CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 59
The Commission considered Annex 8 B dealing with Judgments.64 Mr. Bishop (U.S.) explained that the U.S. draft, which was supported by the Soviet Delegation, provided that judgments rendered by the Italian courts during the war should be reviewed in these cases in [Page 631] which a United Nations national had been unable to present his case adequately. The U.S. Delegation considered that the United Nations national should have the right to a retrial before an Italian court. An international commission or tribunal should enter the picture only if a dispute arose between the United Nations government concerned and the Italian Government regarding the action of the Italian courts and authorities in carrying out the Annex. Moreover, the U.S. draft did not provide for compensation, he said, but provided rather for an adjustment of rights and interests as between the injured United Nations national and the person who benefited by the original judgment. Finally he pointed out that the U.S. considered that Article 72 provided for the settlement of any disputes arising under the Annex.
M. de Carbonnel (France) said he could accept the U.S. draft providing it was modified to include a time limit for the review of cases and provided Mr. Bishop’s interpretation on the question of compensation was his personal interpretation, because he understood the U.S. draft to provide compensation for the injured United Nation national.
Mr. Gregory (U.K.) explained that the British proposal provided for review of the cases by a tribunal outside the Italian judicial system. Mr. Bishop said that although he could accept the French modification providing for a time limit he could not accept M. de Carbonnel’s interpretation of the U.S. proposal. M. de Carbonnel said under the circumstances he would stand on the French proposal. M. Bartos (Yugoslavia) withdrew the Yugoslav amendment (CP Gen Doc 1.U.26). The U.S. proposal was carried 13 to 5 with 2 abstentions, Australia, France, U.K., Greece and the Union of South Africa voting against, Belgium and Ethiopia abstaining. The French proposal was defeated, 8 voting for, 9 opposing and 3 abstaining. The U.K. proposal was also lost 4 voting for, 11 against and 5 abstaining.
M. Bartos (Yugoslavia) moved several amendments of the Albanian Delegation (CP Gen Doc 7)65 to Article 23. The amendments provided for the renunciation by Italy to concessions in Albania; to all property and rights acquired by Italy in Albania through parastatal organizations; and to any special interests granted under earlier bilateral instruments. The amendments to Article 23 were approved unanimously.
M. Bartos moved an Albanian amendment to Article 24a (CP Gen Doc 7) concerning Albanian debts to Italy. It was criticized by Mr. Thorp (U.S.) as asking for special treatment for Albania. The problem he considered was already taken care of in Article 70 and other articles of the treaty. M. Bartos withdrew his amendment.
M. Bartos introduced a provision, Article 24(b), requiring Italy [Page 632] to return Albanian gold located in Italy to the National Bank of Albania. M. Aroutiunian (U.S.S.R.) suggested there was not sufficient time to consider the amendment and it should be referred along with Annex 3 and 9 to the CFM. Mr. Thorp pointed out that by the Commission’s action the previous day, Albania was to receive the rights of restitution under Article 65. In view of the fact that this Article provided specifically that Italy was required to return looted gold, he asked M. Bartos why the Albanian claim was not covered in Article 65. M. Bartos explained that part of the Albanian gold was in Italy at the outbreak of the war. He agreed with M. Aroutiunian’s suggestion that this question might be referred to the CFM. This suggestion was voted on and defeated 7 voting for, 9 against and 4 abstentions. The Yugoslav amendment was then defeated 7 voting for, 12 against and 1 abstention.
The Ethiopian representative moved his amendments to Article 31 contained in CP(IT/EC) Doc. 77.66 The first one which provided compensation for property which could not be returned was defeated, 3 voting for 12 against and 5 abstaining. The second amendment asking for the return of gold and silver including coin looted by Italy was carried 9 voting for, 7 against and 4 abstaining. The third amendment which concerned Italian restrictions over Ethiopian property abroad was lost, 6 voting for, 12 against and 2 abstaining.
The Commission considered two documents referred to it by the Political Commission (CP(IT/P) Docs 100 and 102)67 and recommended certain drafting changes be taken up by the Legal and Drafting Commission.
M. Aroutiunian suggested that the Commission might agree to recommend to the Plenary Conference that Annex 3 be referred to the CFM to consider further with representatives of Greece and Yugoslavia. Mr. Wilgress (Canada) pointed out that no time remained for the Commission to consider the very important questions arising in Annex 3. He therefore formally moved a recommendation to the Plenary Conference that this Annex should be referred to the CFM. This recommendation was deferred until after reparation had been considered.
- With respect to the Commission’s consideration of Annex 8 B and the amendments and proposals cited in the present account, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 377.↩
- For text, see vol. iv, p. 799.↩
- C.P.(IT/EC) Doc. 77, a letter from the President of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy transmitting several amendments and draft articles for consideration by the present Commission, is not printed. The Ethiopian amendments under reference were contained in C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.H.3.↩
- Regarding the documents under reference, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 38th Meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, October 1, 1946, p. 608.↩