44 who enjoy the status of organs under the national law of that State 129 or who at least belong to public entities empowered within the domestic legal system of the State to exercise certain elements of governmental authority. 130 The other two categories embraced individuals who, by contrast, were not formally organs or agents of the State. There were, first, those individuals not having United States nationality (the UCLAs) who acted while being in the pay, and on the direct instructions and under the supervision of United States military or intelligence personnel, to carry out specific tasks such as the mining of Nicaraguan ports or oil installations. The Court held that their acts were imputable to the United States, either on account of the fact that, in addition to being paid by United States agents or officials, they had been given specific instructions by these agents or officials and had acted under their supervision, 131 or because “agents of the United States” had “participated in the planning, direction, support and execution” of specific operations (such as the blowing up of underwater oil pipelines, attacks on oil and storage facilities, etc.). 132 The other category of individuals lacking the status of United States officials comprised the 129 Customary international law on the matter is correctly restated in Article 5 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted in its first reading by the United Nations International Law Commission: “For the purposes of the present articles ?of Chapter II: The ‘Act of the State’ under International Lawg, conduct of any State organ having that status under the internal law of that State shall be considered as an act of the State concerned under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question” (Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Forty-Eighth Session (6 May-26 July 1996), U.N. Doc. A/51/10, p. 126). Article 5, as provisionally adopted by the ILC Drafting Committee in 1998, is even clearer. It provides (International Law Commission, Fiftieth Session, 1998, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.569, p. 2): “1. For the purposes of the present articles, the conduct of any State organ acting in that capacity shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central government or of a territorial unit of the State. 2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, an organ includes any person or body which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.” (emphasis added). 130 See Article 7 of the ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading. It provides: “1. The conduct of an organ of a territorial governmental entity within a State shall also be considered as an act of that State under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question. 2. The conduct of an organ of an entity which is not part of the formal structure of the State or of a territorial governmental entity, but which is empowered by the internal law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority, shall also be considered as an act of the State under international law, provided that organ was acting in that capacity in the case in question”. See the First Report on State Responsibility by the Special Rapporteur J. Crawford (22 July 1998), U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/490/ Add.5, pp. 12-16. See also the text of the same provision as provisionally adopted by the ILC Drafting Committee in 1998 (U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.569, p. 2). The text of Article 7, as provisionally adopted by the ILC Drafting Committee in 1998, provides: “The conduct of an entity which is not an organ of the State under article 5 but which is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law, provided the entity was acting in that capacity in the case in question”. (ibid.) 131 See Nicaragua, paras. 75-80. Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999