botswana/namibia - Cour international de Justice

(a) No evidence in the form of artefacts, charcoal or bones was found during the coring
exercise that was carried out on the Island.
(b) The lithology of the island (an admixture of clay, silt and mud which forms a layer 1.5 m
thick lying on top of highly saturated sand). This lithology would make burial impossible.
(c) The surface layer referred to above would be easily waterlogged severely limiting
agricultural potential. Therefore any cultivation on the Island would have been on a very
limited scale.
VI. Finally, the evidence of the Namibian witnesses showed considerable confusion as to the
geographical location for their claims. Under the circumstances, the Court would find it
extremely difficult to find any value from their evidence that would assist it in deciding the
matter before it.
CHAPTER 8
THE MAP EVIDENCE
(A) Namibia's Position
534. Namibia places considerable weight on the map evidence, which is not surprising
considering its difficulty in the construction of Article III. The plain meaning of that Article
when applied to the facts on the ground, and in the light of the official reports, the Eason
Survey of 1912, the Trollope/Redman Joint Report of 1948, the Joint Survey 1985, is that the
northern channel is the main channel. Namibia bases its map evidence on a Report and list of
Maps prepared by its cartographic expert, Mr.W.D. Rushworth B.Sc.,(Eng), FRACAS,
Director of the Mapping and Charting Establishment of the British Ministry of Defence,
assisted by Mr.P.Clark, formerly Keeper of the Royal Geographic Society. That Report and
list (the Rushworth Report) is set out at Annex 102 to the Namibian Memorial and is
examined in detail in Appendix 1 to this Counter-Memorial.
535. The Rushworth Report, when read with the Report of Namibia's other expert, Professor
Alexander, produces an insoluble conflict of experts. No doubt when confronted with
Professor Alexander's iconoclastic thesis that the southern channel is wrongly shown on all
the maps and in fact is Zone d overlaying Kasikili/Sedudu Island, Mr. Rushworth at the end of
his Report is driven ruefully to apologise:-
"Of course, all the maps have been made in the dry season when access for surveyors is easy
and skies are clear for air photography." (Namibian Memorial, Vol.V,Annex 102,p.31 at 52).
Thus, Mr. Rushworth, in one sentence, demolishes the whole case advanced by Namibia on
the basis of map evidence.
536. This places Namibia in an inescapable quandary.1 Should it advance its case on the basis
of its scientific expert or of its cartographic expert? Either reliance is to be placed on the