Page:ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN RESPECT OF KOSOVO Advisory opinion of 22 July 2010 179 e.pdf/35

 of equality and non-discrimination had found judicial recognition. The Universal Declaration placed the principle in a wider dimension, and projected it at universal level, by taking the individual qua individual, qua human being, irrespective of being a member of a minority, or an inhabitant of a territory under the mandates system, or, later on, under the trusteeship system. The Universal Declaration recalled in its preamble that "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind" (para. 2). And it then proclaimed, in its Article 1, that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights".

15. Judge Cançado Trindade then points out that the juridical institutions of mandates, trusteeship and international administration of territories emerged, in succession, to extend protection to those "peoples" or "populations" who stood in need of it. The respective "territorial" arrangements were the means devised in order to achieve that end, of protection of "populations" or "peoples". It was not mandates for mandates' sake, it was not trusteeship for trusteeship's sake, and it is not international administration of territory for administration's sake. Turning to their causes, as one ought to, their common purpose is clearly identified: to safeguard the "peoples" or "populations" concerned.

16. He then proceeds to an examination (in Part VII) of the grave concern expressed by the United Nations as a whole with various aspects of the humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo. To that end, he reviews successive resolutions adopted by the Security Council (period 1998-2001), by the General Assembly (period 1994-2008), and by ECOSOC (1998-1999), as well as reports (on UNMIK) and statements by the Secretary-General (period 1999-2008),—to all of which he ascribes much importance, as they disclose the factual background of the Kosovo crisis which was eluded by the Court.

17. After recalling the principle ex injuria jus non oritur, he moves on to an examination (in Part IX of the present separate opinion) of the relevant aspect of the conditions of living of the population in Kosovo (as from 1989), on the basis of the submissions adduced by participants in the present advisory proceedings before the Court, in their written and oral phases. He also recalls the judicial recognition (by the ICTY), and further evidence, of the atrocities perpetrated in Kosovo (in the decade 19891999), and ascribes a central position to the sufferings of the people, pursuant to the humanizing people-centered outlook in contemporary international law.

18. Under this outlook, Judge Cançado Trindade reassesses territorial integrity in the framework of the humane ends of the State, and considers the principle of selfdetermination of peoples applicable, beyond decolonization, in new situations of systematic oppression, subjugation and tyranny. He stresses the fundamental importance, in the context of the Kosovo crisis, of the principles of humanity, and of equality and non-discrimination, so as to extract the basic lesson: no State can use territory to destroy the population; such atrocities amount to an absurd reversal of the ends of the State, which was created and exists for human beings, and not vice-versa.

19. Judge Cançado Trindade adds (Part XIV of the present separate opinion) that the prohibitions of jus cogens have an incidence at inter-State, as well at intra-State,