PULP MILLS (JUDGMENT) 105 278. The Court fails to see any special circumstances in the present case requiring the ordering of a measure such as that sought by Argentina. As the Court has recently observed : “[W]hile the Court may order, as it has done in the past, a State responsible for internationally wrongful conduct to provide the injured State with assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, it will only do so if the circumstances so warrant, which it is for the Court to assess. As a general rule, there is no reason to suppose that a State whose act or conduct has been declared wrongful by the Court will repeat that act or conduct in the future, since its good faith must be presumed (see Factory at Chorzów, Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 63 ; Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 272, para. 60 ; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 477, para. 63 ; and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 437, para. 101). There is thus no reason, except in special circumstances . . . to order [the provision of assurances and guarantees of non-repetition].” (Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 267, para. 150.) 279. Uruguay, for its part, requests the Court to confirm its right “to continue operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute”. Argentina contends that this claim should be rejected, in particular because it is a counter-claim first put forward in Uruguay’s Rejoinder and, as such, is inadmissible by virtue of Article 80 of the Rules of Court. 280. There is no need for the Court to decide the admissibility of this claim ; it is sufficient to observe that Uruguay’s claim is without any practical significance, since Argentina’s claims in relation to breaches by Uruguay of its substantive obligations and to the dismantling of the Orion (Botnia) mill have been rejected. * * * 281. Lastly, the Court points out that the 1975 Statute places the Parties under a duty to co-operate with each other, on the terms therein set out, to ensure the achievement of its object and purpose. This obligation to co-operate encompasses ongoing monitoring of an industrial facility, such as the Orion (Botnia) mill. In that regard the Court notes that the Parties have a long-standing and effective tradition of co-operation and co-ordination through CARU. By acting jointly through CARU, the Parties have established a real community of interests and rights in the management of the River Uruguay and in the protection of its environment. They have also co-ordinated their actions through the joint 95