PULP MILLS (JUDGMENT) 31 On behalf of the Government of Argentina, at the hearing of 29 September 2009 : “For all the reasons described in its Memorial, in its Reply and in the oral proceedings, which it fully stands by, the Argentine Republic requests the International Court of Justice : 1. to find that by authorizing — the construction of the ENCE mill ; — the construction and commissioning of the Botnia mill and its associated facilities on the left bank of the River Uruguay, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay has violated the obligations incumbent on it under the Statute of the River Uruguay of 26 February 1975 and has engaged its international responsibility ; 2. to adjudge and declare that, as a result, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay must : (i) resume strict compliance with its obligations under the Statute of the River Uruguay of 1975 ; (ii) cease immediately the internationally wrongful acts by which it has engaged its responsibility ; (iii) re-establish on the ground and in legal terms the situation that existed before these internationally wrongful acts were committed ; (iv) pay compensation to the Argentine Republic for the damage caused by these internationally wrongful acts that would not be remedied by that situation being restored, of an amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of these proceedings ; (v) provide adequate guarantees that it will refrain in future from preventing the Statute of the River Uruguay of 1975 from being applied, in particular the consultation procedure established by Chapter II of that Treaty.” On behalf of the Government of Uruguay, at the hearing of 2 October 2009 : “On the basis of the facts and arguments set out in Uruguay’s CounterMemorial, Rejoinder and during the oral proceedings, Uruguay requests that the Court adjudge and declare that the claims of Argentina are rejected, and Uruguay’s right to continue operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute is affirmed.” * * * I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK FACTS OF THE CASE AND 25. The dispute before the Court has arisen in connection with the planned construction authorized by Uruguay of one pulp mill and the construction and commissioning of another, also authorized by Uruguay, 21