Question: During the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case brought before the International Court of Justice, which country was found to be guilty?

Context articles: Asylum case
Boschetto v. Hansing
Archuleta v. Hedrick
International Court of Justice
Hertz Corp. v. Friend
Stephen M. Schwebel
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State
Green Hackworth
Permanent Court of International Justice
Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter

Colombia v Peru [1950] ICJ 6 (also known as the "Asylum Case") is a public international law case, decided by the International Court of Justice.
 The ICJ recognised that the scope of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice encompassed bi-lateral and regional international customary norms as well as general customary norms, in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral and multilateral treaties.
 The Court also clarified that for custom to be definitively proven, it must be continuously and uniformly executed.
Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.
 2008) is a diversity jurisdiction case brought by California resident, Paul Boschetto ("Boschetto") against certain private corporations with their principal place of business in Wisconsin.
 The case involved the determination of the question whether the sale of an item via the internet consumer-to-consumer trading portal, eBay, by the defendants in Wisconsin to the plaintiff in California, was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in the buyer's forum state.
 At the first instance, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California decided against Boschetto and held that a lone “eBay sale consummated with a California purchaser, was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over any of the defendants.”
 Boschetto appealed against the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
 The appellate court affirmed the decision of the district court and denied relief to Boschetto.
 The Court became the first federal appellate court to address whether personal jurisdiction in a forum state could be established when an out-of-state resident makes use of an intermediary website accessible by forum-state citizens.
Archuleta v. Hedrick, 365 F.3d 644 (8th Cir.
 2004) was a "pro se" petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in October 2002, appealing the dismissal of a case brought by defendant Benjamin Archuleta.
 Archuleta had been found not guilty by reason of insanity of assault and subsequently ordered to be confined in a prison mental hospital by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri after his successful insanity defense, as he was evaluated by a psychiatrist as dangerous.
 His appeal challenged this confinement and "forced treatment", requested a withdrawal of his original insanity defense, and sought his unconditional release from custody.
The International Court of Justice (French: "Cour internationale de justice" ; commonly referred to as the World Court, ICJ or The Hague) is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN).
 Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the court settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court supported the "nerve center" test for determining corporate citizenship in the context of  /1332 § 1332  .
 Hertz Corp believed that the case brought forward could not be tried in California jurisdiction and therefore hoped a case in a California court would be thrown out.
 However, the state court ruled that there was California jurisdiction that was appropriate and re-established the importance of the "place of operations" test for firms.
 The Supreme Court overruled but cautioned that the corporate headquarters will not be considered the principal place of business if it is not the actual center of direction, control, and coordination, such as if it were “simply an office where the corporation holds its board meetings."
Stephen Myron Schwebel (born March 10, 1929), is an American jurist, counsel and independent arbitrator.
 He serves as President of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal and as a member of the U.S. national group at the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
 Previously, he served as President of the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (1994–2010), as President of the International Court of Justice (1997–2000), as Vice President of the International Court of Justice (1994–1997) and as Judge of the International Court of Justice (1981–2000).
 Prior to his tenure on the World Court, Judge Schwebel served as Deputy Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State (1974–1981) and as Assistant Legal Adviser to the U.S. Dept. of State (1961–1967).
 He has also served as a professor of law at Harvard Law School (1959–1961) and Johns Hopkins University (1967–1981).
 Judge Schwebel is noted for his expansive opinions in momentous cases such as "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", " Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua" and " Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)".
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) was a case concerning the extent of state immunity before the International Court of Justice.
 The case was brought by Germany after various decisions by Italian courts to ignore the state immunity of Germany when confronted with claims against Germany by victims of Nazi-era war crimes.
 The court found that Italy was wrong to ignore German immunity, and found that Italy was obligated to render the decisions of its courts against Germany without effect.
Green Haywood Hackworth (Prestonsburg, Kentucky, January 23, 1883 – Washington, DC, June 24, 1973) was an American jurist who served as the first U.S. judge on the International Court of Justice, as President of the International Court of Justice, as the longest running Legal Adviser to the US Department of State (1925 -1946) and as a member of Secretary of State Cordell Hull's inner circle of advisers.
 Hackworth was instrumental in the development of plans for the post World War II world order and was a key member of the U.S. delegation to the Dumbarton Oaks Conference (1944).
 He served as a member of the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy (1942), as a member of Post War Programs Committee (1944) and as Chairman of the Committee of Jurists that drafted the initial statutes for the International Court of Justice (1945).
 Hackworth also represented the U.S. Delegation on Committee IV at the United Nations Conference on International Organization where the articles in the United Nations Charter pertaining to the International Court of Justice were finalized.
The Permanent Court of International Justice, often called the World Court, existed from 1922 to 1946.
 It was an international court attached to the League of Nations.
 Created in 1920 (although the idea of an international court was several centuries old), the Court was initially well-received from states and academics alike, with many cases submitted to it for its first decade of operation.
 With the heightened international tension of the 1930s, the Court became less used.
 By a resolution by the League of Nations on 18 April 1946, the Court ceased to exist and was replaced by the International Court of Justice.
Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter deals with the International Court of Justice.
 Most provisions related to the World Court are contained in the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which is annexed to the Charter.
 Article 93 states that all UN members are members of the World Court.
 Article 94 requires all members to abide by World Court decisions in any cases to which they are a party, and gives the UN Security Council power to enforce such decisions.
 The World Court is also authorized to issue advisory opinions upon request.
 Chapter XIV is analogous to Article 14 (and to some extent, Article 13) of the Covenant of the League of Nations.