Agreement
Article I.
Should Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in conformity with the rules of international law, be
restored or not be restored by His Britannic Majesty’s Government to the Government of the
French Republic?
Article 2.
The Arbitral Tribunal shall be composed of five arbitrators chosen from the members of
the Permanent Court at The Hague. The two Contracting Parties shall settle the composition
of the Tribunal. Each of them may choose as arbitrator one of their nationals.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
With reference to the agreement which we have concluded this day, for the purpose of
submitting to arbitration certain matters in connexion with the arrest and restitution of
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, at Marseilles,in July last, I have the honour to place on record
the understanding that any points which may arise in the course of this arbitration which are
not covered by the terms of the Agreement above referred to shall be determined by the
provisions of the International Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes
signed at the Hague, on the 18th of October, 1907.
Signed: E. GREY
AWARD DELIVERED ON 24 FEBRUARY 1911 BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL
WHEREAS, by an agreement dated the 25th October 1910, the Government of the
French Republic and the Government of His Britannic Majesty agreed to submit to
Arbitration the questions of fact and law raised by the arrest and restoration to the mailsteamer ” Morea ” at Marseilles, on the 8th July 1910,of the British Indian Savarkar, who had
escaped from that vessel where he was in custody; and the demand made by the Government
of the French Republic for the restitution of Savarkar; the Arbitral Tribunal has been called
upon to decide the following question: Should Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, in conformity
with the rules of international law, be restored or not be restored by His Britannic Majesty’s
Government to the Government of the French Republic.
WHEREAS, with regard to the facts which gave rise to the difference of opinion between
the two Governments, it is established that, by a letter, dated the 29th June 1910, the
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London informed the ” Directeur de la Sûreté
générale ” at Paris, that the British-Indian Vinayak Damodar Savarkar was about to be sent to
187
India, in order to be prosecuted for abetment of murder etc., and that he would be on board
the vessel ” Morea ” touching at Marseilles on the 7th or 8th July.
WHEREAS, in consequence of the receipt of this letter, the Ministry of the Interior
informed the Prefect of the ” Bouches-du-Rhône “, by a telegram dated the 4th July 1910, that
the British Police were sending Savarkar to India on board the steamship ” Morea “. This
telegram states that some ” révolutionnaires hindus ” then on the Continent, might take
advantage of this to further the escape of this foreigner, and the Prefect was requested to
take the measures necessary to guard against any attempt of that kind.
WHEREAS the ” Directeur de la Sûreté générale ” replied by a letter dated the 9th July
1910 to the letter of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, stating that he had given
the necessary instructions for the purpose of guarding against the occurrence of any incident
during the presence at Marseilles of the said Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, on board the
steamship ” Morea “.
WHEREAS, on the 7th July, the ” Morea ” arrived at Marseilles. The following morning,
between 6 and 7 o’clock, Savarkar, having succeeded in effecting his escape, swam ashore
and began to run; he was arrested by a brigadier of the French maritime gendarmerie and
taken back to the vessel. Three persons, who had come ashore from the vessel, assisted the
brigadier in taking the fugitive back. On the 9th July, the ” Morea ” left Marseilles with
Savarkar on board.
WHEREAS, from the statements made by the French brigadier to the Police at
Marseilles, it appears: that he saw the fugitive, who was almost naked, get out of a porthole of
the steamer, throw himself into the sea and swim to the quay; that at the same moment some
persons from the ship, who were shouting and gesticulating, rushed over the bridge leading to
the shore, in order to pursue him; that a number of people on the quay commenced to shout “
Arrêtez-le “that the brigadier at once went in pursuit of the fugitive and, coming up to him
after running about five hundred metres, arrested him.
WHEREAS the brigadier declares that he was altogether unaware of the identity of the
person with whom he was dealing, that he only thought that the man who was escaping was
one of the crew, who had possibly committed an offence on board the vessel.
WHEREAS, with regard to the assistance afforded him by one of the crew and two Indian
policemen, it appears from the explanations given on this point, that these men came up after
the arrest of Savarkar, and that their intervention was only auxiliary to the action of the
brigadier. The brigadier had seized Savarkar by one arm for the purpose of taking him back to
the ship, and the prisoner went peaceably with him. The brigadier, assisted by the above
mentioned persons, did not relax his hold, till he reached the half deck of the vessel. The
brigadier said that he did not know English. From what has been stated, it would appear that
the incident did not occupy more than a few minutes.
WHEREAS, it is alleged that the brigadier who effected the arrest was not ignorant of the
presence of Savarkar on board the vessel, and that his orders, like those of all the French
188
Police and Gendarmes, were to prevent any Hindoo from coming on board who had not got a
ticket.
WHEREAS these circumstances show that the persons on board in charge of Savarkar
might well have believed that they could count on the assistance of the French Police.
WHEREAS it is established that a ” Commissaire ” of the French Police came on board
the vessel shortly after her arrival at the port, and, in accordance with the orders of the
Prefect, placed himself at the disposal of the Commander in respect of the watch to be kept;
that, in consequence, this ” Commissaire ” was put into communication with the British
Police Officer who, with other Police Officers, was in charge of the prisoner ; that the Prefect
of Marseilles, as appears from a telegram dated the 13th July1910 addressed to the Minister
of the Interior, stated that he had acted in this matter in accordance with instructions given by
the ” Sûreté générale ” to make the necessary arrangements to prevent the escape of Savarkar.
WHEREAS, having regard to what has been stated, it is manifest that the case is not one
of recourse to fraud or force in order to obtain possession of a person who had taken refuge in
foreign territory, and that there was not, in the circumstances of the arrest and delivery of
Savarkar to the British Authorities and of his removal to India, anything in the nature of a
violation of the sovereignty of France, and that all those who took part in the matter certainly
acted in good faith and had no thought of doing anything unlawful.
WHEREAS, in the circumstances cited above, the conduct of the brigadier not having
been disclaimed by his chiefs before the morning of the 9th July, that is to say before the “
Morea ” left Marseilles, the British Police might naturally have believed that the brigadier had
acted in accordance with his instructions, or that his conduct had been approved.
WHEREAS, while admitting that an irregularity was committed by the arrest of Savarkar,
and by his being handed over to the British Police, there is no rule of International Law
imposing, in circumstances such as those which have been set out above, any obligation on
the Power which has in its custody a prisoner, to restore him because of a mistake committed
by the foreign agent who delivered him up to that Power.
FOR THESE REASONS :
The Arbitral Tribunal decides that the Government of His Britannic Majesty is not
required to restore the said Vinayak Damodar Savarkar to the Government of the French
Republic. Done at The Hague, at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, February 24th, 1911.
