The ICJ’s comments on its own website confirm a Singapore newspaper’s suggestion that there are indeed three new facts.
The ICJ, in a press release on its website yesterday, said the documents included an internal correspondence of the Singapore colonial authorities in 1958, an incident report filed in 1958 by a British naval officer and an annotated map of naval operations from the 1960s.
The documents were discovered in the National Archives between Aug 4, 2016 and Jan 30, 2017.
It said Malaysia claimed the documents established the new fact that officials at the highest levels in the British colonial and Singaporean administration appreciated that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh did not form part of Singapore’s sovereign territory during the relevant period.
“Malaysia argues that the Court would have been bound to reach a different conclusion on the question of sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had it been aware of this new evidence,” it said.
ICJ said Malaysia, in reference to other conditions of Article 61, also asserted that the new fact was not known to Malaysia or to the Court when the “judgment” was given because it was only discovered on review of the archival files of the British colonial administration after they were made available to the public by the UK National Archives after the judgment was given in 2008.
“Malaysia also argues that its ignorance of the new fact was not due to negligence as the documents in question were confidential documents which were inaccessible to the public until their release by the UK National Archives.”
Malaysia, ICJ said, asserted that its request was also on time.
“It indicates that the application was being made within six months of the discovery of the new fact, since all of the documents that established this fact were obtained on or after 4 August 2016, and that it was also being submitted before the lapse of ten years from the Judgment date of 23 May 2008.”
ICJ noted that Malaysia was requesting the Court to adjudge and declare its application for revision of the 2008 judgment as admissible and asking it to “fix time limits to proceed with consideration of the merits of the application”.