PULP MILLS (JUDGMENT) 58 taken, do not constitute performance of the obligation imposed on the Parties by Article 7, first paragraph. 110. The Court considers that the information on the plans for the mills which reached CARU via the companies concerned or from other non-governmental sources cannot substitute for the obligation to inform laid down in Article 7, first paragraph, of the 1975 Statute, which is borne by the party planning to construct the works referred to in that provision. Similarly, in the case concerning Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), the Court observed that “[i]f the information eventually came to Djibouti through the press, the information disseminated in this way could not be taken into account for the purposes of the application of Article 17 [of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the two countries, providing that ‘[r]easons shall be given for any refusal of mutual assistance’]” (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 231, para. 150). 111. Consequently, the Court concludes from the above that Uruguay, by not informing CARU of the planned works before the issuing of the initial environmental authorizations for each of the mills and for the port terminal adjacent to the Orion (Botnia) mill, has failed to comply with the obligation imposed on it by Article 7, first paragraph, of the 1975 Statute. 3. Uruguay’s obligation to notify the plans to the other party 112. The Court notes that, under the terms of Article 7, second paragraph, of the 1975 Statute, if CARU decides that the plan might cause significant damage to the other party or if a decision cannot be reached in that regard, “the party concerned shall notify the other party of this plan through the said Commission”. Article 7, third paragraph, of the 1975 Statute sets out in detail the content of this notification, which “shall describe the main aspects of the work and . . . any other technical data that will enable the notified party to assess the probable impact of such works on navigation, the régime of the river or the quality of its waters”. 113. In the opinion of the Court, the obligation to notify is intended to create the conditions for successful co-operation between the parties, enabling them to assess the plan’s impact on the river on the basis of the fullest possible information and, if necessary, to negotiate the adjustments needed to avoid the potential damage that it might cause. 114. Article 8 stipulates a period of 180 days, which may be extended by the Commission, for the notified party to respond in connection with 48