Asylum Case (Columbia v.

Peru, 1950) Principle: For Custom to be definitively proven, it must be

continuously and uniformly executed.Fact: Peru issued an arrest warrant against Victor Raul Haya de la
Torre “in respect of the crime of militaryrebellion” which took place on October 3, 1949, in Peru. 3
months after the rebellion, Torre fled to theColombian Embassy in Lima, Peru. The Colombian
Ambassador confirmed that Torre was granteddiplomatic asylum in accordance with Article 2(2) of
the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928 andrequested safe passage for Torre to leave Peru.
Subsequently, the Ambassador also stated Colombia hadqualified Torre as a political refugee in
accordance with Article 2 Montevideo Convention on PoliticalAsylum of 1933 Peru refused to accept the
unilateral qualification and refused to grant safe passage.Issue: Whether there is a custom so established
that it is binding to allow Columbia to grant politicalasylumDecision: The international Court of Justice
decided that a State granting diplomatic asylum do not havethe unilateral right to qualify an offense for
The purpose of asylum, nor was Colombia entitled to claimguarantees for the safe departure of the man
to whom he had given asylum.Reasoning: Columbia cited several conventions, of which some Peru was
not a party so not binding, andothers that were accepted by so few states it is very weak. Columbia also
refers to many cases wherepolitical asylum was granted, but court cannot determine whether they were
granted due to usage, orfor political expediency. Court says Columbian Govt. has not through its
arguments proven the existenceof such a custom. And, if there was such a custom, it could not been
forced against Peru, because theywere not party to the Montevideo convention which included matters
of political asylum