152 8. Nicaragua is not easy reading. Many issues were involved, and interpretations differ. A general understanding is that the Court said that the United States had no responsibility for delictual acts committed by the contras because, in its view, the former lacked the requisite degree of control over the latter. However, the Court was careful to say that this "conclusion … does not of course suffice to resolve the entire question of the responsibility incurred by the United States through its assistance to the contras". (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 63, para. 110). One part of this unresolved question of responsibility was whether, as claimed by Nicaragua, "the United States, in breach of its obligation under general and customary international law, has used and is using force and the threat of force against Nicaragua". (Ibid., p. 19, para. 15(c)). In so far as it was sought to support this part of the claim by reference to funds being supplied by the United States to the contras, the Court held that "the mere supply of funds to the contras, while undoubtedly an act of intervention in the internal affairs of Nicaragua, ... does not in itself amount to a use of force". (Ibid ., p. 119, para. 228). 9. By contrast, the Court considered that, as distinguished from the mere supplying of funds, the United States had committed other acts in relation to the contras which amounted to a threat or use of force against Nicaragua. In paragraph 228 of its judgement, the Court put it this way: As to the claim that United States activities in relation to the contras constitute a breach of the customary international law principle of the non-use of force, the Court finds that, subject to the question whether the action of the United States might be justified as an exercise of the right of self-defence, the United States has committed a prima facie violation of that principle by its assistance to the contras in Nicaragua, by 'organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands ... for incursion into the territory of another State', and 'participating in acts of civil strife ... in another State', in terms of General Assembly resolution 2625(XXV). According to that resolution, participation of this kind is contrary to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force when the acts of civil strife referred to 'involve a threat or use of force'. In the view of the Court, while the arming and training of the contras can certainly be said to involve the threat or use of force against Nicaragua, this is not necessarily so in respect of all the assistance given by the United States Government. The Court then mentioned "the mere supply of funds to the contras" as a form of assistance which did not amount to a use of force, although it amounted to intervention. Subject to that kind of exception, the Court considered that the arming and training of the contras in the circumstances of the case amounted to a use of force. 10. The Court adhered to this view in its formal disposition of the case. In paragraph 292(3) of its holding, it decided that the United States, by "training, arming, equipping, financing, and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua" intervened in the