the 1742 title, and the Chamber will begin with this quotation, set out below.
159.
In 1837, additional lands for the village of La Virtud (situate in the area which had formerly been the Hacienda de San Juan de Lacatao) were being surveyed, and the 1742 title of Nombre de Jesús was produced at the place — a "large hill known [in 1837] as La Volza" (otherwise "La Bolsa", see below) — which was said to be the boundary marker between that title and the former lands of San Juan de Lacatao. The adjoining owners had been summoned,

"... quienes me presentaron su título el cual leido en vos alta, espresa que el Agrimensor Pedro Dias del Castillo que midió dicha hacienda del Nombre de jesús alla en el año de setecientos quarenta y dos llegó a este cerro biniendo del oriente y de la propia junta que hase el rio de los Amates o amatillo con una quebradita pequeña que ahora nombran de las lajas; que de alli se caminó trallendo el citado rumbo de oriente a poniente por un cerro arriba y se llegó a un portesuelito que está en la cabacera de la quebradita, en el cual mandó poner un mojon de piedras en el mismo paraje que atrabesava un camino real que prociguió por un cerro arriva, y se dio de ralla una loma muy alta acuchillada que esta sobre un paraje que le llaman el Pataste, desde la cual siguiendo la cumbre de cerros, se fue a dar a la punta de otro cerro muy alto que se le sigue puntiagudo, y hasta donde binieron tanteando sincuenta cordadas... "

[Translation]

"... who showed me their title-deed which was read aloud and which stated that the surveyor, Pedro Diaz del Castillo, had measured this Hacienda of Nombre de Jesús in the year 1742 and had arrived at this hill from the east and from the junction of the river Los Amates or Amatillo with a small quebrada which is now known as Las Lajas; that from that spot the survey continued in that same direction from east to west, climbing a hill and arriving at a small breach [portesuelito] to be found at the head of the quebradita where he caused a stone boundary marker to be set up at the place where a camino real passes which continued going up a hill, and arriving at a very large and knife-shaped height to be found at a place known as El Pataste we took it as a boundary and continuing from there by the summit of the hills, we arrived at the top of another very high and sharp-pointed peak which follows, up to which place we estimated 50 cords..

160.
It appears from this text that the boundary of the Nombre de Jesús title ran eastwards from La Bolsa to the junction of the river Los Amates or Amatillo with the quebrada de Las Lajas; but it is not clear whether the next passage in the text refers to the line between those two points (on the basis that "de alii" refers to the Amatillo/Las Lajas confluence) or the further course of the line westwards from La Bolsa. However the owners of Nombre de Jesús agreed on the La Bolsa hill as the boundary because there was no higher hill nearby and because it was consistent with the 50 cords referred to; and a survey made in 1843 for the grant of the title of San Sebastian del Palo Verde (see paragraph 172 below) recorded a distance of 50 cords, "in conformity with the title of Nombre de Jesús" from La Bolsa to the confluence of the river "del Amatio" with the quebrada de Las Lajas.
161.
San Juan de Lacatao was the subject of a survey in 1618,asurvey of the "sitio" in September 1764, a more thorough survey in March 1766 and a further survey in September 1786. The first survey contains a reference to a river "Gualguix" as a boundary between the jurisdictions of Gracias a Dios and San Salvador ("el dicho Río Gualguix el qual parte términos de la juridiccion de la ciudad de Gracias a Dios con la de Sant Salbador"). It will be recalled that the Poza del Cajón, the endpoint of the third disputed sector of the land boundary, is on the "river El Amatillo or Gualcuquín", according to the General Treaty of Peace. The 1764 survey is of no assistance for the area with which the Chamber is now concerned. It should be recalled that at the time of the 1766 survey the Gualcimaca lands had not yet been surveyed, so that the Portillo de Las Lagunetas was the tripoint of the then subsisting titles of Nombre de Jesús, Arcatao and San Juan de Lacatao. During that survey, the owner of the Nombre de Jesús lands, a priest named Simón de Amaya or Amalia, was present with the 1742 title, and "... it was possible to identify that portillo [Las Lagunetas] as the boundary marker between the two haciendas..." ("... en donde estava el Br. Don Simon de Amalla con su título y cotejando uno y otro se reconosio dicho portillo por mojon de una, y otra hacienda... "). The boundary from Las Lagunetas southwards is described as follows:

.. y queriendo tender la cuerda de dicho portillo de las lagunetas no se pudo por ofreserse una bajada aspera de muchos saltos, y tanteo el medidor a la cumbre de un serró que haze enfrente deste Mojon, sesenta cuerdas, y puestos en dicho serró minsionado se bolvio a reconoser otro Mojon de la hacienda del dicho B.r y siguiendo este rumbo que se esta reconosiendo deponiente a oriente, se tendió la cuerda en dicho Serrón, se cojio una cuchilla, del mismo serró, y a poco andarse se bajo por una bajada predegosa y se llego al paso de una quebrada que llaman de los amtes con sinquenta cuerdas quedando dicha quebrada dentro esta remedida y de alli por no poderse tirar la cuerda por lo mui áspero de la orilla de dicha quebrada tanteo el medidor asta la Junta de Lempa, treinta, y una cuerda, y puestos en dicha Junta no se pudo pasar con la cuerda por las mismas asperidades que ay en la horilla del dicho río de Lempa y tanteo el medidor hasta el paraje del Salitre sesenta cuerdas,...

... se bolvio quinto dia a proseguir del referido paraje del Salitre con la cuerda, siempre siguiendo la misma orilla del río de lempa, aguas abajo, y se llego a la Junta del río de Mocal donde se serró esta remedida y ubo hasta esta espresada Junta de lempa con mocal por este rumbo tres sientas quatro cuerdas..

[Translation]

"... an attempt was made to draw the cord starting from the said portillo of Las Lagunetas but this proved impossible because the terrain sloped down steeply and was very rugged. The surveyor calculated 60 cords as the distance between that marker and the summit of a hill opposite. At the hill mentioned, another boundary marker of the said bachelor’s [i.e., Simón de Amalla’s] hacienda was identified and, following that west to east direction, the cord was stretched on that same large hill following the crest of the same mountain; we then went down a rocky slope and arrived at the ford of a quebrada called Los Amates, making 50 cords; this quebrada forms part of this new survey. Not being able to draw the cord from there because of the rugged nature of the bank of the said quebrada, the surveyor calculated 31 cords to the junction with the river Lempa. Having reached the junction, we were unable to continue beyond it with the cord because of the rugged nature of the bank of the river Lempa and the surveyor estimated 60 cords to the place called Salitre...

... I resumed the survey on the fifth day from the said place called Salitre and continuing to draw the cord alongside the bank of the river Lempa downstream until the junction with the river Mocal, we concluded this re-survey, 304 cords being counted to the said junction of the rivers Lempa and Mocal..."

162.
Before turning to the 1786surveyofSan Juan de Lacatao, it will be useful to refer to the 1783 survey of Gualcimaca, despite its recognized imperfections. This survey reached

"... una quebrada seca, honda que hace en un portillo que nombran de las Lagunetas en donde se encontró otro mojon que es el último del sitio de los Arcataos según su título y el primero perteneciente al sitio de Nombre de Jesús..."

[Translation]

"... a deep dry quebrada where there is a portillo called Las Lagunetas and a further marker was found there which is the last of the sitio of Arcatao according to its title, and the first which appertains to the sitio of Nombre de Jesús..."

It is also recorded there that the next landmark, called Barranco Blanco,

"... sirve de mojón y lindero a las tierras del referido sitio de Nombre de Jesús y las de la hacienda de San Juan de Lacatao dividiendo las dos jurisdicciones de este Provincia y la de San Salvador..

[Translation]

"... serves as boundary for the lands of the said sitio of Nombre de Jesús and those of the Hacienda of San Juan de Lacatao, dividing the two jurisdictions of this province and that of San Salvador..

163.
The 1786 survey of San Juan de Lacatao was carried out in the opposite direction to that of 1766, approaching from the junction of the Lempa and Mocal rivers. It was effected by one Manuel Castro or de Castro, who appears to have been the same land judge as had directed the survey of Gualcimaca, three years earlier. From the river junction, the survey record reads:

"Y mudando el rumbo al Oeste cuarta al Sud-oeste se tendió la cuerda por la orilla del rio de Lempa tomándolo aguas arriba a la siniestra abrazando las tierras del sitio de Malpaiz hasta llegar a la junta o encuentro de un riachuelo o quebrada grande que dijeron llamarse de los Amates, por otro nombre Gualcuquín que también sirve de raya y lindero al sitio de Nombre de Jesús que posee el Bachiller don Simón de Amaya, presbítero domiciliario del Arzobispado de Guatemala cuya hacienda está en términos de la jurisdicción de la Provincia de San Salvador..".

[Translation]

"Changing direction, heading west one quarter south-west, we stretched the rope along the bank of the river Lempa, following the river upstream with the lands of the property of Malpaiz on the left up to its junction or meeting with a small river or large quebrada said to be called Los Amates, or alternatively Gualcuquín, also serving as a boundary to the property of Nombre de Jesús owned by Bachelor Simón de Amaya, a priest resident in the bishopric of Guatemala, whose property is within the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the province of San Salvador..

164.
The Chamber notes that the frontier already agreed between the Parties includes the confluence of the rivers Lempa and Mocal, and continues upstream along the Lempa to a point where a river or stream, marked on the Honduran map as the "río Él Amatillo", and on the El Salvador map as the "río Guayquiquin or Amatillo", flows into the Lempa; the agreed frontier then follows that stream for a distance of nearly 2 kilometres (about 48 cords). The 1786 survey continues:

"... y dicho riachuelo [Gualcuquín] y junta dicen parte las jurisdicciones de dicha Provincia y la de Comayagua a que es anexa la jurisdicción de Gracias, hasta donde se le junta una quebrada que nombran Tuquín o de los Amatillos o del Palo Verde que todos estos nombres le dan, cuya quebrada es guardaraya de jurisdicciones y división de Provincias: en fin a dicha junta llegó el medidor con ciento veinte cuerdas medidas. Y mudando el rumbo se tendió cuarta vez la cuerda al Norueste cuarta al Norte siguiendo aguas arriba el dicho riachuelo de Gualcuquín llevándolo a la siniestra hasta donde se la junta la dicha quebrada de el Amatillo o Palo Verde que va dicho, en cuya junta se pasó este riachuelo de Gualcuquín para seguir la quebrada y rumbo. "

[Translation]

"... and it is said that this small river [Gualcuquín] and the confluence separate the jurisdictions of that province [i.e., San Salvador] and of Comayagua to which the jurisdiction of Gracias is annexed, as far as the junction with a small quebrada called Tuquin or Los Amatillos or Palo Verde — all those names being used — this quebrada forming the boundary of jurisdictions and the division of the provinces; the surveyor reached this junction after counting 120 cords. And changing direction, we stretched the rope a fourth time to the north-west quarter north, following the small river Gualcuquín upstream on the left bank to the point where the said quebrada of El Amatillo or Palo Verde flows into this river, and at this place, we crossed the small river Gualcuquín in order to follow the direction of the quebrada."

165.
At this point in the survey record, the matter becomes complicated by the appearance of Simón Amaya, owner of the Hacienda de Nombre de Jesús (paragraph 161 above), and a disagreement with him as to the course of the boundary. El Salvador has drawn attention to the fact that Simón Amaya "had nothing whatever to do with the authorities of the community of Arcatao", which is true; but as owner of the Nombre de Jesús property, he had an interest in respect for its boundaries. It is at first unclear whether the survey followed the line which the judge thought correct, over the protests of the neighbouring owner, or whether in deference to those protests, though without conceding their validity, the survey followed the line claimed by the owner of the Hacienda de Nombre de Jesús. However, after completion of the survey, Simón Amaya wrote a letter of complaint, and the judge acted upon it as follows:

"Sin embargo de hallarme accidentado pasé al lugar donde el padre supone el agravio e introducción en sus tierras y aunque sin el título suyo se reconoció no estarlo y solo haber creídose de un falso informe que le sirvió de bastante apoyo para desahogar su pasión y enojo y puesto en dicho lugar señalaron dichos viejos donde se hallaban los antiguos mojones de Nombre de Jesús que es la misma línea que el medidor siguió y citando a todos los dichos para que de todo fuesen testigos en cualquier ocasión y evento..."

[Translation]

"Although I had suffered an injury, I went to the place where the Father maintained that his rights had been infringed and an incursion made into his lands and although he did not have his title-deed, it was recognized that such was not the case and that he had based his views on incorrect information which had sufficed to infuriate and irritate him; and after arriving at this place, the elderly persons in question pointed out where the ancient boundaries of Nombre de Jesús were located, which was on the very line followed by the surveyor, and citing those persons to appear as witnesses should that prove necessary..

The Chamber therefore considers that the 1786 survey of San Juan de Lacatao may be treated as correctly defining the boundaries of the two haciendas notwithstanding the attitude of the owner of the Nombre de Jesús property.

166.
The survey record continues after the passage quoted in paragraph 164 above:

"Y el medidor siguiendo el rumbo que trajo del Norueste cuarta al Norte tomó la quebrada del Amatillo lindando a la izquierda con las tierras de nombre de Jesús hasta salir a un llano que está a media ladera del cerro donde se encontró un mojón antiguo de nombre de Jesús que nombran de los Macuylisguas y siguió tirando hasta la cumbre de un cerro alto picudo que nombran el Cerro Grande que enfrenta con la montaña de Quepure del que se fue bajando por montaña hasta el asiento de ella donde está un derrumbe colorado y siguió sobre el mismo rumbo recto a buscar un portillo que nombran de las Lagunetas donde se encontró otro mojón del sitio de Nombre de Jesús que también sirve a las tierras de Gualcimaca sitio que es de esta mi jurisdicción... salió últimamente a dicho Portillo llegó a el con ciento treinta cuerdas medidas línea recta deduciendo algunas por las vueltas que se dieron con la cuerda a buscar como andar en aquellas fragosidades..

[Translation]

"And the surveyor continued to walk in the same north-west quarternortherly direction, following the quebrada del Amatillo, leaving on the left the lands of Nombre de Jesús until he arrived at a plateau which is half-way up the hill where an ancient marker of Nombre de Jesús was found called the Macuylisquas marker, and he continued stretching the rope as far as the summit of a high, sharp-pointed hill called Cerro Grande which is opposite the Quepure mountain. He continued down as far as the base of the latter where there is a red fall of rocks and proceeded in the same direction in a straight line, searching for a portillo called Las Lagunetas where another marker of the Nombre de Jesús property was found, which also delimits the lands of Gualcimaca, falling under my jurisdiction... and the surveyor finally arrived at this portillo, counting 130 cords measured in a straight line and subtracting several of them to compensate for the bends made with the rope in searching for the way in these rugged lands..."

The marker at Las Lagunetas is referred to as the tripoint of Nombre de Jesús, Gualcimaca and San Juan de Lacatao, but it appears from the 1783 Gualcimaca survey cited above that in fact it was a quadripoint where the Arcatao lands also terminated. (The Lacatao 1786 survey refers later to a Gualcima/Arcatao/San Juan de Lacatao tripoint, but this is the tripoint to the north of Gualcimaca, already discussed.)

167.
After completing the 1786 survey, the judge concerned invited the surveyor to summarize his results, which were to be the foundation of a plan; if such plan were prepared, it does not seem to have been attached to the survey record. The distances and bearings recorded do not in fact appear to produce a result consistent with a return to the starting point of the survey; the matter was at the time referred to a revising surveyor, but no revision seems ever to have taken place.
168.
On the basis, therefore, of the reconstructed 1742 title of Nombre de Jesús and the 1766 and 1786 surveys of San Juan de Lacatao, the Chamber considers that it is established that the line of the 1821 uti possidetis juris in this sub-sector corresponded to the boundary between the Nombre de Jesús and San Juan de Lacatao properties; and that this boundary ran from the Las Lagunetas tripoint (point H on sketch-map No. C-3 annexed) in a generally south-eastward direction to a point on the river Amatillo or Gualcuquín. That point, which has still to be identified, coincided with the confluence with the river of a small quebrada, flowing into the river from its right (south-western) bank, and the boundary coincided generally with the course of the quebrada for the last part of its course down to the river. The boundary then followed the river Amatillo or Gualcuquín downstream to the Poza del Cajón, the point where the next agreed sector of boundary begins.
169.
In order to define more precisely the line described in the preceding paragraph, it is legitimate to have regard to the post-independence (republican) titles granted by Honduras in the region, which, in the contention of Honduras, extend as far as, and support, the line which it claims, and which, as plotted by Honduras, are indicated on sketch-map No. C-3 annexed. These titles have already been referred to inasmuch as some of them make it possible to reconstitute part of the lost title of Nombre de Jesús; they still fall to be considered from two points of view: first, to see what further light they may throw on the uti possidetis juris line; and secondly, in connection with a claim by Honduras of El Salvador’s acquiescence in or recognition of the frontier line claimed by Honduras.
170.
The first of the two La Virtud titles (1836) defined a square area, 50 cords each way, carved out of the lands of the former Hacienda de San Juan de Lacatao, and not purporting to be aligned with the existing boundaries of other titles. Its starting point was the place called Salitre on the river Lempa; a place of that name was mentioned in the 1766 survey of San Juan de Lacatao, and was then said to be an estimated 60 cords from the confluence of the quebrada called Los Amates with the river Lempa (see paragraph 161 above). This first La Virtud title does not, in the Chamber’s view, throw light on the uti possidetis juris boundary.
171.
The second La Virtud title (1838) has already been quoted above (paragraph 159). It was apparently intended to fill the gap between the first title of La Virtud (1836) and the lands of Gualcimaca; Gualcimaca was surveyed on 23 February 1837 and the second La Virtud title on 4-5 March 1837, the same official carrying out both surveys. It will be recalled (paragraph 157 above) that the Gualcimaca title records that the Portillo de Las Lagunetas was the tripoint of Arcatao, Nombre de Jesús and San Juan de Lacatao. The survey of the lands of La Virtud — which, it should be recalled, were carved out of the lands of San Juan de Lacatao — did not begin from the old tripoint of Las Lagunetas, but apparently from a point 30 cords (1,204 metres) away called La Bolsa, which was stated to have been a landmark marking the boundary of Nombre de Jesús and San Juan de Lacatao. There is no mention of a hill of that name in the surveys of San Juan de Lacatao, but it will be recalled (paragraph 159 above) that the 1742 title of Nombre de Jesús was produced in 1837 at La Bolsa and quoted as referring to "este cerro" — "this hill". The description of the initial survey operations for La Virtud in 1837 is somewhat confused, but read in the light of the plan attached to the title, it indicates that the surveyor proceeded for 30 cords north-west, and reached the tripoint of Gualcimaca/Nombre de Jesús/La Virtud; he then followed the Gualcimaca boundary, without repeating the measurements made when that property had been surveyed.
172.
The title of San Sebastián del Palo Verde was surveyed in August 1843, and purported to lie south-west of, and be coterminous with, the first La Virtud title (though the common boundary according to the plan on the 1843 title ran "N 74° W" rather than directly west-east as recorded in the earlier title). The Nombre de Jesús title was again produced by the Mayor of that village, and the survey was effected to take account of it. According to the record, the course followed from the starting point of the 1837 La Virtud survey (i.e., La Bolsa), was "S 79° E"; at 50 cords (2,075 metres) distance, the survey reached "the junction of a small quebrada called Lajas with the river Amatio, a junction which is also known as Posa del Cajón".

"De aquí se tomó el rumbo del Sud setenta y nueve grados al Este y bajando de este cerro se pasó por un portezuelito que menciona la referida medida del Nombre de Jesus, cuyas tierras quedan á la derecha y las que se miden á la izquierda; por último llegamos á la junta de una quebradita que llaman de Lajas con el río del Amatío, á cuya junta llaman también la posa del Cajón... Hasta este lugar se cuentan cincuenta cuerdas que espresa el título del Nombre de Jesus. " [Translation]

"As from that spot, we proceeded due S 79° E and going down that hill, we went by a small pass which is mentioned in the said survey of Nombre de Jesus, the lands of which are to be found to the right and the ones being measured to the left; lastly, we arrived at the junction of a small quebrada called Lajas with the river del Amatio, a junction which is also known as Posa del Cajón... up to that spot, 50 cords were counted, as stated in the title-deed of Nombre de Jesus."

173.
The picture which emerges from these various titles is that the boundary of the Nombre de Jesús title ran from Las Lagunetas to La Bolsa (a distance variously estimated at 30 cords or 60 cords), from La Bolsa to a quebrada, then called Lajas, which flowed, from the right (southern) side, into the river Gualcuquín or Amatillo, and followed the last part of that quebrada to the river, the distance from La Bolsa being some 50 cords. The boundary then followed the river downstream to its confluence with the Lempa. There is however some discrepancy of distance as regards this part of the boundary: according to the 1766 survey of San Juan de Lacatao, the distance from the "ford of the quebrada called Los Amates" to the confluence with the river Lempa was estimated at 31 cords (1,286 metres), and from there to the confluence of the Lempa and Mocal rivers 304 cords (12,616 metres). The 1786 survey arrived at Las Lagunetas after 130 cords, but it is not entirely clear where the measurement started; if it was from the Gualcuquín/Lempa confluence, then deducting the 100 cords between Las Lagunetas and the river, this leaves only 20 cords (820 metres) for the distance between that confluence and the point where the survey left the river. What is clear is that the 1786 survey records 120 cords from the confluence of the Lempa and the Mocal to the confluence with the quebrada, far less than the 304 cords for this distance in the 1766 survey. The distance between Las Lagunetas and the confluence of the Gualcuquín and Lempa rivers is, according to modern maps, some 7,000 metres over a straight line; and, as seen above, the position of Las Lagunetas is derived from, inter alia, distances from the Cerro El Caracol above the village of Arcatao, one of the places referred to in the various ancient titles which, in the view of the Chamber, are clearly identifiable (see paragraph 155 above).
174.
The republican titles of La Virtud and San Sebastián del Palo Verde are only of assistance for the boundary between Las Lagunetas and the river Gualcuquín; they give no indication of how much of the river Gualcuquín formed the Nombre de Jesús boundary further downstream. Honduras has drawn attention to the reference to the "Posa del Cajón" as the south-eastern limit of the title of San Sebastián del Palo Verde, and has pointed out that the eastern limit of the present disputed sector, i.e., the starting point of the next agreed sector to the east, is called the Poza del Cajón (1980 General Treaty of Peace, Article 16, Fourth Section). However if it is assumed that this latter point (which does not, incidentally, appear from the maps to be the junction of any stream or ravine with the river Gualcuquín-Amatillo) is the same place as that referred to in the title of San Sebastián del Palo Verde, the result is further cartographical inconsistencies. If the — fairly precise — distances and bearings in the republican titles of San Sebastián del Palo Verde, La Virtud, and Gualcimaca are used to plot these titles on the map, beginning from the terminal point of the disputed sector described as the Poza del Cajón, the result is to place Gualcimaca at such a considerable distance to the south of the Cerro El Caracol above the village of Arcatao as to be quite inconsistent with the various other relevant titles, even in Honduras’s interpretation of them. The Chamber therefore considers that the more reasonable conclusion is that the Poza del Cajón referred to in the 1843 title of San Sebastián del Palo Verde is not the point identified by that name in 1980 as the terminal point of the present disputed sector; and that there appears to be no reasonable explanation for the discrepancies in distances travelled along the river Gualcuquín-Amatillo so that the point cannot be taken into consideration.
175.
The direction from Las Lagunetas to La Bolsa, according to the 1838 La Virtud title, is generally south-east (the reciprocal of the northwest direction taken on the first leg of the survey). Both the La Virtud title and the title of San Sebastián del Palo Verde have contemporary sketch-plans attached, and by comparing these it is possible to deduce from the precise bearings of the San Sebastián title that the line Las Lagunetas-La Bolsa lay on a bearing of approximately 132°. Taking into account the magnetic variation in the region at the time of some 7° E (cf. paragraph 117 above), this is equal to 139° true. On that approximate bearing from Las Lagunetas (point H on sketch-map No. C-4 annexed), and at a distance of 900 metres (21.5 cords), there is a hill marked on the maps as some 848 metres high (point I on sketch-map No. C-4). If from this hill the bearing of the south-western boundary of San Sebastián del Palo Verde (S 79° E, i.e., 101° magnetic; 108° true) is then followed for 2,490 metres (60 cords), the line arrives at a quebrada marked on both Parties’ maps as the combination of the quebrada La Montañita and the quebrada de León which merges with the upper waters of the Rio Gualcuquín or Amatillo at point J on sketch-map No. C-4. On this basis, the Chamber considers it a reasonable conclusion that the hill in question is the one called La Bolsa in the 1837 survey, and that the quebrada in question is that of Lajas, and that the line just indicated is the course of the 1821 boundary between Nombre de Jesús and San Juan de Lacatao, and thus the uti possidetis juris line, which then continues to follow the course of the Rio Gualcuquín-Amatillo downstream to the endpoint of the disputed sector.
176.
The Chamber has found that the boundary of the uti possidetis juris in this part of the third sector can be determined by reference to, inter alia, the republican titles of La Virtud and San Sebastián del Palo Verde, and the line found by the Chamber is thus consistent with what the Chamber regards as the correct geographical location of those titles. Since the Honduran claim that a boundary line following the limits of those titles had been recognized, or acquiesced in, by El Salvador in 1884, would lead to exactly the same result, there is no need for the Chamber to examine that contention.
177.
Having completed its survey of the 1821 uti possidetis juris position based on the various titles produced, the Chamber has now to examine the claims made in the whole of this third sector of the land boundary on the basis of effectivités. In its Memorial, El Salvador asserted that its jurisdiction in this sector of the frontier

"is confirmed by the exercise therein of civil jurisdiction, such as the registration of titles to land in the Property Registry, the grant of Municipal Titles to persons in possession, and the registration of the Births, Deaths and Marriages of the Inhabitants, as well as the registration of the Municipal and Presidential Elections carried out in this area".

Included in the Memorial is a map showing the "Human Settlements in the Non-Delimited Zones", relating to this sector; and annexed to that pleading is a number of birth and death certificates. The major claim of this kind is El Salvador’s assertion of the exercise of effective jurisdiction over the area to the north and west of the Arcatao title, as far north as the point 14° 09'49" N, 88°47’55" W (point C on sketch-map No. C-l annexed). In this area, indeed, the effectivités asserted are the sole basis of El Salvador’s claim, since it did not dispute that the colonial land-titles produced by Honduras were issued following surveys by the authorities of the province of Gracias a Dios. The only evidence adduced by El Salvador which relates to an alleged settlement in this north-western area consists of five birth certificates and one death certificate, registered in the Salvadorian settlement of Arcatao, concerning births and a death occurring in the "canton Zazalapa". The dates of the certificates range from 30 January 1977 to 7 February 1985; these are insufficient to support a claim to "long-term exercise of effective jurisdiction". The Chamber has noted the observations made on behalf of El Salvador as to the difficulties, in this area in particular, in collecting evidence of effectivités, but as indicated above (paragraphs 64-65), does not consider that they affect the conclusions to be drawn.

178.
As regards the area to the east of the Arcatao title, a number of similar certificates has been produced referring to a birth and a number of deaths in the valley or canton of Los Filos, to be identified, according to the map in the Salvadorian Memorial, with the settlement in the valley to the south of the Cerro El Caracol and the Cerro El Sapo. These range in date from 25 October 1910 to 20 June 1919. No explanation is given of the absence of any records of registration priorto 1910 or since 1919. Further certificates have been produced of four births in the canton of Gualcimaca on dates ranging from 3 January 1977 to 25 June 1985. The Chamber is unable to regard these two sets of certificates as amounting to sufficient evidence of the exercise of effective jurisdiction in the area in question.
179.
Mention should also be made of further evidence of effectivités offered by El Salvador in its Counter-Memorial. It is there claimed that El Salvador has during a considerable period of time exercised military jurisdiction over (inter alia) the sector now being examined. Reference is made to the Rural Military Posts assigned to each canton, each of which "has, amongst its other duties and powers, that of controlling, defending and patrolling the canton in question". The evidence offered in this respect is the formal records of the personnel of the Rural Military Posts and Field Patrols, covering the period from 1922 to 1964; in the sector now in question, these relate to the cantons of Los Filos, Gualcimaca, Quipura, Hacienda Vieja, and Plazuelas. However, there is nothing to indicate where precisely those Posts were established in relation to the disputed boundary, nor what effective form the military jurisdiction took. Accordingly, the Chamber cannot regard this material as sufficient to displace the conclusion it has arrived at above as to the position of the boundary.
180.
Turning now to the evidence of effectivités submitted by Honduras, there is first some evidence of diplomatic correspondence, and in particular a formal request by El Salvador for extradition of alleged malefactors residing in a place called "La Vecina, jurisdiction of the town of La Virtud, Department of Gracias" in Honduras. La Vecina is shown on the maps of both Parties as a village near the headwaters of the river Gualcuquín or Amatillo. Secondly, considerable material was presented as an annex to the Honduran Reply to show that Honduras also can rely on arguments of a human kind, that there are "human settlements" of Honduran nationals in the disputed areas in all six sectors, and that various judicial and other authorities of Honduras have exercised and are exercising their functions in those areas. So far as the present sector is concerned, Honduras has presented material under ten headings: (i) criminal proceedings; (ii) police or security; (iii) appointment of Deputy Mayors; (iv) public education; (v) payment of salaries of employees and remuneration to public officials; (vi) land concessions; (vii) transfer or sale of immovable property; (viii) birth certificates; (ix) death certificates; (x) miscellaneous. These relate to between 30 and 40 localities, identified simply by the name of the village or place. No map has been supplied to show the geographical position of these places; comparison of Honduran and Salvadorian maps shows inconsistency in the naming and placing of villages; and in some cases there appear to be two villages of the same name in different parts of the area. A few do not appear to be marked on any map.
181.
So far as can be established on the information available to the Chamber, only one of the villages to which the Honduran evidence relates lies wholly on the El Salvador side of the boundary line defined by the Chamber in this sector: the village of El Palmito, which is situated south of the river Gualcuquín or Amatillo, which here forms the boundary, as indicated in paragraph 175 above. Part of the village of El Amatillo may also lie south of the river; the maps are not clear on this, but the Honduran map places the name and the buildings to which it refers north of the river. According to the Honduran map, the village or settlement of El Palmito lies to the south of the river, and just to the south-east of the confluence with a quebrada which the Chamber regards as marking the point where the boundary begins to follow the river. The El Salvador map shows some scattered buildings on this site, but does not give the name El Palmito (or any other name) to a settlement there. The evidence produced by Honduras consists of 12 birth registrations, with dates between May 1909 and August 1946; curiously enough, none of the numerous death registrations produced by Honduras gives El Palmito as place of death. No explanation has been given for the limitation of the records to the period 1909-1946. Since the last record is from some 45 years ago, it appears likely that the settlement of El Palmito either has ceased to exist, or has become part of an administrative division with a different name. All in all, the Chamber does not in any event see here sufficient evidence of effectivités by Honduras in an area clearly shown to be on the El Salvador side of the boundary line to justify the Chamber in doubting the validity of that boundary as representing the uti possidetis juris line.
182.
In view of the Chamber’s rejection of the claim of El Salvador to the area to the north-west of this sector based on effectivités, it becom. necessary to revert to the question of the precise position of the uti possidetis juris line in this region. The Chamber has accepted (paragraph 131 above) that the boundary here follows the southern boundary of the titles of San Juan El Chapulin and Concepción de las Cuevas; however, it sees no justification for the interpretation of these titles as producing a straight line from the Pacacio boundary marker to the confluence of the Gualsinga and the Sazalapa. An element to be taken into consideration is the following passage in the 1766 survey record of San Juan El Chapulin. The surveyor was travelling generally eastwards, and had established a boundary marker with the lands of Guarita to the north.

"...y encontramos con un serró grande que no pudiéndose pasar con la cuerda por lo fragoso se tanteo a ojo treinta cuerdas asta la cumbre de dicho serró y alli allamos a Bísente Lopes con su título el que declara llegar asta dicha cumbre las tierras del sitio de las cuevas y quedo por mojon de unas y otras tierras y mudando de rumbo para el sur por la cuchilla de dicho serró cuia cuchilla es ralla de esta jurisdicción y de la San Salvador se tendió la querda asta llegar a un serrito picudo donde allamos a Ylario Cordova con su título el que [illegible] asta dicho serito y asta alli ubo sinquenta cinco cuerdas, y mudando de rumbo para el poniente por una quebrada de monte se llego al rrichuelo de Capasio y caminando aguas abajo asta la junta con el río grande de Sumpul cuia junta se dio por mojón y ubo asta alli quarenta cuerdas.."

[Translation]

"... and we encountered a large hill which was so rugged that we could not pass through it with the cord and a visual estimate of 30 cords was made up to the top of the hill and there we met Bisente Lopez with his title-deed and he stated that the lands of the place called Las Cuevas went up to the summit and it remained as a boundary-marker for the two lands, and changing to a southerly direction via the crest of the said hill, which crest is the boundary between this jurisdiction and that of San Salvador, we took cord measurements until we arrived at a sharp-pointed hill where we met Ylario Cordova with his title-deed, which [illegible] up to a small hill, making 55 cords and changing to a westerly direction we arrived by a quebrada de monte at the Capasio stream which we followed down to the junction with the large river Sumpul, which junction was taken as a boundary-mark and up to there there were 40 cords..."

183.
The 1719 survey of Concepción de las Cuevas refers to a quebrada called La Puerta, which marked the boundary with a place called Santa Lucia ("... dicha quebrada de la puerta Sirue de mojon á este Citio, y al Sitio llamado Santa Lucia... "). Honduras attaches importance to this since the lands of Santa Lucia were within the jurisdiction of San Salvador. On a map annexed to the Honduras Memorial, the position of this quebrada is indicated, its confluence with the river Gualsinga (point Z on sketch-map No. C-l annexed) being, according to Honduras, a common point with the 1741 title of Hacienda de Sazalapa.
184.
It is not easy to identify the features mentioned in the titles of San Juan de Chapulin and Concepción de las Cuevas. Nor, it may be remarked in passing, do such republican titles as have been produced throw light on the matter. However, the reference in the San Juan de Chapulin title to the "crest of the said hill" ("cuchilla de dicho serró") at this point in the survey as the boundary with the province of San Salvador indicates, in the Chamber’s view, that the latter province must have extended further north than the straight line west to east advanced by Honduras. Taking the titles produced into account, the Chamber considers that the most likely course of the boundary was as follows (illustrated on sketch-map No. C-5 annexed). From the Pacacio boundary marker, indicated as point A on sketch-map No. C-l and sketch-map No. C-5 annexed, along the Rio Pacacio upstream to the point (point B on sketch-map No. C-5), west of the Cerro Tecolate or Los Tecolates, where a quebrada is shown on Honduras’s map as flowing into it from the east (this is some 40 cords — 1,640 metres — from the confluence with the Sumpul, as indicated in the passage quoted above). From there up the quebradato the crest of the Cerro Tecolate or Los Tecolates (point C on sketch-map No. C-5), and along the watershed of this hill as far as a ridge about 1 kilometre to the north-east (point D on sketch-map No. C-5); from there in an easterly direction to the neighbouring hill above the source (on Honduran maps) of the Torrente La Puerta (point E on sketch-map No. C-5) and down that stream to where it meets the river Gualsinga (point F on sketch-map No. C-5; point Z on sketch-map No. C-l). From there the boundary runs down the Gualsinga to its confluence with the Sazalapa (point Y on sketch-map No. C-l), and then upstream along the Sazalapa.
185.
To sum up, the finding of the Chamber as to the whole course of the boundary line in this third sector is as follows: the line is indicated on Map No. III1 annexed, which is taken from the following sheets of the United States of America Defense Mapping Agency 1:50,000 maps:

Series E752 Sheet 2458 III Edition 2-DMA

Series E753 Sheet 2458 II Edition 1-DMA,

and the lettered points refer to the letters on that map. From the Pacacio boundary marker (point A) along the Rio Pacacio upstream to a point (point B) west of the Cerro Tecolate or Los Tecolates; from there up the quebrada to the crest of the Cerro Tecolate or Los Tecolates (point C), and along the watershed of this hill as far as a ridge approximately 1 kilometre to the north-east (point D); from there in an easterly direction to the neighbouring hill above the source of the Torrente La Puerta (point E) and down that stream to where it meets the river Gualsinga (point F); from there the boundary runs along the middle of the river Gualsinga downstream to its confluence with the Sazalapa (point G), and thence upstream along the middle of the river Sazalapa to the confluence with the river Sazalapa of the quebrada Llano Negro (point H); from there south-eastwards to the hill indicated as point I, and thence to the crest of the hill marked on maps as being an elevation of 1,017 metres (point J); from there the boundary, inclining still more to the south, runs through the triangulation point known as La Cañada (point K) to the ridge joining the hills indicated on the El Salvador map as Cerro El Caracol and Cerro El Sapo (through point L), and from there to the feature marked on the maps as the Portillo El Chupa Miel (point M); from there following the ridge to the Cerro El Cajete (point N), and thence to the point where the present-day

road from Arcatao to Nombre de Jesús passes between the Cerro El Ocotillo and the Cerro Lagunetas (point O); from there south-eastwards, to the top of the hill (point P) marked on the maps with a spot height of 848 metres; from there slightly south of east to a small quebrada; eastwards down the bed of the quebrada to its junction with the river Amatillo or Gualcuquín (point Q); the boundary then follows the middle of the Gualcuquín river downstream to the Poza del Cajón (point R), the point where the next agreed section of boundary begins.

Fourth Sector of the Land Boundary

186.
The fourth, and longest, disputed sector of the land boundary, also involving the largest area in dispute, is that between the source of the Orilla stream and the boundary marker known as Malpaso de Similatón; it is illustrated on sketch-map No. D-l annexed, which also shows the current respective claims of the two Parties as to the boundary in this sector. The boundary line now claimed by Honduras is as follows (the reference letters are to the points so marked on sketch-map No. D-l, and the names given to the various boundary points are those given by Honduras). From the source of the Orilla stream (point AA) to the pass of El Jobo, at the foot of the mountain known as El Volcancillo; from there to the southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda stream (point BB), Following its course downstream along the middle of the river bed to the Champate boundary marker (point A) as far as its confluence with the river Las Cañas or Santa Ana, thence following the camino real, passing by the boundary markers of Portillo Blanco (point B), Obrajito (point C), Laguna Seca (point D), Amatillo or Las Tijeretas (point E), and from there, in a northerly direction, as far as the point at which the river Las Cañas joins the stream known as Masire or Las Tijeretas (point F); thence, taking a northeasterly direction, it follows its course upstream as far as the road from Torola to Colomoncagua (point G) and continues in the same direction as far as the Cerro La Cruz, Quecruz or El Picacho (point H); thence to the Monte Redondo, Esquinero or Sirin boundary marker (point I) and from there to the El Carrisal or Soropay boundary marker (point K); from there it runs in a northerly direction to the hill of Guiriri (point L), and thence, in the same direction, to the marker of El Rincón, on the river Negro-Quiagara (point M); thence following the river Negro upstream, as far as the Las Pilas boundary marker "at the source of that same river" (point N), and from that place to the point identified by Honduras as the Malpaso de Similatón (point P). The Honduran maps also show the line passing through a point J (reproduced on sketch-map No. D-l), described in the Honduran Reply as the "Camino Real", but this point is not mentioned in the final submissions of Honduras.
187.
El Salvador has indicated the course of the boundary line in the opposite direction, from the Malpaso de Similatón (which it places at a different point) in the east to the Orilla stream in the west. By reference to the lettered points on sketch-map No. D-l annexed, and referring to the boundary points by the names given to them by El Salvador, its claimed line is as follows. Starting from the boundary marker known as the Mojón Mal Paso de Similatón (point P') the frontier runs in a straight line to the boundary marker known as the Antiguo Mojón de la Loma (point Q), and then in a straight line to the mountain known as the Montaña de la Isla (point Q'). From this mountain, the frontier runs in a straight line to the summit of the peak known as the Cerro La Ardilla (point R); from this peak, in a straight line to the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Alumbrador (point R'), and from this peak, in a straight line to the summit of the peak known as the Cerro Chagualaca or Marquezote (point S). From this peak, the frontier runs in a straight line as far as an elbow of the river Negro-Quiagara (point T) and then follows the course of the river Negro-Quiagara upstream as far as the confluence with it of the river known as the river Negro-Pichigual (point U). From this confluence, the frontier follows the course of the Pichigual river upstream as far as a boundary marker situated at point V; from this boundary marker, the frontier continues in a straight line to the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Alguacil (point W); from this peak, the frontier continues in a straight line to an elbow of the river known as the de Las Cañas or Yuquina situated at point X; from this elbow of this river, the frontier follows the course of the de Las Cañas or Yuquina river downstream as far as the place known as the Cajón de Champate (point Y), and then runs in a straight line to the summit of the peak known as the Cerro El Volcancillo (point Z) and thence in a straight line to the source of the stream known as La Orilla (point AA).
188.
The grounds relied on by the Parties in support of their claims are such that it is appropriate to divide up the sector into a number of subsectors, as was done by the Parties themselves in the course of argument. However, the most important issue before the Chamber in this sector, at least as regards the size of the area of land affected, is whether the boundary should follow the line contended for by El Salvador to the north of the sector, or should follow the river Negro-Quiagara, some 8 kilometres further south, as claimed by Honduras. The Chamber considers that, rather than taking the sub-sectors in order from west to east, or vice versa, its approach should be to resolve this question first, and then deal with the remaining sub-sectors of the boundary in the light of that initial decision.
189.
The principal issue in dispute between the Parties in this fourth sector is in fact whether or not the province of San Miguel, which became on independence part of El Salvador, extended in the region in question to the north of the river called Negro or Quiagara, or whether on the contrary that river was in 1821 the boundary between the province of San Miguel and the province of Comayagua, which became part of Hon-duras. The Parties are in agreement as to the identification of the river Negro-Quiagara; it runs from east to west across the major disputed area, unites with another river (Pichigual) and turns north-west. This latter part of the river is also called the river Negro, but is referred to in certain documents as the river Pichigual; to avoid confusion, the Chamber will refer to the two rivers, or parts of the river, as the river Negro-Quiagara and the river Negro-Pichigual. The Chamber will first set out the relevant events which, according to the evidence before it, occurred in the 18th century, and in the 19th century prior to independence, before considering the legal consequences to be deduced from them.
190.
In the year 1745 a title was issued by the Spanish colonial authorities to the Indian communities of Arambala and Perquin, two settlements established some 4 kilometres to the south of the river Negro-Quiagara, in the jurisdiction of the province of San Miguel. In 1760, the settlement was burned down and the title document perished in the fire. In 1769, the representatives of the community of Arambala-Perquin applied to the Juez Privativo del Real Juzgado de Tierras of the Kingdom of Guatemala for a survey of their lands and the issue of a substitute title. In their application they referred to the loss of the original title in the fire, and also to a claim by the Indians of Jocora or Jocoara in the province of Comayagua to 2.5 caballerías of land in the place called Naguaterique, which the Indians of Arambala-Perquin had always regarded as their own. The 2.5 caballerías had been surveyed by the sub-delegate judge of the province of Comayagua in 1766. On 26 May 1769 the Juez Subdelegado de medidas de Tierra in San Miguel, Antonio de Guzmán, delegated power, in view of his own illness, to Land Judge Antonio Ignacio Castro to carry out the survey requested by the community of Arambala-Perquin. After hearing various witnesses, Judge Castro carried out the survey requested on 12 June 1769.
191.
On 8 May 1773 a judicial decision was taken by the President of the Real Audiencia and Juez Privativo del Real Derecho de Tierras in the dispute between the Indians of Jocoara and those of Arambala-Perquin, as follows1:

"Fallo: Que los del Pueblo de Arambala y Perquin no han probado su acción segun y como probarles combenia, y que lo han hecho suficientemente los de el Pueblo de Jocoara Jurisdiccion de Comayagua en la que se hallan las Tierras litigiosas, y en su consequencia declaro se deve amparar a los Naturales de el citado Pueblo de Jocoara en la posecion que han tenido de las dos Caballerías doscientas y una Cuerdas, segun esta resuelto por auto de veinte y dos de Diciembre de setecientos setenta... con la calidad de que las deven componer con Su Magestad a rason de [ochenta] [ocho] Tostones cada una que es la mitad de su Verdadero Valor, y sobre que se ha de dar cuenta a la Real Audiencia oportunamente antes de librarse el Título, extrañándose como se extraña el injusto procedimiento especialmente del Comisionado Don Antonio Guzman, que entendió en varias diligencias..."

[Translation]

"Judgment: Considering that the inhabitants of Arambala and Perquin have not brought sufficient evidence, as they should have done, in support of their action and that, on the other hand, this has been done by the inhabitants of Jocoara, Jurisdiction of Comayagua, where the disputed lands are situated, I declare in consequence that the right of the inhabitants of the village of Jocoara must be upheld to the possession which they have had of 2 caballerías and 201 cords as stated in the decision of 22 December 1770... on condition that they pay to His Majesty the value thereof at the rate of [80] [8] tostones each, representing one half their real value, to be paid into the Real Audiencia in good time before the issuance of the title-deed, exception being taken to the defects from which these proceedings suffer, particularly as regards Commissioner Don Antonio Guzman, who participated in several of the measures taken..."

No further indication was given of the actions of the Sub-delegate Judge Guzmán which had incurred censure.

192.
An appeal was brought by the community of Arambala-Perquin to the Real Audiencia, but was dismissed on 20 May 1776, though whether on the merits or on procedural grounds is not entirely clear. The Indians of Jocoara were formally given possession of the disputed land on 20 August 1777; no further survey at that time is recorded, but the "boundary markers of the villages", which had been deliberately destroyed, were re-established, and the official documents were delivered to the community.
193.
In November 1815, the community of Arambala-Perquin again requested the issue of a new title to replace that lost in the fire, and to record the allocation of the disputed 2.5 caballerías to the community of Jocoara. On 16 November 1815, a decree was issued by the President of the Real Audiencia of Guatemala in the following terms:

"... amparo y mando sean amparados en la antigua posecion de sus exidos á los Yndios del Pueblo de Arambala y Perquin vajo los limites y mojones que constan en la medida incerta de la que solo deberá excluirse el terreno asignado a los del Pueblo de Jocoara de que también queda hecha relación; para que en ellos puedan hacer sus siembras y demas trabajos comunes que por bien tubieren y más de sus tierras aguas pastos y abrevaderos libremente como de cosa que les pertenece con justo legitimo título como este lo es. Y ordeno y mando á todos los Jueces y Justicias de la Provincia de San Miguel y de la de Comayagua los amparen y defiendan en dicha posecion sin consentir que de el todo ni parte alguna de las tierras que comprenden dichos exidos sean despojados sin ser primero oidos y por fuero y derecho convencidos dándoseles si la pidieren por el Juez que sea requerido con este título nueva posecion de ellas, de que podrá la diligencia correspondiente á continuación y se le debolvera para en guarda de su derecho. "

[Translation]

"... I protect and command to be protected in the long-standing possession of their ejidos the Indians of the town of Arambala and Perquin in accordance with the limits and landmarks that are set out in the attached measurement, from which shall be excluded only the field ascribed to those of the town of Jocoara, of which a report has also been made; so that in such ejidos they may make their sowings and perform such other communal tasks as they may esteem convenient, besides using their lands, pastures and watering places freely, as something that belongs to them by virtue of a just and legitimate title as this is. And I command and order all the Judges and Justices of the province of San Miguel and of that of Comayagua to protect and defend them in the said possession, without permitting them to be despoiled in part or in the whole of the lands that comprehend the said ejidos without first being heard and by privilege and by right defeated, possession of the land being restored to them by the judge to whom they may apply therefor and who, after taking the necessary steps, is to record them on this title and return it to them, so that their rights may be safeguarded."

194.
The measurement of the lands referred to must be taken to be that carried out in 1769 which was apparently attached to the 1815 document; no survey subsequent to 1769 has been produced to the Chamber. There is broad agreement between the Parties as to the geographical location and extent of the lands surveyed, though the precise line of the northerly boundaries is disputed. Both Parties interpret the survey as showing that the lands of the community of Arambala-Perquin extended both to the south and to the north of the river Negro-Quiagara, even though the survey nowhere specifically records a crossing of that river. The position of the 2.5 caballerías of land adjudicated to the Indians of Jocoara is not agreed; it has been suggested by El Salvador that this piece of land was not within the Arambala-Perquin ejidos as surveyed in 1769, but this does not appear to be consistent with the request made in 1815 by the community of Arambala-Perquin for the issue of a title document containing inter alia a definition of the rights of the community of Jocoara.
195.
The essential question in dispute between the Parties is however whether the lands of Arambala-Perquin lay wholly in the province of San Miguel, where the settlement of Arambala-Perquin was situated, or whether the lands to the north of the river Negro-Quiagara were in the province of Comayagua, the river being the provincial boundary. In this respect, El Salvador argues that the fact that the survey of 1769, which was revived in 1815, was carried out by delegate and sub-delegate judges from San Miguel constitutes evidence that the area adjudicated to Arambala and Perquin was subject to the jurisdiction of San Miguel. It may be recalled that the 1769 survey was a re-measurement required because of the loss of the 1745 title in a fire, and that lost title may have been one carried out jointly by the judges of two provinces, like that of Jupula (above, paragraph 105), or with special notice to the judge of the adjoining jurisdiction, as in the case of the title of San Francisco Citalá (paragraph 71 above), but that this was unnecessary for a re-survey. At all events, the Chamber does not think the fact that the survey was effected solely by a judge of San Miguel is a point of sufficient weight on its own to determine the question.
196.
El Salvador also advances the contention, already referred to above (paragraphs 51 and 71), and rejected by Honduras, that the effect of the grant to an Indian community, situate in one province, of an ejido over lands in another was that administrative control over the lands of the ejido was thereafter exercised from the province of the community, and that, for the purposes of the uti possidetis juris, this signified that the lands of the ejido would, on independence, come under the sovereignty of the State which succeeded to that province.
197.
The question of the position of the provincial boundary was in fact one of the main issues in the litigation between the two communities in 1773. The Indians of Jocoara claimed, through their counsel, that the claims of those of Arambala-Perquin to the disputed lands of Naguaterique were baseless, because those lands "are not only at a considerable distance from those villages but are six or seven leagues from the province in which they are situate, namely San Miguel", on the basis that the provincial boundary was the river Quiagara. The Indians of Arambala-Perquin replied that that river was not the boundary, but that

"... la raya que divide las dos Jurisdicciones es el richuelo que se halla acia la parte del Norte nombrado Salalamuya dentro de cuios limites se incluyen los Montes de Naguaterique, sirviendo de mojón principal el Serró nombrado la Ardilla... "

[Translation]

"... the line which separates the two provinces is the stream situated in the northern region and called Salalamuya, within whose limits lie the mountains of Naguaterique, the main boundary marker being the peak called La Ardilla..."

There appear to have been witnesses to support both views as to the position of the boundary.

198.
Honduras deduces from the judicial decision of 1773 in favour of Jocoara that the contentions of that community as to the position of the provincial boundary were adjudged to be correct. El Salvador disputes this, pointing out that the decision did not pronounce on the issue of the actual provincial boundary, and consequently did not identify the Negro-Quiagara as the boundary. The decision, according to its terms, was based on the finding that the community of Arambala-Perquin had not proved its case, and that that of Jocoara had done so; El Salvador argues that the position of the boundary was not a matter of evidence to be supplied by the Parties, but one of administrative regulation known to the authorities. The Chamber does not find this contention convincing: it is clear from the records of the proceedings that there was room for controversy about the position of the boundary, and that witness statements on the point were regarded as relevant. On the other hand, the Chamber is not convinced that the basis of the judgment necessarily was, as Honduras contends, that the river Negro-Quiagara was the provincial boundary. The Chamber would be reluctant to base a conclusion, one way or the other, as to the position of the provincial boundary, on the 1773 judgment alone.
199.
El Salvador argues further that even if the 1773 judgment is to be regarded as a finding by implication that the boundary was the river Negro-Quiagara, this was not the final word of the Spanish authorities on the matter: that what was decisive was the 1815 decision to confirm the Arambala-Perquin title. This was a decision by the highest authority on land boundaries in Guatemala, which was empowered, according to El Salvador, when awarding ejidos to Indian communities, to ignore the provincial boundaries. The 1815 decision, it is alleged, superseded and overrode any consequences of the 1773 decision as to the location of the provincial boundary.
200.
In this respect, Honduras argues that the reason why the 1815 decision contains a directive to the authorities both of San Miguel and of Comayagua to protect the rights of the Indian communities was that this was appropriate because the Arambala-Perquin ejidos were situate in both provinces. El Salvador however suggests that this was done either because of the adjudication, recorded in the decision, of the 2.5 caballerías of land in favour of the Indians of Jocoara, or because the Indians of Arambala-Perquin needed the protection of the authorities of Comayagua against the incursions of the Jocoara Indians, whose settlement was in Comayagua. On El Salvador’s first point, the Chamber considers that the persons to be protected and defended by the "Judges and Justices" of San Miguel and Comayagua (see the passage quoted in paragraph 193 above) are not both communities, but solely the "Indians of the town of Arambala and Perquin". After providing for the protection of those Indians, and after a reference to "those of the town of Jocoara", the text reads that they are to "... protect and defend them in the said possession..." ("... los amparen y defiendan en dicha posecion... "), a clear reference to the "antigua posecion" of the Indians of Arambala and Perquin, so that the word "los ’’must be taken to refer to them only. Of the other two explanations put forward, the Chamber considers that advanced by Honduras, on balance, more likely; it considers that if what was contemplated was solely the risk of incursions by the inhabitants of the province of Comayagua, this would probably have been spelled out specifically in the document.
201.
It is also of course conceivable that the doubt which surrounded the position of the provincial boundary in 1773 still persisted in 1815; and that the superior authority addressed his directions to the judges and justices of both provinces, not because he was satisfied that the Arambala-Perquin ejidos extended over both provinces, but in order to ensure protection of those ejidos in any event. It is for this reason in particular that the Chamber does not regard the 1815 decision as wholly conclusive on the question of the location of the provincial boundary.
202.
A further consideration which the Chamber regards as relevant is the possible position of the provincial boundary on the assumption that it was not formed by the river Negro-Quiagara. The claim made by the community of Arambala-Perquin in 1773 was that it was formed by the "stream [riachuelo] called Salalamuya" (paragraph 197 above). El Salvador argues that, notwithstanding the 1773 judgment in favour of Jocoara, "the provincial boundary could have been the Salalamuya river"; but it is now claiming that the provincial boundary followed the boundary of the Arambala-Perquin ejidos, and the survey of those ejidos does not mention the Salalamuya river, whose position remains obscure. On the maps produced by the Parties, there is no stream or river in the region of the Ardilla hill on the northern boundary of the Arambala-Perquin lands marked as being the Salalamuya, nor one which would appear appropriate, in size and direction, to serve as a provincial boundary.
203.
Honduras has also relied on what it regards as an admission by El Salvador that the Arambala-Perquin ejidos extended across the provincial boundary. In 1861, at the suggestion of El Salvador, negotiations were held with a view to settling a long-standing dispute between the inhabitants of the villages of Arambala and Perquin, on the one hand, and the village of Jocoara on the other. In the note, dated 14 May 1861, suggesting these negotiations, the Minister for Foreign Relations of El Salvador said:

"Esta cuestión solamente puede resolverse por medio de un deslinde, mas como una parte del terreno de los arambalas y perquines, se halla en territorio de Honduras, desearía S.E. el Presidente del Salvador, que dos agrimensores nombrados por los respectivos Gobiernos fueren á practicar el deslinde para poner en paz á aquellos pueblos, que como sucede siempre en asuntos de tierras entran en calores — que hacen temer un desastre. "

[Translation]

"This dispute can be settled only by deciding on a line of demarcation but, as a part of the land belonging to the community of Arambala and Perquin is located on the territory of Honduras, H.E. the President of El Salvador would be grateful if two surveyors, appointed by the respective Governments, could go to effect the necessary demarcation, in order to reconcile these villages, where — as always happens when land questions are involved — there is considerable unrest, giving cause to fear a disastrous development." (Emphasis added.)

204.
El Salvador has in this respect invoked the rule that "proposals and statements made in the course of or at the commencement of unfruitful negotiations are not to be taken into account in defining the legal rights of the Parties". As the Chamber has already observed (paragraph 73 above), this rule should not be given too extended an interpretation, being primarily intended to ensure that legal rights are not prejudiced by offers of compromise designed to lead to a negotiated settlement, but which are not successful. The 1861 note here in question falls in quite a different category. It was a statement by the Government of El Salvador of its view of a question of fact (cf. Minquiers and Ecrehos, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 71), on the basis of which it considered a form of negotiation to be appropriate. The Chamber is entitled to attach some significance to such a piece of evidence of how the situation was viewed 40 years after independence, and before the dispute between the Indian communities had developed into, or given rise to, an international dispute.
205.
The 1861 note, viewed in this light, is significant not only as, in effect, a recognition that the lands of the Arambala-Perquin community had, prior to independence, straddled the provincial boundary, but also a recognition that as a result those lands straddled the international frontier. The view taken in 1861 was thus not compatible with the theory espoused by El Salvador before the Chamber that the grant to a community in one province of ejidos situated in another necessarily entailed administrative control by the first province, so as to justify the lands following the first province on independence, in application of the uti possidetis juris.
206.
The Chamber does not in fact have to determine whether the general rule of Spanish colonial law in this respect was or was not as El Salvador has contended. It is sufficient for the Chamber to note that in the specific case of the ejidos of Arambala-Perquin, the Government of El Salvador accepted that those ejidos had been divided by the international frontier which came into existence on the independence of the two States. Whether this was because at the time both States regarded this as a normal application of the principle of the uti possidetis juris, as now contended by Honduras, or because a reason was seen for making an exception to a norm which, as now claimed by El Salvador, generally operated to the contrary effect, it is not necessary to determine for the purposes of the decision in this case.
207.
The statement in the note of 14 May 1861 does not of course indicate the position of the frontier between the two territories; only that part of the Arambala-Perquin lands lay on the Honduran side. When however surveyors from each side were sent to resolve the inter-village dispute, after resolving the question of the limits of Jocoara vis-a-vis Arambala-Perquin they reported that

"... por el dicho jeneral y la lectura de los espedientes que hemos tenido á la vista, así como por la presencia del terreno, la antigua línea divisoria de las provincias del Salvador y Honduras la forma por este lado el río Negro que en lengua indijena se llama Quiagara..

[Translation]

"... according to general opinions and from the information contained in the documents now filed with us, as well as from the nature of the terrain, the former boundary between the provinces of El Salvador and Honduras is formed, in this section, by the river Negro which, in the native language is called the Quiagara..

and this report was counter-signed by the representatives of Arambala and Perquin.

208.
Taking all these aspects into consideration, the Chamber endorses the conclusion of the surveyors in 1861, and finds that in this area the line of the uti possidetis juris of 1821 was the river Negro-Quiagara. The sector of the river on which this conclusion can at this stage be reached is that between the Mojón del Rincón (point M on sketch-map No. D-l) in the west and a point, yet to be determined, in the east. The boundary line has to leave the river at some point in order to reach the agreed terminal point of the sector, the Malpaso de Similatón; there are problems as to the identifications of this terminal point, to be examined below (paragraphs 258 ff.), but for the present the Chamber may assume that the boundary line leaves the river, as claimed by Honduras, at the Mojón Las Pilas (point N on sketch-map No. D-l). As a result of a modification of Honduras’s submissions, the Parties now agree that the Mojón del Rincón is the point at which the river intersects the western boundary of the Arambala-Perquin ejidos as surveyed in 1769.
209.
The Chamber therefore now turns to the south-western part of the disputed boundary in this sector, that which has been referred to as the sub-sector of Colomoncagua. The Chamber notes that, at the stage of its Reply, Honduras modified its submissions so as to claim a boundary line in this sub-sector materially different from that asserted in its Memorial and Counter-Memorial. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to be certain whether and to what extent an argument advanced in those earlier pleadings is still maintained. It appears, however, that where the original claim of Honduras, based on the 17th and 18th century documents to be enumerated in a moment, was irreconcilable with any acceptable interpretation of the titles of Arambala-Perquin and Torola, relied on by El Salvador, the line now asserted in the final submissions of Honduras, while still based on the same documents, is also regarded as a possible interpretation of the two Salvadorian titles.
210.
The Chamber will first pursue the line of the survey of Arambala-Perquin on the west side, immediately south of the river Negro-Quiagara. The survey of 1769 does not record a crossing of that river, but as the surveyor travelled from north to south down the western boundary

"... se tantearon veinte cuerdas hasta una loma que llaman Guiriri donde se halló un mojon antiguo que se mando avivar..

[Translation]

"... the estimated measurement was 20 cords to a hillock which they call Guiriri, where an old landmark was found, and instructions were given to renew it..."

211.
The position of the Guiriri hillock is not disputed in these proceedings; it is the first boundary marker to the south of the river Negro-Quiagara, and is marked L on sketch-map No. D-l annexed. Honduras claims that the boundary should pass through this point; El Salvador claims a line further to the west, on the grounds that tierras realengas of the jurisdiction of San Miguel extended in that direction, a claim to be examined later in this Judgment. The disagreement as to the boundaries of land other than tierras realengas begins at the next marker, that of the Roble Negro, and the Chamber will first outline the background to it.
212.
The problem, here and throughout the south-western part of this sector of the disputed boundary, is, in broad terms, the determination of the extent of the lands of the Indians of Colomoncagua, province of Comayagua (Honduras), to the west, and those of the communities of Arambala-Perquin and Torola, province of San Miguel (El Salvador), to the east and south-east. Both Parties rely on titles issued and other documents drawn up during the colonial period, and El Salvador has submitted also a re-measurement and renewed title issued after independence in 1844. Apart from the difficulties of identifying landmarks referred to, and reconciling the various surveys, the matter is complicated by doubts cast by each Party on the regularity or relevance of titles invoked by the other. The Chamber will begin by setting out in chronological order the titles and documents claimed by the one side or the other to be relevant, reserving for the moment any assessment of their validity:

1662-1663-1665: Surveys of the estancia and the sitio of Santa Ana and of neighbouring lands, relied on by Honduras as establishing the position of landmarks at points A and B on sketch-map No. D-l annexed.

1694; Survey of the lands of the Indians of Colomoncagua at Las Joyas and Los Jicoaguites, relied on by Honduras as establishing the position of landmarks at points D and H on sketch-map No. D-1.

1742-1743: Survey of the ejidos of Torola, relied on by El Salvador as establishing the position of landmarks at points E', F' and X on sketch-map No. D-1.

1766: Survey of the ejidos of Colomoncagua by Cristóbal de Pineda; relied on by Honduras as establishing the position of landmarks at points B and M on sketch-map No. D-l (and relied on earlier in the proceedings to establish a landmark east of I on that sketch-map, a claim subsequently abandoned).

1766: Request by the Indians of Colomoncagua for the cancellation of the Pineda survey, and declaration of nullity ; relied on by Honduras as establishing the position of landmarks at points A to E and H on sketch-map No. D-l.

1767: Reconnaissance of the boundary markers of Colo moncagua by Miguel Garcia Jalón, relied on by Honduras as establishing the position of landmarks at points A to E and H on sketch-map No. D-1.

1769 : Survey of the ejidos of Arambala-Perquin, already discussed above, relied on by El Salvador as establishing the position of landmarks at points M, L and W, on sketch-map No. D-1.

1790-1793: Re-survey of the ejidos of Colomoncagua by Andrés Pérez, relied on by Honduras as establishing the position of landmarks at points A, C and H on sketch-map No. D-l.

1811: Survey of the lands of Santo Domingo at the request of the inhabitants of Colomoncagua, relied on by Honduras as showing that the lands of Colomoncagua extended east of the river Negro-Pichigual.

1815: Title of Arambala-Perquin, already discussed above, adopting the 1769 survey, with the reservation of the rights of the inhabitants of Jocoara.

1843-1844: Republican title re-issuing title of Torola, submitted by El Salvador as confirming the 1743 survey mentioned above.

213.
The document of 1743 concerning the ejidos of the community of Torola is relied on by El Salvador as a "formal title-deed to commons". Honduras however first questions its compliance with the then current Spanish colonial legislation, and points out, secondly, that the document produced does not include any grant of the lands surveyed. Following a survey and examination of witnesses, a report was presented to the Audiencia of Guatemala, but there is no record of what decision, if any, was taken by that body. It is however apparently not contended by Honduras that as a result the Indians of Torola had no right to their lands; or that the survey recorded did not take place. The Chamber considers that, in the absence of any evidence suggesting its rejection by the Audiencia, the survey record of 1743 can be referred to for such light as it may throw on the position of the provincial boundary at that time.
214.
The 1766 title incorporating the survey of the ejidos of Colomoncagua by Cristóbal de Pineda should, it is contended by El Salvador, be excluded from consideration because it was annulled by the Audiencia of Guatemala. Honduras concedes that it was so annulled, but observes that the complaint of the inhabitants of Colomoncagua on the basis of which the title was annulled referred to lands which were not contiguous with the lands of Torola, and thus not relevant to the questions before the Chamber. Furthermore, according to the 1766 record, the mayor and inhabitants of Torola were cited and appeared to ensure that the survey did not infringe their community’s rights. The Chamber observes however that one of the grievances of the inhabitants of Colomoncagua was that in 1766 the judge had carried out no more than a visual inspection "without a survey or a summons" of neighbouring owners. The Chamber considers that the 1766 survey should therefore be treated with caution as to its evidential value, but cannot be wholly disregarded.
215.
Objection has been taken by El Salvador to the reference to the 1767 reconnaissance of Colomoncagua by Miguel García Jalón, on the ground that the inhabitants of Torola were not summoned to attend the land survey to object, for the protection of their rights, so that the survey was based exclusively on the claims of the inhabitants of Colomoncagua. The Chamber considers that, while this is undoubtedly a weakness, the document will still be of some assistance as supporting evidence, provided that this lack of opportunity of the people of Torola to object is taken into account.
216.
The reliance by Honduras on the survey carried out in 1793 by Andrés Pérez is objected to by El Salvador on the grounds, first that it was based on excessive unilateral claims by the inhabitants of Colomoncagua to which the inhabitants of Torola were given no opportunity to object, and secondly that it was not a formal survey, but a mere "visual reconnaissance", and on that ground no account was taken of the objections of the holders of titles to neighbouring lands. Finally, El Salvador claims that the 1793 document is not one which fulfils the requirements of Article 26 of the 1980 General Peace Treaty, since it was not issued by a competent authority. The Chamber considers that the 1793 document is not excluded from the category of documents "issued by the Spanish Crown" referred to in the 1980 Treaty, and may be relied on as evidence, provided it is borne in mind that, as Honduras concedes, it is not an official survey for the purpose of delimiting the lands of Colomoncagua, or granting land rights, but a mere verification of what were claimed to be the existing boundaries in support of the resistance by the community of Colomoncagua to alleged encroachments by their neighbours. These circumstances must be borne in mind by the Chamber when assessing its evidential value.
217.
Honduras objects to the 1844 Torola document invoked by El Salvador, on the grounds not merely that it is a republican title, and thus in Honduras’s view by definition incapable of defining the 1821 uti possidetis juris, but also that the circumstances of its issue were suspect. The survey was effected on the instructions of the Political and Military Governor of San Miguel, and the judge entrusted with the task, Cecilio Espinoza, would, it is suggested, have understood that the purpose in view was to arrive at a frontier delimitation favourable to Salvadorian interests. This, in the view of Honduras, is the explanation for a number of irregularities in the procedure, in particular the disregard by Judge Espinoza of claims and assertions by the people of Colomoncagua, which are nonetheless referred to in the title document. Furthermore, the survey of 1844 did not lead to the issue of a new formal title-deed, and according to a note from the Government of El Salvador to the Government of Honduras dated 1 May 1852 this was because of the opposition of the inhabitants of Colomoncagua. Counsel for El Salvador stated at the hearings that El Salvador is not "relying on or utilizing in any way" the 1844 deed, but relying exclusively on the title of Arambala-Perquin and the 1743 title of Torola. Whatever may have been the intentions of El Salvador in that respect, the Chamber considers that it can and should take the 1844 document wholly into consideration. It may in principle have weight as the corroboration of a document of the colonial period; Honduras concedes as much, but claims that it does not in fact afford such corroboration. The Chamber will examine in due course whether the 1844 Torola document is or is not of assistance in this respect.
218.
On the basis of these various titles, the Chamber will now proceed with its consideration of the position of the uti possidetis juris line to the south-west of the river Negro-Quiagara. The boundary of the ejidos of Arambala-Perquin is agreed, as noted above, as far as the Guiriri hill; the earlier claim in the submissions in the Memorial and Counter-Memorial of Honduras, to a boundary further east has in fact been withdrawn. The next boundary marker referred to in the Arambala-Perquin survey, to the south of the hill of Guiriri, is that of Roble Negro or "black oak". The Arambala-Perquin survey record continues:

"... y desde dicho Guiriri se tantearon treinta y seis cuerdas al Roble negro que al pié de el se halló un mojon antiguo de piedras y las justicias de Colomoncagua de la jurisdiccion de Gracias contradijeron ser mas adentro por lo que les pedí sus títulos los que dijeron no traían pero que dentro de dos dias me los llevarían, y los dichos prácticos dijeron que el Roble negro donde haviamos llegado es el mojon del Pueblo de Arambala y Perquin por que desde dicho Roble al Río negro ó de Pichigual havia como un cuarto de legua y en dicho río termina esta jurisdiccion, por lo que la tierra que intermedia es realenga que es la misma que hemos traído á la derecha desde el mojon de Guiriri por lo que dejándoles su derecho á salvo á los Naturales del referido Pueblo de Colomoncagua mandé avivar dicho mojon y por no haver parecido con sus títulos como ofrecieron pongo esta razón..."

[Translation]

"... and from the said Guiriri 36 cords were estimated to the Roble Negro (black oak) at the foot of which was found an old landmark of stones, and the Justices of Colomoncagua of the jurisdiction of Gracias objected to this being further in, in view of which I asked them for their titles which they said they did not have with them but would deliver to me in two days, and the said practitioners added that the Roble Negro where we had arrived was the boundary landmark of the township of Arambala and Perquin, because from the said Roble Negro to the Negro or Pichigual river there was something like a quarter of a league and this jurisdiction ends at the said river, so that the intermediate lands are tierras realengas, the same as we have had on our right from the landmark of Guiriri, in view of which arguments and reserving the right of the inhabitants of the said town of Colomoncagua, I ordered the renewal of the said landmark, and since they did not appear afterwards with their titles as they offered to do, 1 place this on record..."

219.
Neither Party has claimed to identify the marker with an existing tree; and since it is defined by the Arambala-Perquin survey as being 36 cords (1,494 metres) from Guiriri in a generally southward direction, there is not a great deal of room for dispute as to its position, and no great distance separates the two Parties’ respective identifications of its position. Honduras identifies it with the point where the camino rea/reaches a marker called El Carrisal or Soropay, a marker referred to in other documents, on the hill, where there is a modem triangulation point, indicated on both Parties’ maps as "Roble Negro", indicated as point K on sketch-map No. D-l. El Salvador places it some 500 metres north-east of the triangulation point.
220.
After the Roble Negro, the next boundary marker reached in the Arambala-Perquin survey was the tripoint where the lands of Colomoncagua, Arambala-Perquin and Torola meet. To avoid confusion, the Chamber will take the references in the documents before it to this tripoint in chronological order. The survey of the lands of Torola, held in 1743, preceded that of Arambala-Perquin; as for Colomoncagua, reference may be made, subject to the considerations noted above (paragraphs 214-216), to the 1766 survey of Cristóbal de Pineda, the reconnaissance of boundaries in 1767 by Miguel García Jalón, and that effected in 1793 by Andrés Pérez.
221.
The tripoint where the titles of Arambala-Perquin, Torola and Colomoncagua met was defined as follows in the 1743 survey of the Torola lands; the surveyor was approaching it from the south-west:

"... y por el mismo rumbo se llegó con veinticuatro cuerdas a la orilla de un río barrancoso que le llaman el río de las Cañas que andando para el oriente se pasó la cuerda por el río arriba y se midieron ochenta cuerdas al camino real que va de Torola al pueblo de Colomoncagua, cuya justicia y principales con su real título se hallaron presentes, y siguiendo el rumbo de poniente en oriente hasta un paraje que llaman la Cruz se tantearon ochenta y cinco cuerdas, y de aquí a otro paraje llamado el Monte Redondo, y en la cima de una loma se puso un mojón de piedra hasta donde se midieron treinta y ocho cuerdas y hasta donde también ha venido lindando con tierras de Colomoncagua y empieza a lindar con ejidos de Perquin y Arambala, cuyas justicias se hallaron allí presentes... "

[Translation]

"... and with 24 cords in the same direction we came to the bank of a precipitous river that they call the Las Cañas river, where, heading eastwards, the cord was extended upstream and 80 cords were measured to the camino real that goes from Torola to the town of Colomoncagua, whose justicia and principales were present with their royal title, and continuing from the west to the east to a place called La Cruz 85 cords were measured, and from there to another place called Monte Redondo and on the top of a hill a stone boundary marker was built, to which point 38 cords were measured, and up to here I had been bordering on lands of Colomoncagua and now began to border on ejidos of Perquin and Arambala, whose justices were present there..."

Honduras has not produced any title which it identifies as the "royal title" of Colomoncagua here referred to. The only title in the area cited by Honduras which already existed in 1743 was the 1694 title of Las Joyas and Los Jicoaguites, but apparently the Parties agree in situating this further to the south-west, not abutting on Arambala-Perquin but only on Torola. However, when the survey reached a point at a total of 118 cords (4,838 metres) from the meeting point of the Torola and Arambala-Perquin titles, a title was produced, presumably one which has since disappeared.

222.
The relevant passage from the survey record of Arambala-Perquin is as follows:

"... y desde dicho Roble negro por el mismo rumbo se tiro la cuerda partiendo un barranco y después una quebradillo de agua de donde se subió y bajo una loma alta y topamos con el camino que sale de este Pueblo para Colomoncagua y se encuentra con las tierras del Pueblo de Torola cuyo pueblo es de esta jurisdiccion y hasta dicho camino llegamos con cuarenta cuerdas siendo advertencia que como diez cuerdas se vino lindando con tierra realenga y despues con Colomoncagua y en dicho paraje se halló un mojon antiguo de piedra que mandé avivar sin contradicción del dicho Pueblo de Colomoncagua y el de Torola y mudando de rumbo del Oeste al Leste con abatimiento al Sudeste lindando con tierras del Pueblo de Torola..."

[Translation]

"... and from the said Roble Negro in the same direction the cord was stretched across from a ravine as far as a quebradillo of water where we climbed and descended a high hillock and we met the road that runs from this town to Colomoncagua and arrives at the lands of the town of Torola, which belongs to this jurisdiction, and we reached this road with 40 cords, and it should be noted that for some 10 cords we walked bordering tierra realenga and thereafter Colomoncagua, and in the said spot an old stone landmark was found that I commanded to be rebuilt without objection being taken by the said town of Colomoncagua or the town of Torola and changing course from west to east with an inclination to the south-east the cord was stretched bordering the lands of the town of Torola..."

223.
Taking the titles of Torola (1743) and Arambala-Perquin (1769) alone, the picture of the relevant boundary in 1769 which emerges is as follows: southward from Roble Negro for 10 cords there were tierras realengas of San Miguel to the right, lands of Arambala-Perquin to the left; for a further 30 cords there were lands of Colomoncagua to the right, lands of Arambala-Perquin to the left. Here the tripoint was reached, described variously as Monte Redondo or the road from Colomoncagua. Turning to the west, the boundary ran 38 cords to a place called La Cruz, with lands of Torola on the left and lands of Colomoncagua to the right; a similar division continued a further 80 cords to the camino real from Torola to Colomoncagua, where a Colomoncagua title-deed was produced.
224.
Turning now to the records produced by Honduras, the 1766 survey by Cristóbal de Pineda reads, in the relevant part, as follows; the cord had been extended from the village of Colomoncagua, in a direction not stated:

... se fue caminando por unos Planes, y sabanas, y en partes algunas Bajadas, y subidas pequeñas siempre siguiendo el camino Real que va deste Pueblo al de Perquin Jurisdiccion de San Miguel, y se llegó al serró que le llaman el Carrisal, con siento y ochenta cuerdas de la dicha medida y dicho serró es dividision desta Jurisdiccion de Gracias y la de San Miguel en donde estava el Alcalde y Tribunos del Pueblo de Perquin quienes declaran y disen ser hasta alli los linderos de sus Tierras y las deste de Colomoncagua, y no habiendo abido ninguna contradison para este Rumbo con Unos, y otros Naturales se volvio a dicho Pueblo.. [Translation]

[Translation]

"... we walked in the plains and savannahs and sometimes up and down small slopes at all times along the camino real which connects this village to that of Perquin in the jurisdiction of San Miguel, arriving at the peak called El Carrisal after 180 cords of the said measure; and this peak constitutes the dividing line between the jurisdiction of Gracias and that of San Miguel where we found the Mayor and officials of the village of Perquin who declared that the boundaries of their lands and those of the village of Colomoncagua extended to that spot and since there was no disagreement on that direction on the part of the one or the other group of inhabitants we returned to the said village..

225.
In view of the reference to the road from Colomoncagua to Perquin, it appears that El Carrisal is the tripoint Colomoncagua, Torola and Arambala-Perquin (cf. the description in the Arambala-Perquin survey, above). It is therefore noteworthy that there is here no mention of the lands of Torola, or any intervention by their representatives, who had, it seems, not been summoned (paragraph 204 above). However, it appears that at this time Cristóbal de Pineda was not making a tour round the boundaries of Colomoncagua, travelling from landmark to landmark as in the formal surveys of ejidos, but taking a succession of measurements outwards from the village to the limit of the lands in each direction. It was therefore sufficient to know that El Carrisal was on the boundary with the lands of at least one neighbouring community.
226.
The reconnaissance by Miguel García Jalón in 1767 is of little assistance; it may however be noted that the claim presented by the community of Colomoncagua which gave rise to the inspection included, in its summary of the boundaries, the following:

"... desde Ay [Agua Sarca] sale ala Falda del serró llega Al camino Real que ba para pueblo de perquin el mesmo Camino sirbe de mojon hasta llegar A los dos encuentro de los dos caminos desde dicho pueblo con el Camino que biene de torola que ay la llamamos a la curus de la Jolla el mesmo camino sirbe de mojon asta llegar A las puntas de un llano que se llama Carrisal..."

[Translation]

"... from there [Agua Sarca] to the slope of the hill, one arrives at the camino real to the village of Perquin; this same road serves as a boundary marker until one reaches the two points where the two roads from the said village meet the road from Torola, which we call La Cruz de la Jolla; the same road serves as a boundary marker until one arrives at the edge of a plain called Carrisal..."

227.
As for the 1793 inspection by Andrés Pérez, the Chamber considers that, apart from the circumstances throwing doubt on its evidential value referred to in paragraph 216 above, internal evidence also weakens its authority in this context as a record of recognized boundaries. In illustration, the case may be taken of the Salvadorian village of San Fernando; Honduras’s first interpretation of the Pérez survey found expression in a boundary line which passed through the middle of that village. Honduras has since modified its line so as not to touch the village of San Fernando, and contended that the Andrés Pérez survey involved a complaint by Colomoncagua of encroachments by the community of San Fernando, which was not included in the survey but merely described as "bordering on the lands of this village [Colomoncagua]". Yet when Andrés Pérez spent the night in the hamlet of San Fernando, he recorded that it "... was within the lands of San Pedro Colomoncagua..." ("...a la Aldea de San Fernando, cual queda dentro de las tierras del pueblo de San Pedro Colomoncagua... "). In the view of the Chamber it would be imprudent to base any conclusions on the claims of Colomoncagua as expressed in the Andrés Pérez survey.
228.
The Arambala-Perquin title enables the Chamber to relate the tripoint of Torola, Colomoncagua and Arambala-Perquin to landmarks to the north, including the agreed point of Guiriri. Before trying to reach a decision on its location today, it is advisable to consider it from the south, that is to say from the standpoint of the title of Torola, and thus to seek a reference point among the boundary markers listed in the 1743 Torola survey that can, taken in isolation, be identified with reasonable confidence today. This is in fact supplied, in the Chamber’s view, by the reference in the title of Torola to the river Las Cañas. The Parties agree in general that the river now known by that name, and marked as such on modem maps, was so known also at the time of the surveys with which the Chamber is dealing; it has been suggested that this river is the same as a river Yuquina, mentioned in some of the documentation, and in particular in the 1844 Torola document (paragraph 239 below), and there is some dispute whether a reference to the Las Cañas in the 1743 Torola title should not rather be read as referring to one of the tributaries, known as the Masire (paragraph 235 below). Those questions can however for the present be reserved.
229.
At this stage, a word should be said as to the relative weight of the Torola title of 1743 and the various Colomoncagua titles produced by Honduras. The Torola survey was effected after summons to the community of Colomoncagua, and representatives of the community appeared during the survey. If it were a question of conflict, the Chamber would place reliance on this title, rather than on those of 1766, 1767 and 1793 appertaining to Colomoncagua. Accordingly for the Chamber, the question is one of interpretation: do the Colomoncagua titles support the view that El Salvador’s interpretation of the Torola title, which clashes with the Colomoncagua titles, is incorrect? Or is there an interpretation, at least as convincing as that of El Salvador, of the Torola title, which reconciles it with the Colomoncagua titles?
230.
It is clear from the 1743 survey of the lands of Torola that these extended to a river called Las Cañas, even if only to a single point on the river. The relevant passage of the survey record reads;

"... y con cuarenta cuerdas se llegó a un paraje que le llaman las Tijeretas y por el mismo rumbo [sc., de sur a norte] se llegó con veinticuatro cuerdas a la orilla de un río barrancoso que le llaman el río de las Cañas que andando para el oriente se pasó la cuerda por el río arriba y se midieron ochenta cuerdas al camino real que va de Torola al pueblo de Colomoncagua..."

[Translation]

"... and with 40 cords we reached a place called Las Tijeretas and in the same direction [from south to north] with 24 cords we came to the bank of a precipitous river which they call the Las Cañas river where, heading eastwards, the cord was stretched upstream and 80 cords were measured to the camino real from Torola to the town of Colomoncagua..."

Honduras identifies this point with the confluence of the river Las Cañas with another river which, according to Honduras, is called the Masire (though this name does not appear on any of the maps produced) at the point marked F on sketch-map No. D-1 annexed. El Salvador identifies it with a point further downstream, marked F' on sketch-map No. D-l, which is the confluence with a river called by El Salvador the Pitas river. The 1743 survey, it will be observed, says nothing about a confluence with any other river or stream.

231.
El Salvador reads the 1743 survey as meaning that 80 cords were measured upstream of the river Las Canas, beginning in an approximately eastward direction. Honduras originally laid emphasis on the bearing, and read the 1743 survey as meaning that 80 cords were measured in a straight line eastwards, which was initially the direction upstream of the river. However, at point F on sketch-map No. D-l, that selected by Honduras, the modem Las Cañas is flowing virtually north to south; therefore, in the view of Honduras, the river referred to as "Las Cañas" in the 1743 survey must be the Masire, which flows from east to west to join the modem Las Cañas. What Honduras first regarded as an impossible interpretation of the record is that the initial direction, upstream of the river, was eastwards, but that the river was then followed as its course turned in a different direction, namely, to the north, as claimed by El Salvador.
232.
The Chamber does not however find difficulty in accepting El Salvador’s interpretation. If, on arriving from the south at the point on the river Las Cañas the survey had simply proceeded in a straight line eastwards, first the point of contact with the river would be unidentifiable, and the course of the survey inexplicable as neglecting the obvious boundary, and secondly the reference to the direction of flow of the river would have been superfluous. What mattered was that "the cord was extended", i.e., the survey proceeded, upstream ; the reference to the easterly direction simply made it clear whether this involved turning left or right. Honduras’s second interpretation of the course of the boundary seems to recognize this. Honduras first advanced the interpretation whereby the boundary of the Torola lands merely touched the river Las Cañas at one point, and did not follow any part of its course; subsequently however Honduras adopted an interpretation whereby a river — that identified as the Masire — did form the boundary for some 1,200 metres (point F to point G on sketch-map No. D-1 annexed). While the fact that El Salvador has continued to present a consistent interpretation of the 1743 title does not prove that it is a correct one, the Chamber notes that Honduras’s change of approach emphasizes the difficulty in finding a convincing alternative interpretation. On balance, it concludes that the Torola title extended to the Yuquina or Las Cañas river, and was not bounded by the Masire. This view is supported by the re-survey of 1844, to be examined below.
233.
What is obscure about this passage of the Torola survey record is that it is not stated at what point the survey left the river. Eighty cords from the first contact with the river the camino real was reached (see the passage quoted in paragraph 221 above). The 1743 survey record continues:

"... y siguiendo el rumbo de poniente en oriente hasta un paraje que llaman le Cruz se tantearon ochenta y cinco cuerdas, y de aquí a otro paraje llamado el Monte Redondo, y en la cima de una loma se puso un mojón de piedra hasta donde se midieron treinta y ocho cuerdas..." [Translation]

[Translation]

"... and continuing from west to east to a place called La Cruz 85 cords were estimated, and from there to another place called Monte Redondo, and on the top of a hill a stone boundary marker was built, up to which point 38 cords were measured..

234.
El Salvador maintains that the boundary follows the river Las Cañas upstream all the way to its headwaters near a hill called the Alguacil Mayor (point W on sketch-map No. D-l), which it identifies with the Monte Redondo. This identification however apparently rests only on the view taken by the delegates of the two States in 1884 at the time of negotiation of the unratified Cruz-Letona Convention, Article 17 of which contemplated that the boundary should run "From the Monte Redondo, also called Alguacil Mayor, where the river Cañas has its source..El Salvador’s interpretation necessarily involves the assumption that the references in the Torola title both to the Torola-Colomoncagua road and to the place called La Cruz or Quecruz are to points on the river, and therefore superfluous for the purpose of identification of the boundary. This seems unlikely. A further difficulty with El Salvador’s interpretation is that the tripoint Torola, Colomoncagua and Arambala-Perquin was, according to the survey of 1769, on or near the road from Colomoncagua to Perquin. Neither Party has been able to identify this road with any certainty; but El Salvador’s interpretation requires that the road from the one village to the other should run rather south of a direct course, and climb the Cerro Alguacil Mayor, instead of following the valley of the river Negro-Pichigual, where, according to both Parties’ maps, there is today such a road. This result too seems unlikely.
235.
Honduras, on the other hand, now maintains that the boundary follows the river (between points F and G on sketch-map D-l) — though the river Masire, not the same river as in El Salvador’s interpretation — until it meets the road (at point G), and from there, leaving the river, runs in a straight line to the point which Honduras identifies as La Cruz or Quecruz (point H). Against this is that the direction taken to the road, and from there to La Cruz or Quecruz is more to the north than the "eastwards" mentioned in the title; and that the distances are inconsistent. The title records 80 cords to the Torola-Colomoncagua road and 85 cords to La Cruz or Quecruz: Honduras’s version of the boundary produces distances of about 1,500 metres (33 cords) and 1,000 metres (25 cords) respectively.
236.
The Chamber considers that in this part of the fourth sector the boundary line which best harmonizes with the available evidence of the uti possidetis juris is as follows. Southwards from the Guiriri marker (point L on sketch-map No. D-1 and sketch-map No. D-2 annexed) to the Roble Negro triangulation point (point K. on sketch-maps No. D-l and D-2); in the absence of any material pointing unequivocally to the one or the other of the two positions proposed by the Parties for the Roble Negro marker (paragraph 219 above), the Chamber considers that the choice of the triangulation point is justified by reasons of practical convenience. From there, south-westwards to a hill indicated as point T on sketch-map No. D-2, which the Chamber considers can be identified with Monte Redondo. From there, slightly south of west to meet the river Las Cañas near the settlement of Las Piletas (point U on sketch-map No. D-2). The place called La Cruz, which the Chamber regards as probably unidentifiable with complete accuracy, is somewhat on the high ground between these last two points; the selected position is shown as T' on sketch-map No. D-2 annexed, a point which should be inter-visible with U and T. This boundary, while not corresponding precisely to the distances recorded in the surveys of 1743 and 1769, maintains so far as possible the proportions of the distances, and corresponds broadly to the directions indicated.
237.
The distance between the point (point U on sketch-map No. D-2 annexed) near Las Piletas where this boundary leaves the river Las Cañas, and the point which El Salvador identifies as the meeting point of the river and the south-west boundary of the Torola title (point F' on sketch-map No. D-l annexed) is more than the 80 cords stated in the title. In view of the difficulty of measuring accurately with a cord along the course of a river, this does not disprove the Chamber’s conclusions so far. Honduras however maintains that the Torola boundary met the river further northeast than El Salvador claims (point F on sketch-map No. D-l). In order to ascertain which contention in this respect is correct, it is necessary to consider further the 1743 Torola title, and the re-issued title of 1844. In the passage quoted in paragraph 221 above, the surveyor of 1743 records that, on arriving at Monte Redondo, "up to here I had been bordering on lands of Colomoncagua". The record does not however state at what point in the survey the surveyor began to border the lands of Colomoncagua, so that there is no indication whether or not the Colomoncagua lands extended across that river to an area south of the Torola lands. The measurement began from the Torola river, and the adjoining owners who appeared were, first, the owner of the Hacienda de San José, and secondly the owner of the Hacienda de San Diego, whose lands apparently marched with those of Torola at least as far as the Portillo de San Diego. From there on the survey record states that:

"... con treinta cuerdas se llegó al dicho portillo de San Diego, y mudando el dicho rumbo se cogió de Sur a Norte... aparte mudé rumbo como dicho es, de sur a norte pasó la cuerda por entre unos peñascos altos que están inmediatos a dicho portillo y con cuarenta cuerdas se llegó a un paraje que le llaman las Tijeretas y por el mismo rumbo se llegó con veinticuatro cuerdas a la orilla de un río barrancoso que le llaman el río de las Cañas que andando para el oriente se pasó la cuerda por el río arriba y se midieron ochenta cuerdas al camino real que va de Torola al pueblo de Colomoncagua, cuya justicia y principales con su real título se hallaron presentes... "

[Translation]

"... with 30 cords we reached the said portillo of San Diego, and changing direction we turned from south to north... and I changed course, as already stated from south to north the cord was extended between some high rocks which are adjacent to the said portillo and with 40 cords we reached a place called Las Tijeretas and in the same direction with 24 cords we came to the bank of a precipitous river which they call the river Las Cañas where, heading eastwards, the cord was stretched upstream and 80 cords were measured to the camino real from Torola to the town of Colomancagua, whose justicia and principales were present with their royal title..."

It is to be noted that in 1743 the representatives of Colomoncagua are not mentioned until the survey reached the camino real, but there seems no doubt that the Colomoncagua lands extended along the river downstream from that point.

238.
Some light on the matter is thrown by the 1844 re-survey of Torola carried out by the judge Cecilio Espinosa. The record shows that the judge called for the title of Torola from the mayor of that community, so that he could review the boundaries indicated in it, and directed that notifications to the adjoining owners be sent out according to the boundaries so indicated ("... y segun los [linderos]que en dicho título se expresen, ponganse las notas sitatorias a los colindantes..."). The judge noted from the title document that "... the adjoining owners are those of the Hacienda de San José, San Diego and Colomoncagua..." (..."son colindantes los posedores de la hacienda de San José, San Diego y Colomoncagua... "), and those adjoining owners were duly summoned to attend the survey, with their titles. The summons to the mayor of Colomoncagua was that "... salga el con su título al río de las Cañas por la bajada de las tijeretas..." ("... he should be present with his title at the Las Cañas river by the bajada of Las Tijeretas..."). Since, as already noted, the 1743 Torola title does not state the extent to which the lands of Colomoncagua were co-terminous with those of Torola, the judge must have based his choice of this point, not on the title, as he had himself directed, but on local information or tradition. The mayor of Colomoncagua first replied that he would be present at a place called Los Picachos, but in reply to a query by the judge confirmed that he would appear at Las Tijeretas.
239.
The judge reached the place called Las Tijeretas some days before that appointed for the presence of the mayor of Colomoncagua, and met there the owner of the Hacienda de San Diego. The ancient landmark at that place was agreed by the owner of San Diego, and was renewed. On the date appointed with the mayor of Colomoncagua the judge went to Las Tijeretas and met both the owner of San Diego and the mayors of Colomoncagua and Torola. The representatives of Colomoncagua claimed that the Torola lands did not extend so far north-west as the river Las Cañas, but that the boundary from Las Tijeretas ran eastwards, south of the river, to a place called Los Picachos. They relied on a title called that of San Pedro Moncagua (which, they claimed, antedated that of Torola; such title cannot be identified with any of the titles submitted to the Chamber). However, when this title was produced, it provided, according to the 1844 record, that the boundary was the river Yuquina, and the representatives of Colomoncagua stated, in response to a question by the judge, that this was the river Las Cañas . se halló por documento, que reza por lindero el río de la Yuquina; y habiéndoles preguntado por dicho río, dijeron ser el mismo de las Cañas... "). The representatives of Colomoncagua however refused to give way; the judge recorded that:

"Despues de muchos alegatos, pidieron se pusiere la aguja para ver cual era la direcion que tomaba de las tigereteas de Sur a Norte, como dicen ambos títulos; y se vió que topaba a un río barrancoso que le llaman las pitas, y por el mismo rumbo a poca distancia se topa el río de Cañas, llamado Yuquina en el mencionado título de Colomoncagua. "

[Translation]

"After much argument, they asked that the compass needle be set to show where was the south-to-north direction from Las Tijeretas, as indicated in both titles; and it was seen to point to a precipitous river called las Pitas, and in the same direction after a short distance one arrives at the river Cañas, called Yuquina in the said Colomoncagua title."

240.
On the basis of this information, the Chamber considers it possible to resolve the disagreement between the Parties as to the location referred to as Las Tijeretas (point E or point E' on sketch-map No. D-1); in the view of the Chamber, the point identified by El Salvador (E') corresponds better to the 1844 description. First, there is, according to the maps, the confluence with the Las Cañas of a stream, flowing from south to north, just north of that point; and secondly, according to the indications given by the contour lines on the map, the area between that point and the river might properly be described as a slope ("bajada" — see paragraph 238 above), while the point selected by Honduras lies to the south of a stretch of the river where it flows between steep banks.
241.
The 1844 document further records that in response to a request by the judge for the title of the Hacienda de San Diego to be produced, the owner of that land said that he did not have it with him, but produced a certificate dated 11 March 1804, issued by a lands judge of Gracias a Dios, but prepared at the Hacienda de San Diego at the request of the then owners of that property, who had complained of incursions by the Indians of Colomoncagua. The judge in 1804, having inspected the title of Colomoncagua, upheld the complaint, and recorded that

"... segun los linderos que reza el mismo título, sirve de division de las tierras, el nombrado río de las Cañas, el mismo que también separa los términos de mi jurisdiccion con la provincia de San Miguel..."

[Translation]

"... according to the boundaries mentioned in the said title, the said river Las Cañas serves to divide the lands, and also marks the limits of my jurisdiction and that of the province of San Miguel..."

The value and authenticity of this document may be open to question: it has not itself been produced to the Chamber, but was merely copied into the record of the 1844 re-survey; there is no record that it was shown or read to the representatives of Colomancagua in 1844, to enable them to dispute it; and the judge who issued it in 1804 was avowedly acting at a place outside his own jurisdiction. What is significant, however, is that it relates to the boundary between San Diego and Colomoncagua, and therefore indicates the course of the boundary downstream of Las Tijeretas.

242.
On balance, the Chamber accepts the contentions of El Salvador that the Colomoncagua lands did not at any point extend across the river Las Cañas. The 1743 title mentions Las Tijeretas, which was 24 cords from the river, as a boundary marker of Torola, but does not say what title or titles lay on the other side of it; and the statement in the record (paragraph 221 above) that when the surveyor reached Monte Redondo he had previously been bordering on the lands of Colomoncagua does not of itself justify any assumption that he had been doing so from Las Tijeretas onward. The summons in 1844 to the representatives of Colomoncagua refers not to Las Tijeretas itself, but to "the Las Cañas river by the bajada of Las Tijeretas", and while the representatives of Colomoncagua insisted that their lands extended across the river to Las Tijeretas and Los Picachos, the judge was apparently satisfied, on the titles produced, including the 1804 certificate relating to San Diego, that this was not so. The Chamber concludes that the 1821 uti possidetis juris line passed through the point marked F' on sketch-map No. D-l, where the Torola lands come to an end, and then continued to follow the river downstream.
243.
Having established that the boundary between the lands of Torola and those of Colomoncagua in the 18th century, and by the same token the boundary of the jurisdictions of Comayagua and San Miguel, was the river Las Cañas downstream from the point marked U on sketch-map No. D-2 annexed, the Chamber has next to consider the course of the line of the uti possidetis juris south-westward to the source of the Orilla stream. El Salvador claims that the boundary continues to be formed by the river Las Cañas from the south-west comer of the Torola lands to a point called the Cajón de Champate (point Y on sketch-map No. D-l). Honduras claims that the boundary is formed by straight lines between points B-C-D-E-F on sketch-map No. D-l annexed; between B and A it has shown a straight line on its maps, but the actual claim, according to the submissions, does not correspond exactly to that line. These points are stated to be the limits of 17th century titles granted by the authorities of Comayagua, two titles of Santa Ana of 1653, and that of Las Joyas and Los Jicoaguites of 1694. El Salvador has not produced any title document in support of its claims to the south-west of the Torola lands; from references in other documents, already referred to above (paragraphs 237 and 238), it appears that the adjoining property, in the jurisdiction of San Miguel, was the Hacienda de San Diego. The owner thereof came forward during the 1743 survey of Torola, but did not produce his title; the certificate of 1804 relating to this property produced by the owner of San Diego during the 1844 survey was described in paragraph 241 above, and in negotiations between the two States in 1869 some title document relating to it was available.
244.
The Chamber considers that, particularly in the light of the material before it, it is entitled to start from a presumption that an inter-provincial boundary which follows a river is likely to continue to follow it so long as its course runs in the same general direction: that a projection of the Colomoncagua lands across the river calls for some explanation. Of course, if the titles produced by Honduras establish that the jurisdiction of Comayagua extended across the river, there is no more to be said; but if the titles are ambiguous or unclear, there should, at the least, be no presumption of such an extension. The Chamber has also found relevant the document dated 7 November 1804 recorded as a transcription made in 1844 by Judge Cecilio Espinoza, during the re-survey of Torola (see paragraph 238 above). This document, stated to have been issued by the Land Judge of Gracias a Dios, states categorically that

"... sirve de division de las tierras, el nombrado río de las Cañas, el mismo que también separa los términos de mi jurisdicción con la provincia de San Miguel..."

[Translation]

"... the said river Las Cañas serves to divide the lands, and also marks the limits of my jurisdiction and that of the province of San Miguel...",

and related, not to the boundary with the lands of Torola, but to the Hacienda de San Diego, to the south-west of Torola.

245.
The various titles of Santa Ana are imprecise as to directions, and the landmarks they refer to cannot, without further information or evidence, be identified with landscape features on the modem maps; no explanation has been given by Honduras as to how it arrives at the pattern of these titles plotted on the maps attached to its pleadings. It is also perhaps noteworthy that one of the areas in question is stated in the Memorial to be situate "between the Curuna (Santa Cruz) rivers and the river Cañas", while the maps show the Santa Ana lands straddling the river Cañas. El Salvador rejects the Santa Ana titles, apparently on the ground that "they identify only one boundary marker and thus obviously cannot be mapped". The Chamber agrees with the contentions of El Salvador, at least to the extent that it is not satisfied that the Santa Ana titles prove the presence of lands in the jurisdiction of Comayagua south of the river Las Cañas.
246.
As for the title of Las Joyas and Jicoaguites of 1694, the survey starts from a river called "Yuquina" 45 cords (1,867 metres) to the west of a point called "Quecrus", and extends to the east to that point; Honduras identifies this river, according to its maps, with a stream marked as the quebrada de Rinconada, and "Quecrus" with the place called La Cruz in the Torola title. To do so, it has however to stretch the 45 cords (1,867 metres) to 3,000 metres, and to treat the directions "west" and "north" in the survey record as something much nearer north-west and north-east respectively. Furthermore, this title, as plotted by Honduras, extends into the area east of the Las Cañas which, in the Chamber’s view, is clearly part of the title of Torola. On a map in its Counter-Memorial, El Salvador plots the title of Las Joyas and Jicoaguites, apparently on the basis that the "Yuquina" river is the Las Cañas, in such a way as to bring the "Quecrus" — marked as Cerro Quecruz — a kilometre further east than Honduras places it; no indication is given of how El Salvador explains this overlap, though counsel for El Salvador did emphasize that the sketch-maps included in the pleadings merely illustrate the Parties’ contentions, and do not constitute an admission. The Chamber rejects the identification of Quecruz in the 1694 title with La Cruz in that of 1743; it does not consider that the 1694 title disproves the case for the river Las Cañas as the provincial boundary.
247.
Honduras claims in its Memorial that the 1766 survey of the ejidos of Colomoncagua by Cristóbal de Pineda establishes "the river Masire as line dividing the provinces of San Miguel and Gracias a Dios", and refers in this respect to point B on sketch-map No. D-l annexed. However in subsequent pleadings Honduras identifies the Masire river as the watercourse which flows from point G to point F on sketch-map No. D-l, so that any references to it in the 1766 survey would appear not to be relevant to the region with which the Chamber is now concerned. Honduras refers also to the landmarks named by the Indians of Colomoncagua when requesting the cancellation of the de Pineda survey, which Honduras identifies with points A to F on sketch-map No. D-l. It appears to be the contention that by 1766 the lands of Colomoncagua included those of Santa Ana and of Joyas y Jicoaguites, but the de Pineda survey refers to the Santa Ana lands at least as distinct. Furthermore the Chamber has not been provided with any evidence justifying the attaching of the place-names mentioned in those ancient titles to the points indicated by Honduras on modem maps. The same difficulty arises in respect of the reconnaissance of the boundary markers by Miguel García Jalón in 1767, which however refers to the boundary at one point being formed by "... the river Champate, which joins with the quebrada de Cueva Hedionda..." ("... el río de Champate, que se encuentra con la quebrada de cueva hedionda... "). Similarly there is a reference in the re-survey by Andrés Pérez in 1793 to a stream which merges with the Champate. This re-survey is better furnished with bearings and distances than the earlier records; the Chamber has however already indicated (paragraphs 216 and 227 above) why it does not regard this re-survey as wholly reliable.
248.
Accordingly the Chamber considers, on a balance of probabilities, there being no great abundance of evidence either way, that the river Las Cañas was the provincial boundary, and hence the uti possidetis line, downstream as far as the point where it turns southwards, to merge eventually with the river Torola. The point where the boundary leaves the river remains to be determined: for El Salvador it is the point marked Y on sketch-map No. D-l annexed, while for Honduras it is the point marked A on that sketch-map.
249.
The Chamber therefore turns to the final section of the boundary between the river Las Cañas and the agreed endpoint of the fourth disputed sector, the source of the Orilla stream. Here Honduras relies on the title to the estancia of Santa Ana of 1653; El Salvador has defined the line of the boundary which it claims, but offered nothing in support of it, save that it was the line adopted in the 1884 Cruz-Letona Convention; a claim of effectivités in this region appears to be unsupported by evidence. It is fair to mention also that the records of the 1884 negotiations show that the delegates did have before them the titles relating to lands in the region of the disputed boundary, but what these titles were is, and must apparently remain, unknown. Accordingly, while the Chamber, as already mentioned, is not fully informed as to how the landmarks mentioned in the Santa Ana title relate to the mapping of it presented to the Chamber by Honduras, it has also to take account of the fact that El Salvador has not sought to demonstrate that Honduras’s interpretation of the title is incorrect, or offered a rival interpretation. The Chamber therefore accepts the line claimed by Honduras from the source of the Orilla stream to the river Cañas. However, the Chamber, while accepting that the line should follow the "southernmost source of the Cueva Hedionda stream" referred to in the Honduran submissions, in the light of the reconnaissance of 1767 (paragraph 247), considers that this should be identified with the stream indicated on Map No. IV annexed; the confluence of that stream with the river Las Cañas is marked as point B on that map. The line which results from this diverges only slightly from that proposed by Honduras, but is topographically superior as a boundary line.
250.
It will be convenient to deal next with the claim of El Salvador to an area to the west and south-west of the land comprised in the ejidos of Arambala-Perquin, i.e., the claim of El Salvador to areas on each side of the river Negro-Quiagara, bounded on the west by the river Negro-Pichigual, a claim based upon the uti possidetis juris in relation to the concept of tierras realengas (crown land). It is asserted by El Salvador and accepted in principle by Honduras, that each of the two States was on independence successor to such of the tierras realengas of the Spanish Crown as had been within the jurisdiction of the provinces which went to make up the relevant newly-independent State.
251.
El Salvador relies here on a passage in the 1769 survey of the ejidos of Arambala-Perquin, part of which has been quoted above (paragraph 208); the survey party was moving from north to south down the western boundary of the lands surveyed, and

"... se tantearon veinte cuerdas hasta una loma que llaman Guiriri donde se halló un mojon antiguo que se mandó avivar quedando por la parte del Oeste y Sudoeste tierra realenga la cual pertenece á esta jurisdiccion por estar mas hayá de dichas tierras el Río Negro que también llaman Pichigual que dicho río divide esta jurisdiccion con la de Gracias á Dios que pertenece á Comayagua..."

[Translation]

"... 20 cords were estimated to a hillock which they call Guiriri, where an old landmark was found, and instructions were given to renew it, leaving to the west and south-west some tierra realenga belonging to this jurisdiction because beyond the said land lies the Negro River which they also call Pichigual and which divides this jurisdiction from that of Gracias a Dios, which appertains to Comayagua..

These tierras realengas, being stated to be of the jurisdiction of San Miguel, would form part of the Republic of El Salvador on independence.

252.
As already observed, the position of the Guiriri hillock has not been in dispute in these proceedings (paragraph 211 above): it is the first marker to the south of the river Negro-Quiagara. This marker (point L), and the extent of the area of tierras realengas as contended for by El Salvador (bounded by the line S-T-U-V-W), is indicated on sketch-map No. D-l annexed. The claim is of course related to El Salvador’s main assertion, which the Chamber has been unable to accept (paragraph 208 above), that the province of San Miguel extended to the north of the river Negro-Quiagara. It is curious that the survey specifically states that the river Negro-Pichigual was the provincial boundary to the west, and does not mention that the river Negro-Quiagara was the provincial boundary to the north. However, it is only when the survey reached Guiriri that tierras realengas were mentioned, so that there is no evidence that the tierras realengas of the jurisdiction of San Miguel extended northwards beyond the river Negro-Quiagara. If the river was the provincial boundary up to the Mojón del Rincón, it is highly unlikely that there was such extension of the tierras realengas further to the north-west. That part of El Salvador’s claim therefore requires no further consideration.
253.
The relevant passage in the Arambala-Perquin survey record has already been quoted (paragraph 218 above): it refers specifically to lands up to the river Negro-Pichigual as " ... realenga que es la misma que hemos traído á la derecha desde el mojon de Guiriri..."("... tierras realengas, the same as we have had on our right from the landmark of Guiriri..."). Honduras has however disputed the validity of the finding in 1769 that there were tierras realengas at this point, on the ground of irregularities in the survey procedure, which, it suggests, were the object of the censure in the judicial decision of 1773 (above, paragraph 191). The only unusual aspect of the procedure identified is, however, an examination of witnesses, effected at the instance of the defender of the rights of the community of Arambala-Perquin, during the course of the survey. There is however no evidence that this was a substantial irregularity, or that the censure in the 1773 decision was directed to such an irregularity, and the Chamber sees no reason not to rely on the 1769 finding of the existence of tierras realengas.
254.
The extent to the south of the river of the tierras realengas is indicated by a further reference to them in the survey record, which has given rise to a specific controversy between the Parties. Immediately following the passage quoted above, the record states, in a passage already quoted in paragraph 222 above:

"... y desde dicho Roble negro por el mismo rumbo se tiro la cuerda partiendo un barranco y después una quebradillo de agua de donde se subió y bajo una loma alta y topamos con el camino que sale de este Pueblo para Colomoncagua y se encuentra con las tierras del Pueblo de Torola cuyo pueblo es de esta jurisdiccion y hasta dicho camino llegamos con cuarenta cuerdas siendo advertencia que como diez cuerdas se vino lindando con tierra realenga y despues con Colomoncagua y en dicho paraje se halló un mojon antiguo de piedra que mandé avivar sin contradicción del dicho Pueblo de Colomoncagua y el de Torola y mudando de rumbo del Oeste al Leste con abatimiento al Sudeste lindando con tierras del Pueblo de Torola..

[Translation]

"... and from the said Roble Negro in the same direction the cord was stretched across from a ravine as far as a quebradillo of water where we climbed and descended a high hillock and we met the road that runs from this town to Colomoncagua and arrives at the lands of the town of Torola, which belongs to this jurisdiction, and we reached this road with 40 cords, and it should be noted that for some 10 cords we walked bordering tierra realenga and thereafter Colomoncagua, and in the said spot an old stone landmark was found that I commanded to be rebuilt without objection being taken by the said town of Colomoncagua or the town of Torola and changing course from west to east with an inclination to the south-east the cord was stretched bordering the lands of the town of Torola..

255.
Honduras’s interpretation of this passage is that the reference to the 10 cords’ distance from which there were tierras realengas on the boundary, means that of the total distance from Guiriri, where the first reference is made to tierras realengas, to the tripoint with Torola and Colomoncagua (76 cords), only 10 cords were parallel to tierras realengas. Honduras therefore argues that the tierras realengas were limited to 10 cords south and west of Guiriri. The Chamber notes that the 1769 survey began with the required formal summonses to adjoining land-owners, including the community of Colomoncagua; and that when the survey reached the boundary marker of the Roble Negro, the representatives of Colomoncagua initially appeared to object to the position of that marker (see the passage from the survey record quoted in paragraph 253 above), which suggests that they considered that their land was contiguous with it. However, they did not press their objection; and on the face of the text of the survey, the Chamber finds Honduras’s reading a strained interpretation. The natural meaning is surely rather that, of the 40 cords mentioned immediately previously in the survey, 10 were in parallel to tierras realengas. On this interpretation, these lands extended from Guiriri (or rather, from the river Negro-Quiagara) to the Roble Negro, and for 10 cords further. In fact the most likely analysis is that the river Negro-Pichigual continued to be the boundary between Colomoncagua and the tierras realengas of San Miguel as far upstream as the point where its course crossed the boundary of the Arambala-Perquin lands, rather more than 10 cords south of the Roble Negro. This is in fact confirmed by the passage in the 1769 survey quoted (with the original Spanish) in paragraphs 218 and 253 above:

"from the said Roble Negro to the Negro or Pichigual river there was something like a quarter of a league and this jurisdiction ends at the said river [i.e., westwards], so that the intermediate lands are tierras realengas, the same as we have had on our right from the landmark of Guiriri" (emphasis added).

The Chamber therefore takes the view that this must be taken to have been the position in 1769. The claim of El Salvador to a further triangle of land, extending south to the hill called Alguacil Mayor, must therefore be rejected.

256.
Honduras also argues that, whatever may have been the position in 1769 when the lands of Arambala-Perquin were surveyed, by 1821 any tierras realengas in this region had been absorbed into the lands of Colomoncagua, to the east, in the jurisdiction of Gracias a Dios. El Salvador has relied on the decree of the Real Audiencia of 16 November 1815, set out in paragraph 193 above, as a confirmation, six years before the uti possidetis juris date, of the existence and the limits of the tierras realengas as described in 1769. In terms, however, that decree merely protects the Indians of Arambala-Perquin in the enjoyment of their own lands ("... las tierras que comprenden dichos exidos..."), and the 1769 title gave those Indians no rights over the tierras realengas to the west, but merely recorded their existence and appurtenance to the jurisdiction of San Miguel. Thus the 1815 decision, in the Chamber’s view, affords no evidence of the continued existence of the tierras realengas.
257.
On the other hand, for these lands to have been granted to the community of Colomoncagua, in the adjoining province of Gracias a Dios, a formal title would have been necessary; and on Honduras’s own argument, such a grant by the authorities of Gracias a Dios would not have modified the provincial boundary. In any event, no such grant between 1769 and 1821 has been shown: the 1793 re-survey by Andrés Pérez was not such a title, and, as has been observed, that document is no more than a record of what the community of Colomoncagua claimed to be their lands. The Chamber’s conclusion is thus that in 1821 the provincial boundary continued to run from the junction of the river Negro-Quiagara with the river Negro-Pichigual, and upstream of that river to the boundary of the ejidos of Arambala-Perquin, the land so enclosed being tierras realengas of the province of San Miguel.
258.
The Chamber has finally to deal with the eastern part of the boundary line in this sector, that between the river Negro-Quiagara and the Malpaso de Similatón. An initial problem which arises is that the Parties are not agreed as to the position of the Malpaso de Similatón, notwithstanding the fact that this point defines one of the agreed sectors of the boundary as recorded in Article 16 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace, which refers to "the boundary marker known as the Malpaso de Similatón ". The two locations contended for (co-ordinates in paragraph 259 below) are indicated on sketch-map No. D-3 annexed: the distance between them is of the order of 2,500 metres. The disagreement between the Parties apparently arose during the discussions of the Joint Frontier Commission in 1985, when Honduras put forward certain arguments in support of its placing of this marker, but El Salvador did not react before the Commission suspended its work. In its pleadings and oral argument before the Chamber, El Salvador has also refrained from any argument in support of its placing of the marker; it is not clear whether it is based upon El Salvador’s interpretation of the title of Arambala-Perquin. Counsel for El Salvador eventually explained the silence by saying that

"the question of the Paso de Similatón... is a question relating to demarcation and, as such, is not before the Chamber, whose task in relation to the disputed sectors of the land frontier is to proceed to a delimitation".

259.
However, the final submissions of El Salvador presented at the hearing of 14 June 1991 are as follows:

"The line of the frontier in the zones or sectors not described in Article 16 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace of 30 October 1980, is as follows...

... in the disputed sector of Nahuaterique, in accordance with paragraph 6.72 and map 6.10 of the Memorial of El Salvador, as set forth in Annex IV to these submissions";

and Annex IV begins as follows:

"Starting from the boundary marker known as the Mojón Mal Paso de Similatón situated at latitude 14° 00' 53" N and longitude 88° 03' 54" W, the frontier continues in a straight line..."

The final submissions of Honduras similarly ask the Chamber to decide that the frontier runs "to the Malpaso de Similatón (13° 59' 28" and 88° 04' 21")". The Chamber therefore concludes that there is a dispute between the Parties as to the location of the Malpaso de Similatón, which the Chamber has to resolve.

260.
The dispute over the position of the Malpaso de Similatón is of course part of a disagreement as to the course of the boundary beyond it, in the sector which is deemed to have been agreed. Examination of the maps produced, and the records of the discussion of the Joint Frontier Commission, shows that the sixth section of the agreed boundary described in Article 16 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace has, in practical or cartographical terms, only been agreed upon to a point south of both locations proposed for the Malpaso de Similatón, namely at the junction of the river San Antonio with a stream called either the quebrada Honda or the quebrada Guaralape. The General Treaty of Peace (Art. 16) records the agreement of the Parties that the boundary here should run

"Del Mojón del Malpaso de Similatón a la cumbre o mojón del Cerro Coloradito. De allí al pie del Cerro Coloradito donde nace la quebrada de Guaralape. De aquí, aguas abajo de dicha quebrada hasta su desembocadura en el río San Antonio o Similatón...’’

[Translation]

"From the boundary marker known as Malpaso de Similatón to the summit or boundary marker of the Cerro Coloradito. From here to the foot of the Cerro Coloradito where the Guaralape stream begins. From here down this stream to the point where it joins the river San Antonio or Similatón..."

but the Parties are not agreed as to the identification of the Cerro Coloradito and the Guaralape stream. The Chamber does not however consider that it is part of its task to settle these questions; it has been given jurisdiction to delimit the frontier in the sectors not settled by the General Treaty of Peace, which enumerates specifically, in Article 16, those which have been so settled. Nor however does it consider that the known existence of a disagreement within the "agreed" sector affects its jurisdiction to determine the boundary up to and including the Malpaso de Similatón.

261.
In endeavouring to do so, however, it encounters a difficulty: neither side has offered any evidence whatever as to the line of the uti possidetis juris in this region. El Salvador does not, apparently, claim that the borders of the Arambala-Perquin title extend so far east as the point which it identifies as the Malpaso de Similatón; and a claim which it advanced in its Memorial to tierras realengas related to land east of the claimed Malpaso, and has in any case been withdrawn. Honduras for its part does contend that the Malpaso de Similatón was on the border of the Arambala-Perquin title, at a place called the Sapamani hill. There remains however the problem of the connection between this point and the river Negro-Quiagara: Honduras has claimed — as the Chamber has found, correctly — that the provincial boundary followed the river Negro-Quiagara, but it has not put forward any contention, backed by evidence, as to the course of the provincial boundary east of the Mojón Las Pilas. The claim of Honduras, according to its submissions, is simply that the boundary should run from this landmark to the Malpaso de Similatón, thus presumably in a straight line. It appears that during the negotiations between the Parties at Antigua, Guatemala (paragraph 36 above), a proposal by Honduras was for a line between the two points with a kink in it, at the point marked "Mojón Pasamono" on Honduran maps. No legal arguments have been advanced in support of either a straight or a kinked line. The solution of a straight line between these points appears to derive from negotiation between representatives of the two States at Montaña de Naguaterique in 1869. The delegates, having concluded that the river Negro-Quiagara was the frontier, started their proposed delimitation from the Malpaso de Similatón, and pursued a route in (apparently) a straight line to a point called El Barrancón on the river Negro-Quiagara, which Honduras identifies with the Mojón Las Pilas. No international agreement was however concluded to give effect to that delimitation.
262.
In these circumstances, being satisfied that the line of the uti possidetis juris in this area is impossible to determine, the Chamber considers it right to fall back on equity infra legem, in conjunction with the unratified delimitation of 1869. In the case concerning the Frontier Dispute between the Republic of Mali and Burkina Faso, the Chamber dealing with the case was faced with a similar problem. It said:

"It should again be pointed out that the Chamber’s task in this case is to indicate the line of the frontier inherited by both States from the colonizers on their accession to independence... If the competent authorities had endorsed the agreement of 15 January 1965, it would have been unnecessary for the purpose of the present case to ascertain whether that agreement was of a declaratory or modifying character in relation to the 1932 boundaries. But this did not happen, and the Chamber has received no mandate from the Parties to substitute its own free choice of an appropriate frontier for theirs. The Chamber must not lose sight either of the Court’s function, which is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, nor of the fact that the Chamber was requested by the Parties in their Special Agreement not to give indications to guide them in determining their common frontier, but to draw a line, and a precise line.

As it has explained, the Chamber can resort to... equity infra legem... Apart from the case of a decision ex aequo et bono reached with the assent of the Parties, ‘it is not a matter of finding simply an equitable solution, but an equitable solution derived from the applicable law’ (Fisheries Jurisdiction, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 33, para. 78). It is with a view to achieving a solution of this kind that the Chamber has to take account, not of the agreement of 15 January 1965, but of the circumstances in which that agreement was concluded." (I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 632-633, paras. 148-149.)

263.
Similarly, the Chamber considers that it can in this case resort to the line proposed in the 1869 negotiations, Las Pilas — El Barrancón — Mal Paso de Similatón, as a reasonable and fair solution in all the circumstances. There is nothing in the records of the 1861 and 1869 negotiations to suggest that there was any fundamental disagreement between the Parties on that line; acceptance of it however was linked to the different question whether the river Negro-Quiagara did or did not form the provincial boundary. That question is resolved by the present Judgment, and the Chamber has no doubt that it is equitable, as a corollary, to allow the 1869 agreement to take effect on this specific point. This entails, and is to some extent justified by, acceptance of the Honduran contention as to the position of the Malpaso de Similatón, the only one which has some support in evidence of the pre-independence situation. The Chamber therefore accepts the line of the 1869 agreement, which appears to be that contended for by Honduras, between the Mojón Las Pilas and the Malpaso de Similatón, as illustrated by the line N-P on sketch-map No. D-l annexed.
264.
There remains the question of the effectivités claimed by El Salvador in the area north of the river Negro-Quiagara which was part of the lands of Arambala-Perquin, which the Chamber has found to fall on the Honduran side of the the line of the 1821 uti possidetis juris, as well as the areas outside the Arambala-Perquin lands. Annexed to the Memorial of El Salvador were the Spanish texts of 19 certificates issued by the Salvadorian Registry of Property and Hypothéques concerning private properties registered on behalf of private individuals in the Department of Morazán, El Salvador; and a map apparently showing an electric power transmission line supplying San Fernando and Perquin, and then continuing north-east across the line between Las Pilas and the Malpaso de Similatón (between points N and P on sketch-map No. D-l annexed), and for some 6 kilometres further north into an area attributed by the Chamber to Honduras. According to counsel for El Salvador, of the 19 registered title-deeds annexed to the Memorial, seven relate to land in the strip of territory between the eastern boundary of the Arambala-Perquin lands and the line defining the eastward extent of El Salvador’s claim. Documents annexed to the Reply of El Salvador relate to Salvadorian landholdings in the canton of Nahuaterique in 1916, alleged Honduran incursions in 1925 and 1926 at places called "Limón" and "Las Trojas", and public works (roads, schools) carried out by the municipalities of Arambala, Perquin and Torola, between 1951 and 1986. No map has been supplied to the Chamber with a precise indication of where the various places referred to in these documents are situated, other than a map in the Memorial to indicate the "Human Settlements in the Non-Delimited Zones" in this sector, showing a considerable number of caseríos situated in the area north of the river Negro-Quiagara and the line to the Malpaso de Similatón. No information has been given as to the effective administration of the caseríos marked on the map in the Memorial of El Salvador. To the extent that the Chamber is able to relate various place-names to the disputed areas and to the uti possidetis juris boundary, it is unable to regard this material as sufficient evidence of any kind of effectivités which could be taken into account in determining the boundary.
265.
Turning now to the evidence of effectivités submitted by Honduras, as already mentioned, considerable material was presented as an annex to the Honduran Reply to show that Honduras also can rely on arguments of a human kind, that there are "human settlements" of Honduran nationals in the disputed areas in all six sectors, and that various judicial and other authorities of Honduras have exercised and are exercising their functions in those areas. So far as the present sector is concerned, Honduras has presented material under ten headings: (i) criminal proceedings; (ii) police or security; (iii) military patrols; (iv) taxation; (v) appointment of deputy mayors; (vi) public education; (vii) land concessions ; (viii) birth certificates; (ix) death certificates; (x) miscellaneous. These relate to a considerable number of localities, identified simply by the name of the village or place; no map has been supplied to show the geographical position of these places. The Chamber considers that, in view of its decision as to the boundary on the basis of the uti possidetis juris, it can confine its attention to such villages as appear on Honduran maps to lie between the boundary as found by the Chamber and the boundary claimed by Honduras.
266.
The identifiable villages or settlements falling into this category are the following: Platanares, El Munigal, Las Piletas (on the boundary line), Mano de León, Junquillo, Sicahuite and La Laguna. In respect of these, the material submitted by Honduras includes the following: Platanares : 15 birth registrations, dating from between 1914 and 1988, and one death registration in 1930; El Munigal: one criminal prosecution in 1954, and one birth registration in 1974; Las Piletas: one land concession in 1901, six birth registrations, dating from between 1938 and 1987, and five death registrations, dating from between 1911 and 1935; Mano de León: four death registrations, dating from between 1901 and 1935; and La Laguna : one criminal prosecution in 1952, and three birth registrations, dating from between 1961 and 1986. All in all, as in sectors previously examined, the Chamber does not see here sufficient evidence of effectivités by Honduras in an area clearly shown to be on the El Salvador side of the boundary line to justify the Chamber in doubting the validity of that boundary as representing the uti possidetis juris line.
267.
The boundary line between El Salvador and Honduras in the disputed fourth sector, as found by the Chamber, is indicated on Map No. IV1 annexed, which is composed of the following sheets of the United States of America Defense Mapping Agency 1:50,000 maps:

Series E752 Sheet 2558 II Edition 1-DMA

Series E753 Sheet 2557 1 Edition 1-DMA

Series E753 Sheet 2557 IV Edition 1-DMA.

The complete course of that boundary is as follows: from the source of the Orilla stream (point A on Map No. IV annexed) the boundary runs through the pass of El Jobo to the source of the Cueva Hedionda stream (point B on Map No. IV annexed), and thence down the middle of that stream to its confluence with the river Las Cañas (point C on Map No. IV annexed), and thence following the middle of the river upstream as far as a point (point D on Map No. IV annexed) near the settlement of Las Piletas; from there eastwards over a col (point E on Map No. IV annexed) to a hill indicated as point F on Map No. IV annexed, and then north-eastwards to a point on the river Negro or Pichigual (marked G on Map No. IV annexed); downstream along the middle of the river Negro or Pichigual to its confluence with the river Negro-Quiagara (point H on Map No. IV annexed); then upstream along the middle of the river Negro-Quiagara as far as the Las Pilas boundary marker (point I on Map No. IV annexed), and from there in a straight line to the Malpaso de Similatón as identified by Honduras (point J on Map No. IV annexed).

Fifth Sector of the Land Boundary

268.
The fifth disputed sector of the land boundary is, like the first four sectors, defined by the endpoints of the adjacent agreed sections, referred to in Article 16 of the 1980 General Treaty of Peace: these endpoints are defined in that Article as follows: in the west, "the point on [the] north bank [of the Torola river] where it is joined by the Manzupucagua stream", and in the east "the Paso de Unire, in the Unire river". These points, and the situation of the boundary as claimed by each Party, are illustrated on sketch-map No. E-l annexed, the lettered points on which will be referred to in describing the Parties’ claims. El Salvador describes the line which it claims in the direction from east to west, as follows: Starting from the Paso de Unire (point G on sketch-map No. E-l), the frontier follows the course of the Unire, Guajiniquil or Pescado River upstream to what El Salvador defines as its source, situated at point F; from this source, the frontier continues in a straight line to the peak identified by El Salvador as the Cerro Ribitá (point E), and then in a straight line to the peak identified by El Salvador as the Cerro Lopez (point D). From this peak, the frontier runs in a straight line to a boundary marker known as the Mojón Alto de la Loza (point C), and from this boundary marker, the frontier runs in a straight line to the source of the stream known as the Mansupucagua (point B), and then follows the course of the Mansupucagua stream to its confluence with the Torola (point A). Honduras describes the line which it claims in the opposite direction, west to east, as follows: From the confluence of the Mansupucagua stream with the Torola river (point A), following the river Torola upstream along the middle of its bed to its source, the mountain stream known as La Guacamaya stream (point X); from this point, in a straight line, to the pass of La Guacamaya (point Y); thence in a straight line to a point on the river Unire (point Z), close to the place known as El Coyolar, and from there, following the Unire river downstream, as far as the Paso de Unire (point G).
269.
The claim of El Salvador is based essentially on the título ejidal granted to the village of Polorós, province of San Miguel, issued in 1760, following a survey carried out in that year; the boundary line claimed by El Salvador is what it claims to be the northern boundary of the lands comprised in that title, save for a narrow strip of land on the western side (between the straight line A-D and the line A-B-C-D on sketch-map No. E-l) which El Salvador claims on the basis of "human arguments". The extent of the lands comprised in the 1760 Polorós title, according to the interpretation of each Party, is also indicated on sketch-map No. E-2 annexed. Honduras, while disputing El Salvador’s geographical interpretation of the Polorós title, concedes that it extended across part of the river Torola; it nonetheless claims that the frontier today should follow that river.
270.
The reasons advanced in support of this claim are, briefly, that the northern part of the ejidos granted to Polorós in 1760, including all the lands north of the river, had formerly been the lands of San Miguel de Sapigre, a village which disappeared as a result of an epidemic at some date after 1734 and that that village had been in the jurisdiction of Comayagua; that these lands, notwithstanding their being granted to Polorós, remained within the jurisdiction of Comayagua; and that the line of the 1821 uti possidetis juris was therefore represented by the boundary between these lands and the other Polorós lands; but that as a result of events in 1854 Honduras acquiesced in a boundary further north, constituted by the river Torola. That part of the disputed area to the north of the river which Honduras considers to have been part of the Polorós lands is thus claimed by Honduras as having formed part of the San Miguel de Sapigre lands; the western part, which Honduras considers fell outside the Polorós title, is claimed by it as part of the lands of Santiago de Cacaoterique, a village in the jurisdiction of Comayagua. The Polorós lands north of the river are claimed by Honduras, in the alternative, on the basis that El Salvador also acquiesced, in the 19th century, in the river Torola as frontier. Since, if either of these claims is upheld by the Chamber, it will be unnecessary to ascertain the precise extent of the Polorós lands, and the interpretation of the title presents special difficulties, the Chamber will first examine the claims concerning San Miguel de Sapigre and the alleged consent of El Salvador.
271.
The title of Polorós was granted by the Juez Privativo de Tierras of the Real Audiencia of Guatemala, by delegation to the Sub-delegate Judge of Measurements of San Miguel. The survey was not effected jointly by officials from two jurisdictions, as in the case of Jupula (paragraph 105 above), nor was there any reference to a special and exceptional authorization to the judge to operate outside his own jurisdiction, as in the case of Citalá (paragraph 71 above). The presumption must therefore be that the lands comprised in the survey were all comprised within the jurisdiction of San Miguel. This presumption is supported by the text: the judge states that he is instructed to measure the lands of the jurisdiction of San Miguel ("... para medir las [tierras] de la jurisdicción... de San Miguel"). There is a reference at one point in the survey to the fact that the lands surveyed border "lands of the town of Indians of this jurisdiction", then at a later point a reference to lands owned by "the people of the village of Opatoro of the jurisdiction of Comayagua", and again at a further point a reference to the survey bordering "lands of San Antonio of the other jurisdiction", i.e., San Antonio de Padua, jurisdiction of Comayagua.
272.
The evidence offered by Honduras as to the existence, location and extent of the ejidos of the village of San Miguel de Sapigre is as follows. In 1734 a survey was effected of the lands of Cojinicuil, situated to the south-east of the area now in dispute, south of the river Unire, in what is now territory of El Salvador; the authority for the survey was the Juzgado Privativo de Tierras by delegation to a sub-delegate judge; the lands were stated to be in the jurisdiction of the Real de Minas de Tegucigalpa. The survey began at a point called Coyolar

"... donde hace lindero y Guarda Raya estta Jurisdicion con las tierras del citio de Gueripe por el lado que mira al Sur y por ottro lado con las tierras del Pueblo de Sapigre... "

[Translation]

"... where this jurisdiction borders on and is delimited by the lands of the sitio of Gueripe on the side facing the south and on the other side by the lands of the village of Sapigre..."

The 1760 survey of Polorós does not mention a landmark called Coyolar; but there is a reference in 1760 to a dispute with the neighbouring landowner of "Guajinicuil" concerning a place called "Bolillo", and in the 1734 survey of Cojinicuil, the next landmark to Coyolar is El Volillo. No mention is made in the 1734 survey of the jurisdiction to which Sapigre belonged, and Honduras interprets this silence as signifying that that village was then also in the jurisdiction of Tegucigalpa.

273.
In a document drawn up in 1789 by the Town Council of the village of Cacaoterique (situated to the north-west of the area now in dispute) there is a reference to a landmark, called the Brinco de Tigre, which was "... a landmark of the village of San Miguel de Sapigre, which has three and-a-half leagues in the direction of the southern sea.. ." ("...un mojon del pueblo San Miguel de sapigre, que por parte del mar del Sur tiene tres leguas, y media... "). This document does not purport itself to be a grant of land, though it quotes part of what was said to be an ancient title written in an unknown Indian language; it is a record of oral tradition as to the boundaries of the villages, made in connection with a dispute with the neighbouring village of Opatoro. In 1803, appeal was again made to oral tradition, this time as purporting to correspond to what was said in the old unintelligible title, and again El Brinco del Tigre was recorded as a landmark marking the division between the lands of Cacaoterique and those of San Miguel de Sapigre to the south. In that year, an enquiry into the boundaries of Cacaoterique was being carried out, and the surveyor, on arriving at Brinco de Tigre, recorded that there were two rocks,

"... cuyas peñas tienen por su quinto lindero, y de los yndios de Polorós, porque en la antigüedad dicen era halli el Pueblo de San Miguel de Sapigre, que lla no hay ni fragmentos..

[Translation]

"... which rocks they consider to be their fifth boundary marker, and also of the Indians of Polorós, because in ancient times they say that this was the location of the village of San Miguel de Sapigre, of which not a trace remains..."

The Brinco de Tigre, according to Honduras, was on the boundary of the part of the Polorós ejidos which Honduras claims remained in the jurisdiction of Comayagua (because formerly lands of San Miguel de Sapigre). However, the survey record immediately continues:

"A virtud de que pase a los tres, o cuatro mojones que sigven a reconocerse Tocan con los Pueblos de Polorós, y Liclique de la jurisdicion, y provincia de San Miguel e Yntendencia de San Salvador..." [Translation]

"Inasmuch as the three or four boundary markers next to be examined border on the village of Polorós and Lislique, of the jurisdiction and province of San Miguel and Intendencia of San Salvador..." (emphasis added).

274.
According to Honduras, numerous references to the village of San Miguel de Sapigre in 17th century documents show that it belonged to the province of Comayagua; El Salvador contends that this point is not proved. By way of example, Honduras refers to a list of villages of that province drawn up for the recovery of certain payments in 1684-1685, which, it is said, assigns the village of San Miguel de Sapigre to the Alcaldía Mayor of Tegucigalpa. However the original Spanish text, of which a photocopy has been filed by Honduras as an annex to its Memorial, lists no village of that name under "Minas de Tegucigalpa", and lists a village of "Sapigre" under the heading of "Chuluteca". Administrative control and jurisdiction over that district, according to El Salvador, was exercised by the province of San Salvador; and while Honduras disputed this, it did so on the basis of a Real Cédula of 24 July 1791, whereas the list relied on dates from 1684. In any event, there must be some doubt whether the district of Choluteca extended so far west (see Honduran Reply, Map VII. 1) and thus whether the Sapigre in the district of Choluteca is the same as the Sapigre with which the Chamber is here concerned. This also throws doubt on the relevance of any other mention of "Sapigre" in 17th century records. In 1713, according to a document produced by Honduras during the oral proceedings, the village of San Miguel de Sapigre received an official visitation by the Alcalde Mayor oí the province; the name of the province is not stated in the copy supplied of the original Spanish, but according to the translation furnished by Honduras the document produced was extracted from the "Register of Visitations, province of Honduras, 1713".
275.
Honduras also invokes the fact that when the boundaries of Cojiniquil were surveyed in 1734, the community of Sapigre was cited to appear; but the Chamber has noted other instances where adjacent communities or landowners coming under another jurisdiction have been so cited, so that the only question is whether it was significant that the record did not expressly refer to the village of San Miguel de Sapigre as being in another jurisdiction. Furthermore in the course of the same survey, the judge effecting it was accompanied by

"the Indians of the village of Sapigres, to whom I put the question, what were the limits of this jurisdiction, and of that of San Miguel, and they replied that, beginning from a place where there is a cave, one crosses the stream or river Guajiniquil...".

The clear implication is that the Indians of Sapigre were consulted as to the boundaries of the province of San Miguel because their village was situated in that province. Not having seen any of the other documents of the 17th century referred to by Honduras as indicating that San Miguel de Sapigre was in the province of Comayagua, the Chamber cannot regard the jurisdiction of that province over the village as sufficiently well established by evidence dating from before 1821 for it to be possible to base upon it the conclusions drawn by Honduras.

276.
As for the later evidence, a witness interviewed in 1879 stated that, according to family tradition, the Monteca lands were Honduran, being the "property of San Miguel de Sapigre belonging to the department of Comayagua", and that the title-deed existed in Comayagua. Presumably at that date the title was not to be found, or it would have been produced to support Honduras’s position in the dispute, then active, with El Salvador over the Dolores lands. Other references were made at the time to a village of San Juan Sapigre — which may be a mistake for San Miguel de Sapigre, or may have been a different village — and to Polorós having appropriated the lands of that village 30 years before "with no title", which is inconsistent with the theory now advanced that the 1760 title included the Sapigre lands. It was stated in the Town Council of Opatoro in 1896 by elderly witnesses that "the abandoned village of San Miguel de Sapigre belonged to Honduras, being situate on the southern boundary of the plain of Monteca...". The village of Sapigre was of course never Honduran in the strict sense, since it ceased to exist before independence of the two States; the meaning is therefore presumably that the village was situated in an area which, according to the witnesses, was traditionally regarded as Honduran. All in all, the Chamber does not consider that much weight can be attached to this sparse testimony.
277.
The Chamber concludes that the claim of Honduras through the extinct village of San Miguel de Sapigre is not supported by sufficient evidence. It does not therefore have to go into the question of the effect of the inclusion in an ejido of one jurisdiction of tierras realengas of another jurisdiction, or that of the position of the boundary between San Miguel de Sapigre and the original lands of Polorós. It may however be noted that the evidence dating from before 1821 as to the situation of the southern boundary of San Miguel de Sapigre, which, according to Honduras, is the uti possidetis juris line, is quite inadequate, as Honduras in effect concedes. If the Chamber had had solely to place itself in the position of the Parties in 1821, it would be impossible to draw the boundary on that basis. It is only the fact of the grant by El Salvador in 1842 of the republican title of the Hacienda de Monteca, and the survey of that property in 1889 (see paragraphs 280 and 282 below), that enables any line to be identified, by assuming, as Honduras does, that the boundaries of the Monteca property corresponded to those of that part of the Sapigre lands which lay south of the river.
278.
The Chamber therefore concludes that no convincing ground has been adduced for departing from the presumption that the ejido granted in 1760 to the village of Polorós, in the province of San Miguel, was wholly situated in that province, and that accordingly the provincial boundary lay beyond the northern limit of that ejido, or coincided with it. Since there is equally no evidence of any change in the situation between 1760 and 1821, the line of the uti possidetis juris may be taken to have been in the same position. There is however of course disagreement between the Parties as to where the northern boundary of the Polorós title lay. However, the next question to be examined is the claim of Honduras that, whatever the 1821 position, El Salvador has subsequently acquiesced in the river Torola as boundary.
279.
The events subsequent to 1821 on which Honduras relies to establish the position of the hypothetical line between the lands of San Miguel de Sapigre and the original lands of Polorós are, in view of the finding above, irrelevant; they are however material, not only to the further claim by Honduras, that El Salvador by its conduct between 1821 and 1897 acquiesced in a boundary along the river Torola, but also to the ascertainment of the uti possidetis juris position, and will therefore be dealt with in some detail. The evidence before the Chamber shows that in 1842 one Jose Villatoro applied to the Government of El Salvador for a title to the lands of Monteca, on the basis that these had been declared State property, offered for sale by auction, and purchased by him. A title was issued, which did not give any indication of the precise position or the extent of the Monteca property, and at the same time the landowner was recommended to have the land surveyed and measured. According to José Villatoro’s application, an inspection of landmarks, in the presence of neighbouring owners, particularly those of Polorós, had been effected, but the record of it has not been produced before the Chamber. The application stated that the people of the village of Polorós "came in person to point out the boundaries and former markers [los linderos y antiguos mojones] delimiting the area of the land of Monteca".
280.
From the start, there seems to have been friction between José Villatoro and the inhabitants of the Honduran village of San Juan de Opatoro; a letter has been produced dated 2 June 1843 from a Honduran official to José Villatoro, informing him that the inhabitants of Opatoro claimed rights over the sitio de Monteca, and calling upon him not to interfere with them until the rights of the two States had been delimited. In 1854, José Villatoro applied to the Government of Honduras with a complaint that the inhabitants of Opatoro were encroaching on the lands of Monteca, and the Honduran Government decided that the local political head should direct the people of Opatoro either to pay rent to José Villatoro or to vacate the land. It is this event which Honduras concedes to be an acquiescence by Honduras in, or recognition of, Salvadorian sovereignty over the Monteca lands, south of the river Torola.
281.
In May 1889, application was made by the heirs of José Villatoro for a partition of the Monteca estate, which was described as "bordering on the east and north with the territory of the Republic of Honduras, on the west with the extinguished ejidos of the village of Lislique, and on the south those of Polorós and Nueva Esparta". For the purposes of the partition the estate was surveyed and measured; the surveyor held an existing title-deed of José Villatoro (not produced in the present proceedings) which referred to the boundary markers of the estate. When the "marker of La Guacamaya" was reached, this was said to be "recognized by the people of Opatoro"; the point which Honduras identifies as the marker of La Guacamaya is indicated as point P on sketch-map No. E-3 annexed. From that point, the surveyor went to "the source of the Guacamaya mountain stream", then downstream along it (passing the confluences with the Lajas and La Puerta streams) to the river Torola. There is no further reference in the survey to the strip of land said to be in dispute between the two States. The Chamber considers that the boundaries of the Hacienda de Monteca granted in 1842 can safely be assumed to be the same as those recorded in the survey of 1889.
282.
Both Parties have based their arguments upon the assumption that the lands of the Hacienda de Monteca were carved out of the ejidos of Polorós granted in 1760; this is a necessary consequence of the interpretation by both Parties of the 1760 title as extending at least as far north as the river Torola. In this light, Honduras interprets the reference in 1842 to the "... boundaries and former markers..." of Monteca ("... los linderos y antiguos mojones (paragraph 279 above), in conjunction with a reference in the 1760 Polorós title to an earlier survey of 1725, as referring to the boundary markers dividing the lands of San Miguel de Sapigre from the lands of Polorós, prior to the disappearance of the village of Sapigre and the presumed inclusion of its lands in the 1760 Polorós title. On the face of it, however, the reference in the 1842 document suggests rather that Monteca already existed, or had already existed at some former date, as a separate entity to the north of the village of Polorós, either inside or outside the ejidos granted in 1760. The passage quoted (paragraph 281 above) from the document of May 1889 shows that by that date the ejidos of Lislique were "extinguished"; but the reference in 1889 to Polorós and Nueva Esparta is ambiguous, and may refer to subsisting ejidos. The representatives of Nueva Esparta, at least, manifested opposition to the Monteca survey of 1889.
283.
In the meantime, Honduras granted two republican titles over lands north of the river Torola, that of Matasano, Hornos, Estancias in 1856 and that of Los Dolores in 1879, the extent of which, according to Honduras, was indicated on Map No. V.l to the Honduran Reply. The relevant surveys are fairly precise as to bearings and distances, they each record the boundary between Matasano (to the west) and Dolores (to the east) as arriving at the confluence with the river Torola of a stream called the quebrada del Arenal, and they each state that the river "... is recognized as the boundary of those frontiers and those of El Salvador..." ("... es reconocido por limite de estas Fronteras y las del Salvador..."). On maps incorporated in its pleadings, Honduras has given two alternative locations for the quebrada del Arenal; and its plotting of the Dolores title is inconsistent with the distances recorded in the relevant survey. The Matasano title, as plotted on the map by Honduras, extends along the river Torola on both sides of the tributary stream joining the river from the north identified by the Parties as the Mansupucagua stream, but does not mention any stream of that name. The Dolores title refers to a "Portillo de Guacamaya" as being "the place where the river Torola rises", at a distance of 67 cords (2,780 metres) upstream from the quebrada del Arenal; it will be recalled that the Monteca survey refers to La Guacamaya (paragraph 281 above). Neither title indicates whether there was any convocation of the adjoining owners or communities on the other side of the river.
284.
The Government of El Salvador did not react to the granting in 1856 of the title of Matasano; it is not however established that it was aware of it. On 30 September 1879, the Government of El Salvador addressed a diplomatic Note to the Government of Honduras in which it protested at the grant of the Dolores title; but this Note has not been made available to the Chamber. According to the Honduran Note in reply, dated 6 November 1879, the village of Polorós had applied to the Government of El Salvador complaining that the land of Dolores granted by Honduras to the village of Opatoro was part of the ejido of Polorós, and that reliable information assembled by the Government of El Salvador supported this claim. Honduras in reply asserted that it had reliable information that the Dolores land had always been regarded as an integral part of Honduran territory. It was contemplated that a mixed commission should be established to look into the matter. In view of these circumstances, the Chamber does not find it possible to uphold Honduras’s claim that El Salvador acquiesced in the river Torola as the boundary, at least in the neighbourhood of the Hacienda de Dolores.
285.
The Chamber therefore reverts to the question of the interpretation of the extent of the Polorós ejido as surveyed in 1760, first on the face of the text, and then in the light of developments after 1821. The passage in the 1760 survey of the ejido of Polorós of which the meaning has been in dispute between the Parties is as follows; the surveyor was proceeding generally from south to north:

"... y de alli siguiendo dicho rumbo se llegó a la quebrada de mansupucagua, en cuyo derecho tienen Hacienda los de el Pueblo de Opatoro de la Jurisdicion de Comayagua (aqui una roturita) de estos naturales, y queda dicha Hacienda dentro de esta Medida, se tantearon Sincuenta Cuerdas, y mudando de rumbo de oeste al Leste con abatimiento al Nordeste, se llego a una Loma y divide esta tierras con la de los Lopes en cuyo derecho está el Jato de los Lopes, y dicho Jato queda fuera, se tantearon Setenta Cuerdas, y Siguiendo el mismo rumbo se llego al cerro de Ribitá linde con las Tierras de San Antonio de la otra Jurisdicción, y el Río de Uniré, Y se tantearon Setenta Cuerdas, y cogiendo, de oeste al leste, fija aguas abajo del río de Uniré se llego al paraje, y orilla de dicho Río, donde comensó esta medida..

[Translation]

"... and from there continuing in the same direction we reached the quebrada de Mansupucagua, en cuyo derecho [the meaning of this phrase is disputed] the people of the village of Opatoro of the jurisdiction of Comayagua have a hacienda, (document tom) of those natives, and the said hacienda is within this survey, 50 cords were estimated, and changing direction from west to east with an inclination north-east, a hill (loma) was reached which divides those lands from those of the Lopes, en cuyo derecho[see note above] is the Estate of the Lopes and that Estate is outside, and 70 cords were estimated, and continuing in the same direction the Cerro de Ribita was reached, the boundary with the lands of San Antonio of the other jurisdiction, and the river Unire, and 70 cords were estimated, and moving from west to east, downstream of the river Unire the place and edge of the river were reached where this survey began..

286.
The Parties agree on the identification of a stream which today bears the name quebrada de Mansupucagua; indeed, its confluence with the river Torola is referred to in the 1980 General Treaty of Peace as the endpoint of one of the agreed sectors of the boundary. El Salvador argues its case from the premise that this stream is the quebrada de Mansupucagua mentioned in the 1760 Polorós title; it was identified as such during the survey for the purpose of the Cruz-Letona negotiations in 1884. El Salvador’s version of the boundary of the Polorós ejido north of the Torola river is shown on sketch-map No. E-2 annexed (points A-D-E-F-G). Honduras, while questioning El Salvador’s interpretation of the Polorós title on a number of points, has presented an interpretation of the title which agrees with El Salvador’s version in identifying the most westerly point of the land surveyed with the confluence of the modern Mansupucagua with the Torola (point A on sketch-map No. E-2). At one point in its pleadings it cast doubt on this, suggesting, in the Reply, that the survey party of 1760 reached the Torola at a point on the lands of the people of Opatoro, "much further east than the Mansupucagua stream, opposite Upire". Nevertheless, the thesis of Honduras agrees with that of El Salvador in identifying the confluence of the modern Mansupucagua and the Torola river as the most westerly point of the 1760 Polorós title; the line asserted by Honduras from that point on will be examined below.
287.
It may be noted at the outset that, ignoring for the moment the various bearings or directions recorded in the Polorós survey, the total distance estimated by the surveyor between the Mansupucagua stream and the river Unire was 140 cords, or 5,810 metres. The Parties agree on the identification of the river Unire; but there are two distinct streams feeding it, either of which might be regarded as the part of the river referred to in the Polorós survey. Honduras favours the western stream, between the points indicated as F' and G' on sketch-map No. E-2 annexed, and El Salvador the eastern stream, between points F and G'. If however the distance between the Mansupucagua stream and the nearest "place on the river Unire", that is to say on the nearer (western) of the two streams, is scaled on the maps produced, it proves to be some 10,600 metres. It is possible — the survey is ambiguous on the point — that a certain distance was travelled up the Mansupucagua stream which is not included in the 140 cords recorded, but the distance between any point on that stream and the river Unire is still far more than 140 cords. Even allowing for the difficulty of estimating distances in mountainous country, and for comparatively primitive survey methods, there is ground here for grave doubt. Secondly, there is the curious fact, to which Honduras has drawn attention, that the survey nowhere mentions the river Torola, still less records crossing it. This is a problem which has arisen in previous sectors (see paragraphs 136,137 and 194), but in the present instance what the Chamber finds difficult to accept is that the survey party in 1760, having arrived at the confluence of a stream and a river, should not have mentioned the fact, but merely recorded the presence of the smaller of the two watercourses.
288.
It is apparently to meet these difficulties that Honduras has offered an interpretation of the Polorós title starting from a supposition — for it can be no more than that — that the watercourse referred to in the title was not the Mansupucagua stream at all, but the Torola river. The arguments in favour of this reading are not at present material; but its effect is that the surveyor would, in Honduras’s contention, have followed the Torola river upstream for a distance of some 3 kilometres (though Honduras has presented a cartographic representation of its argument which shows the Polorós boundary as a straight line in the general direction of the course of the river). At a point (marked H on sketch-map No. E-2) identified by Honduras as Agua Caliente, one of the boundary markers in the 1803 Cacaoterique survey, the line would leave the river, in a direction slightly north of east, passing the location (according to Hon-duras) of the Jato de los López (marked L on sketch-map No. E-2), and arriving at the hill identified by Honduras as the Cerro Ribitá (marked R on sketch-map No. E-2). Honduras concludes from this that the 1760 survey did not extend to any lands north of the river Torola between what Honduras regards as the land boundary marker of Sisicruz (see paragraph 290 below) — the modem Mansupucagua confluence — and El Carrizal, as indicated on Map No. 6.1 annexed to the Honduran Counter-Memorial. The interpretation whereby the survey is taken to have followed the river Torola eastwards for some 3 kilometres reduces the discrepancy in distances, the fundamental problem posed by the Polorós title, explained in paragraph 287, but that problem is far from being solved. While the "Hato de los Lopez" as mapped by Honduras is some 3,000 metres east of Honduras’s El Carrizal, the distance to the Cerro Ribitá from the Loma Lopez is 5,000 metres, not 2,905 metres (70 cords) as the title of Polorós records. Nor is there anything in the 1760 survey record to show that the survey followed any watercourse for 3,000 metres.
289.
In these circumstances, the problem with which the Chamber is faced is as follows. If the identification by the Parties of the two endpoints referred to (Mansupucagua stream and river Unire) is taken to be correct, and even adopting the Honduran hypothesis of an unrecorded distance of3,000 metres along the Torola having been traversed before the distance to the Loma Lopez was estimated, the only possible conclusion is that the distances recorded in the 1760 survey are so inaccurate as to be useless for the determination of the position of the boundary. In these circumstances, for the Chamber to endeavour to determine the position of the landmarks in the 1760 survey, the Loma Lopez and Cerro Ribitá, on the basis of the pre-1821 material would seem to be a wholly artificial exercise, if indeed it is possible at all. The alternative is to reconsider the identification of the endpoints. The identification of the river Unire seems to be indisputable; but according to the map, there are a number of streams flowing into the Torola from the north, any one of which might prima facie have an equal claim to be identified as the Mansupucagua stream of 1760, in the absence of any evidence unambiguously pointing to the stream now known by that name. It has been agreed between the Parties not merely in argument, but in the 1980 General Treaty of Peace, that there is a "Mansupucagua stream" at that point; but in the Treaty it serves as the title of the endpoint of the sector, not necessarily as the interpretation of the Polorós title.
290.
In this connection, it is to be noted that in the course of the enquiry into the boundaries of the village of Cacaoterique (to the north-west of the disputed areas) (see paragraph 273 above), held in 1803, there is a reference to a tripoint between the lands of Cacaoterique, Polorós and Lislique (a village to the west of Polorós and to the south of Cacaoterique):

"... se llegó al mojon de Sisicruz que quiere decir el llano del Camaron, y en esta sabana hay tres acervos de piedra, perteneciente uno al Pueblo de Liclique; otro al de Polorós (que sus prales. se hallaron presentes, y son Pueblos de la Yntendencia de San Salvador) y el otro de este de cacauterique, que digeron todo ser su séptimo lindero, y el parage donde tienen su milperia de Matainbre".

[Translation]

"... we reached the boundary marker of Sisicruz, which means the plain of the Camaron, where there are three piles of stones, one belonging to the village of Lislique, another to that of Polorós (whose representatives were present, and they are villages of the Intendencia of San Salvador), and the other of this village of Cacauterique, which they all stated to be the seventh marker, and the place where there is the maize field of Matainbre".

Honduras identifies this point as that referred to in the Polorós title as the Mansupucagua stream; if this is correct, it appears that already by 1803 the stream was no longer called by the same name, or the name had been forgotten, or it was regarded as of less importance as an identifying landmark than the plain and the maizefield. At all events, the record, as interpreted by Honduras, throws doubt on any continuous oral tradition as to the name and location of the Mansupucagua stream. It is also noteworthy that the Cacaoterique document also makes no mention of the Torola river at a point where, according to Honduras, that river is the boundary of the ejido. The Chamber will therefore treat the location of the stream referred to as the Mansupucagua stream in the 1760 title as an open question, and will consider the interpretation of the Polorós title further on that basis, and in the light of, inter alia, events posterior to independence.

291.
The inconsistency, referred to ab