Audience publique tenue le vendredi 7 juin 2019, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, en l'affaire relative à l'Application de la convention internationale pou

Non corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2019/12
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2019
Public sitting
held on Friday 7 June 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Yusuf presiding,
in the case concerning Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)
Preliminary Objections
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2019
Audience publique
tenue le vendredi 7 juin 2019, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président,
en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention internationale pour la répression du financement du terrorisme et de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale (Ukraine c. Fédération de Russie)
Exceptions préliminaires
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________
- 2 -
Present: President Yusuf
Vice-President Xue
Judges Tomka
Abraham
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Robinson
Crawford
Salam
Iwasawa
Judges ad hoc Pocar
Skotnikov
Registrar Couvreur

- 3 -
Présents : M. Yusuf, président
Mme Xue, vice-présidente
MM. Tomka
Abraham
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Mme Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
MM. Bhandari
Robinson
Crawford
Salam
Iwasawa, juges
MM. Pocar
Skotnikov, juges ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier

- 4 -
The Government of Ukraine is represented by:
H.E. Ms Olena Zerkal, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Vsevelod Chentsov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Harold Hongju Koh, Sterling Professor of International Law, member of the Bars of New York and the District of Columbia,
Mr. Jean Marc Thouvenin, Professor at the University of Paris Nanterre, Secretary-General of the Hague Academy of International Law,
Ms Marney L. Cheek, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bar of the District of Columbia,
Mr. Jonathan Gimblett, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and Virginia,
Mr. David M. Zionts, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States and the District of Columbia,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Ms Oksana Zolotaryova, Acting Director, International Law Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine,
Ms Clovis Trevino, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia, Florida and New York,
Mr. Volodymyr Shkilevych, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bars of Ukraine and New York,
Mr. George M. Mackie, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and Virginia,
Ms Megan O’Neill, Covington & Burling LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and Texas,
as Counsel;
Mr. Taras Kachka, Adviser to the Foreign Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine,
Mr. Roman Andarak, Deputy Head of the Mission of Ukraine to the European Union,
Mr. Refat Chubarov, Head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, People’s Deputy of Ukraine,
Mr. Bohdan Tyvodar, Deputy Head of Division, Security Service of Ukraine,
- 5 -
Le Gouvernement de l’Ukraine est représenté par :
S. Exc. Mme Olena Zerkal, vice-ministre des affaires étrangères de l’Ukraine,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Vsevelod Chentsov, ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire de l’Ukraine auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M. Harold Hongju Koh, professeur de droit international, titulaire de la chaire Sterling, membre des barreaux de New York et du district de Columbia,
M. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l’Université Paris Nanterre, secrétaire général de l’Académie de droit international de La Haye,
Mme Marney L. Cheek, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre du barreau du district de Columbia,
M. Jonathan Gimblett, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre des barreaux du district de Columbia et de Virginie,
M. David M. Zionts, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre des barreaux de la Cour suprême des Etats Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats ;
Mme Oksana Zolotaryova, directrice par intérim de la direction du droit international au ministère des affaires étrangères de l’Ukraine,
Mme Clovis Trevino, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre des barreaux du district de Columbia, de Floride et de New York,
M. Volodymyr Shkilevych, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre des barreaux d’Ukraine et de New York,
M. George M. Mackie, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre des barreaux du district de Columbia et de Virginie,
Mme Megan O’Neill, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP, membre des barreaux du district de Columbia et du Texas,
comme conseils ;
M. Taras Kachka, conseiller du ministre des affaires étrangères de l’Ukraine,
M. Roman Andarak, chef adjoint de la mission de l’Ukraine auprès de l’Union européenne,
M. Refat Chubarov, président du Majlis des Tatars de Crimée, député du peuple ukrainien,
M. Bohdan Tyvodar, chef adjoint de division au service de sécurité de l’Ukraine,
- 6 -
Mr. Ihor Yanovskyi, Head of Unit, Security Service of Ukraine,
Mr. Mykola Govorukha, Deputy Head of Unit, Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine,
Ms Myroslava Krasnoborova, Liaison Prosecutor for Eurojust,
as Advisers;
Ms Katerina Gipenko, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine,
Ms Valeriya Budakova, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine,
Ms Olena Vashchenko, Consulate General of Ukraine in Istanbul,
Ms Sofia Shovikova, Embassy of Ukraine to the Netherlands,
Ms Olga Bondarenko, Embassy of Ukraine to the Netherlands,
Mr. Vitalii Stanzhytskyi, Ministry of Interior of Ukraine,
Ms Angela Gasca, Covington & Burling LLP,
Ms Rebecca Mooney, Covington & Burling LLP,
as Assistants.
The Government of the Russian Federation is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Dmitry Lobach, Ambassador-at-large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Grigory Lukiyantsev, PhD, Special Representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, Deputy Director, Department for Humanitarian Co-operation and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
as Agents;
Mr. Mathias Forteau, Professor at the University Paris Nanterre,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Emeritus Professor, University Paris Nanterre, former chairperson, International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court Chambers,
Mr. Andreas Zimmermann, LLM (Harvard University), Professor of International Law at the University of Potsdam, Director of the Potsdam Centre of Human Rights, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and of the Human Rights Committee,
as Counsel and Advocates;
- 7 -
M. Ihor Yanovskyi, chef d’unité au service de sécurité de l’Ukraine,
M. Mykola Govorukha, chef adjoint d’unité au bureau du procureur général de l’Ukraine,
Mme Myroslava Krasnoborova, procureur de liaison à Eurojust,
comme conseillers ;
Mme Katerina Gipenko, ministère des affaires étrangères de l’Ukraine,
Mme Valeriya Budakova, ministère des affaires étrangères de l’Ukraine,
Mme Olena Vashchenko, consulat général d’Ukraine à Istanbul,
Mme Sofia Shovikova, ambassade d’Ukraine aux Pays-Bas,
Mme Olga Bondarenko, ambassade d’Ukraine aux Pays-Bas,
M. Vitalii Stanzhytskyi, ministère de l’intérieur de l’Ukraine,
Mme Angela Gasca, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP,
Mme Rebecca Mooney, cabinet Covington & Burling LLP,
comme assistants.
Le Gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Dmitry Lobach, ambassadeur itinérant, ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Grigory Lukiyantsev, PhD, représentant spécial du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie pour les droits de l’homme, la démocratie et la primauté du droit, directeur adjoint du département pour la coopération humanitaire et les droits de l’homme du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
comme agents ;
M. Mathias Forteau, professeur à l’Université Paris Nanterre,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur émérite de l’Université Paris Nanterre, ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit international,
M. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, cabinet Essex Court Chambers,
M. Andreas Zimmermann, LLM (Université de Harvard), professeur de droit international et directeur du centre des droits de l’homme de l’Université de Potsdam, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage et du Comité des droits de l’homme,
comme conseils et avocats ;
- 8 -
Mr. Sean Aughey, member of the English Bar, 11KBW,
Ms Tessa Barsac, consultant in international law, Master (University Paris Nanterre), LLM (Leiden University),
Mr. Jean-Baptiste Merlin, Doctorate in Law (University Paris Nanterre), consultant in public international law,
Mr. Michael Swainston, QC, member of the English Bar, Brick Court Chambers,
Mr. Vasily Torkanovskiy, member of the Saint Petersburg Bar, Ivanyan & Partners,
Mr. Sergey Usoskin, member of the Saint Petersburg Bar,
as Counsel;
Mr. Ayder Ablyatipov, Deputy Minister of Education, Science and Youth of the Republic of Crimea,
Mr. Andrey Anokhin, expert, Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Mikhail Averyanov, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe,
Ms Héloïse Bajer-Pellet, member of the Paris Bar,
Ms Maria Barsukova, Third Secretary, Department for Humanitarian Co-operation and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Olga Chekrizova, Second Secretary, Department for Humanitarian Co-operation and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Ksenia Galkina, Third Secretary, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Alexander Girin, expert, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation,
Ms Daria Golubkova, administrative assistant, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Victoria Goncharova, Third Secretary, Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Ms Anastasia Gorlanova, Attaché, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Valeria Grishchenko, interpreter, Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Denis Grunis, expert, Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Ruslan Kantur, Attaché, Department of New Challenges and Threats, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
- 9 -
M. Sean Aughey, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 11KBW,
Mme Tessa Barsac, consultante en droit international, master (Université Paris Nanterre), LLM (Université de Leyde),
M. Jean-Baptiste Merlin, docteur en droit (Université Paris Nanterre), consultant en droit international public,
M. Michael Swainston, QC, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, cabinet Brick Court Chambers,
M. Vasily Torkanovskiy, membre du barreau de Saint-Pétersbourg, cabinet Ivanyan & Partners,
M. Sergey Usoskin, membre du barreau de Saint-Pétersbourg,
comme conseils ;
M. Ayder Ablyatipov, vice-ministre de l’éducation, des sciences et de la jeunesse de la République de Crimée,
M. Andrey Anokhin, expert au comité d’enquête de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Mikhail Averyanov, deuxième secrétaire, mission permanente de la Fédération de Russie auprès de l’Organisation pour la sécurité et la coopération en Europe,
Me Héloïse Bajer-Pellet, avocate au barreau de Paris,
Mme Maria Barsukova, troisième secrétaire au département pour la coopération humanitaire et les droits de l’homme du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Olga Chekrizova, deuxième secrétaire au département pour la coopération humanitaire et les droits de l’homme du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Ksenia Galkina, troisième secrétaire au département juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Alexander Girin, expert au ministère de la défense de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Daria Golubkova, assistante administrative au département juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Victoria Goncharova, troisième secrétaire à l’ambassade de la Fédération de Russie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Anastasia Gorlanova, attachée au département juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Valeria Grishchenko, interprète, comité d’enquête de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Denis Grunis, expert au parquet général de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Ruslan Kantur, attaché au département de nouveaux défis et menaces du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
- 10 -
Ms Svetlana Khomutova, expert, Federal Monitoring Service of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Konstantin Kosorukov, Head of Division, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Maria Kuzmina, Acting Head of Division, Second CIS Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Petr Litvishko, expert, Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Timur Makhmudov, Attaché, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Konstantin Pestchanenko, expert, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Grigory Prozukin, expert, Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation,
Ms Sofia Sarenkova, Senior Associate, Ivanyan & Partners,
Ms Elena Semykina, paralegal, Ivanyan & Partners,
Ms Svetlana Shatalova, First Secretary, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Angelina Shchukina, Junior Associate, Ivanyan & Partners,
Ms Kseniia Soloveva, Associate, Ivanyan & Partners,
Ms Maria Zabolotskaya, Head of Division, Legal Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
Ms Olga Zinchenko, Attaché, Department for Humanitarian Co-operation and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
as Advisers.
- 11 -
Mme Svetlana Khomutova, expert au service fédéral de surveillance financière de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Kostantin Kosorukov, chef de division au département Juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Maria Kuzmina, chef de division par intérim au deuxième département de la Communauté d’Etats indépendants du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Petr Litvishko, expert au parquet général de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Timur Makhmudov, attaché au département juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Konstantin Pestchanenko, expert au ministère de la défense de la Fédération de Russie,
M. Grigory Prozukin, expert au comité d’enquête de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Sofia Sarenkova, collaboratrice senior, cabinet Ivanyan & Partners,
Mme Elena Semykina, juriste, cabinet Ivanyan & Partners,
Mme Svetlana Shatalova, première secrétaire au département Juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Angelina Shchukina, collaboratrice junior, cabinet Ivanyan & Partners,
Mme Kseniia Soloveva, collaboratrice, cabinet Ivanyan & Partners,
Mme Maria Zabolotskaya, chef de division au département juridique du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
Mme Olga Zinchenko, attachée au département pour la coopération humanitaire et les droits de l’homme du ministère des affaires étrangères de la Fédération de Russie,
comme conseillers.
- 12 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets this morning to hear the second round of oral statements of Ukraine. I will now invite Professor Koh to take the floor. You have the floor.
Mr. KOH:
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is my great honour to come before you again on behalf of Ukraine.
2. Russia’s preliminary objections should be rejected and this case advanced to the merits . As we have shown, Russia has loudly committed itself to suppressing the financing of terrorism. But it freely allows a campaign of terror to be funded from its territory, refusing to take practicable measures, even as its own officials actively supply those who ruthlessly target the Ukrainian people. Russia has committed itself to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, but then supports them in Crimea.
3. Let me briefly explain why none of Russia’s objections should delay you further from reaching the merits. I have already answered Russia’s core objection: that the “real” legal issue is its aggression in Crimea, which has been universally condemned. But the dispute we have brought here is about the illegal financing of terrorism and systematic discrimination against peoples, nothing more. Of course, Russia has engaged in a wider pattern of violations of international law, including international humanitarian law (IHL). But the only issues that Ukraine asks this Court to decide concern the interpretation or application of these two treaties, whether or not the Court chooses to take the reasoning of other bodies of law into account. Russia’s multiple illegalities cannot immunize its specific treaty violations from judicial review. Nor can this Court decline to take cognizance of the ICSFT and the CERD dimensions of this “dispute merely because that dispute has other [dimensions], however important”.
I. ICSFT
4. Russia’s presentations on the ICSFT offer no coherent vision of the treaty, just a series of arguments constructed to avoid justice. Professor Zimmermann and Mr. Wordsworth never
- 13 -
persuasively answered the questions “who?”, “what?” and “when?”: whose actions are covered by the ICSFT? What acts are forbidden? And when do forbidden acts occur?
5. First, who is covered? My colleagues have fully rebutted Professor Zimmermann’s manifestly false claim that the Terrorism Financing Convention was never intended to address State officials. In effect, he would rewrite the words of Article 2 so that “any person” says “only private persons”. Under the ICSFT, he claims, States are free to finance terrorism, ignoring this Court’s declaration in the Bosnia Genocide case that it would be “paradoxical” to read a treaty that requires States to prevent a serious crime not to also prohibit States from committing that same crime1. Professor Zimmermann falsely claimed that Ukraine initially shared his view, misleadingly quoting my remarks from Provisional Measures. But he conspicuously left out my words from that very same hearing, which said:
“[E]ven assuming direct State responsibility were not implicated, Russia may still be held responsible under the Convention for its failure to prevent any individuals, including those employed by its Government — who under Article 2 plainly constitute ‘any person . . . providing or collecting funds’ for terrorism — from providing financing to armed groups who attack civilians in the eastern Ukraine”2.
6. The Convention’s plain words dictate that if Russia knows that “any person” — whether public or private — is financing terrorism, it must investigate, prosecute and prevent. But Russia does nothing. Incredibly, Russia’s Agent claimed no one knows what happened to MH17, yet to this day Russia fails to co-operate in the investigation. And that investigation shows that members of the Russian military transported the Buk missile launcher into Ukraine and back to Russia again after MH17 was shot down. If Russia knew that “any person” was providing powerful weapons to the people who shot down that plane, it was obliged to take “all practicable measures” to stop them. For a country such as Russia, simply controlling its own borders to block the flow of Buk missiles, Grad rockets and military-grade mines into Ukraine would constitute an eminently “practicable measure”.
7. For his part, Mr. Wordsworth tried to distract you with labels. He repeatedly noted — as if it mattered — that the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic
1 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 113, para. 166.
2 CR 2017/3, p. 19, para. 20 (Koh); emphasis added.
- 14 -
(LPR) are not designated “terrorist organizations”. But this case is not about labels. The ICSFT does not speak in terms of organizations, designated or otherwise. It speaks of acts. As you know, there is much debate about what “terrorism” is and who should be designated on various lists of “terrorist organizations”. But the ICSFT creates an objective standard that focuses on acts that are forbidden by the treaty. The role of this Court is to determine whether such forbidden acts occurred and to apply the law to them.
8. Yesterday, Mr. Wordsworth preferred to talk about anything but this normal judicial task. He said repeatedly that United Nations and OSCE monitors did not label particular acts as “terrorism”. But for this case, that label is irrelevant: under the Convention, whether a third party characterizes an act as “terrorism” or a violation of IHL simply does not matter. It is this Court’s mandate to decide, on the merits, whether acts covered by the treaty were committed, and whether “any person” financed them.
9. Mr. Wordsworth also conflates the questions of “what” and “when”. When there is an “armed conflict”, he said, what atrocities the Ukrainian people have suffered are just a “grim reality” that cannot be “terrorism”3. But the ICSFT targets acts, not situations. Russia flatly ignores the words of Article 2 (1) (b), which define terrorist acts to include those acts “intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict” (emphasis added). So by stressing that a particular situation, an armed conflict, is going on, Mr. Wordsworth proves nothing. The specific acts raised by Ukraine meet the treaty’s definition of terrorist acts, whoever does them and by whatever means.
10. Mr. Wordsworth continues to claim “both sides” are equally responsible for civilian casualties along the contact line4, and this slide is shown on the left side of your screen. But Ukraine is not labelling every civilian casualty as “terrorism”. There simply is no comparison between the terrorist acts at issue here and the Ukrainian armed forces’ efforts to secure Ukrainian territory while striving to minimize civilian casualties. Ukraine has focused on numerous specific acts that meet the legal elements set out in the ICSFT. The fact that there is also an armed conflict
3 CR 2019/9, p. 29, para. 40 (Wordsworth).
4 CR 2019/9, p. 29, para. 40 (Wordsworth).
- 15 -
does not compel us to turn a blind eye to the use of rockets to bombard civilians in residential neighbourhoods away from “hot battlefields”, as are in the starred cities on the right side of your screen. The presence of an administrative recruitment office in Kramatorsk provides no pretext to rain cluster munitions down on a city 50 km from the contact line. As specifically defined by the ICSFT, terrorist acts cover: a civilian plane  shot down from 33,000 ft; a bomb  ripping through a civilian parade in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, far from the conflict; and as Ms Cheek will explain, an attack on a residential, civilian neighbourhood of Mariupol, “outside of the immediate conflict zone”5. How can Ukraine be denied a hearing to prove these treaty violations, on the grounds that  in Mr. Wordsworth’s words  such acts cannot even “plausibly” be considered terrorism?
11. In short, Russia’s advocates seek to construct an artificial reality that has no grounding in the ICSFT. In their imaginary world, Russia’s comprehensive obligation to suppress the financing of terrorism requires only suppression of the private financing of terrorism. During conditions of armed conflict, attacks on innocent civilians to intimidate the population and extract political concessions are somehow not terrorism. The financing of terrorism is allowed so long as the perpetrators of those acts have not yet been officially labelled “terrorist organizations”. And Russian officials are legally free to send lethal missiles across the border to people with well-known track records for killing civilians and intimidating the local population. At the appropriate time, Russia is free to advance this absurd reading, and to try to convince the Court to believe it. But for now, this Court need only conclude the obvious: a dispute plainly exists between the two States parties to the ICSFT concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty, over which this Court must now take jurisdiction and proceed to the merits.
II. CERD
12. In their presentations regarding the CERD, Professors Pellet and Forteau described yet another piece of this fantasy world: one in which Russia is in full compliance with the Convention, because its sweeping pledge to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination in fact requires Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians to tolerate many forms of racial discrimination. In this artificial
5 United Nations, Official Record of the Security Council, 7368th Meeting, UN doc. S/PV.7368, 26 Jan. 2015, statement of Jeffrey Feltman, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, p. 2; MU, Ann. 307.
- 16 -
reality, States injured by racial discrimination must read “or” to mean “and”, watch their populations endure years of racial discrimination, overcome multiple, cumulative obstacles to get their case before this Court, only to be sent back to the CERD Committee to be told their claims were never really about race discrimination at all.
13. Professors Pellet and Forteau weakly deny that Russia’s campaign of cultural erasure in Crimea is taking place. Professor Forteau argued that Avdet, a newspaper that specializes in reporting to the Crimean community, continues to be distributed but he never mentions Avdet was denied re-registration by Russia6, that it now circulates only a fraction of its pre-registration circulation or that its editor has received multiple warnings from the FSB regarding so-called extremist publications7. He also misunderstood that Ukraine’s argument was not that Russia has slashed Crimean language education  as it has done with respect to all Ukrainian education  but rather, that Russia has “russified” the content of Crimean language education.
14. Professor Forteau’s defence seemed to be the CERD allows Russia to engage in such repression in Crimea, so long as it is not “systematic”. He argued that the CERD does not forbid erasure by Russian authorities of the language, culture, and political independence of Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians because not all of these acts of persecution against the Tatars were “based on” race, but rather were motivated by the ethnic group’s political opposition to annexation. But the motives behind Russia’s acts do not matter as authoritative human rights organizations have documented8, Russia has committed racial discrimination, under Article 1 (1) of the CERD, by the act of singling out these ethnic communities for discriminatory treatment, whatever the motive. What matters is not Russia’s motive, it is its singling out, based on ethnicity, that renders the policies and practices described in Ukraine’s submissions “distinctions based on race”, which have the purpose or effect of nullifying those communities’ human rights and fundamental freedoms “in the political . . . field of public life”.
6 MU, para. 1082; RFE/RL, The Editors of the Crimean Tatar Newspaper Are Summoned for Interrogations on Suspicion of Extremism, 3 June 2014 (Ann. 1047).
7 See Notice about the Inadmissibility of Violations of the Law, issued to Shevket Kaybullayev by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, 3 June 2014 (Ann. 891); Official Notice dated 17 Sept. 2014, issued to Shevket Kaybullayev by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Ann. 897).
8 See, e.g. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine (16 August to 15 November 2018), para. 103 (WSU, Ann. 50).
- 17 -
15. Russia’s continuing ban on the Mejlis — in defiance of this Court’s binding Order — illustrates why Russia’s conduct in Crimea constitutes racial discrimination. Professor Forteau spent much of this week telling this Court why it was wrong to grant the provisional measures, an Order that remains as necessary today as it was when it was issued two years ago. But he never mentioned Article 1 (1)’s definition of racial discrimination, instead making the irrelevant claim that the CERD does not specifically protect the collective right of minorities to their own political institutions. For purposes of the CERD, Russia’s singling out the political rights of Crimean Tatars for comprehensive assault, including a ban on the Mejlis, constitutes the distinction based on ethnicity that has the purpose or effect of impairing rights previously enjoyed by that ethnic group, which makes it “racial discrimination” under Article 1 (1).
16. Russia attacks other discrete claims advanced by Ukraine  for example, the right to return to one’s own country, and on the forcing of citizenship  claiming they assert rights not covered by the CERD. Of course, even if these discrete claims dropped from this case, a massive set of violations of the Convention would still remain for decision in the merits phase. Russia wrongly suggests that the CERD’s protections extend only to those human rights that are specifically enumerated in the Convention itself. But the definition of racial discrimination in Article 1 (1) extends to “human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”. As the CERD Committee detailed in General Recommendation No. 20, Article 5 of the CERD guarantees the right to equality before the law with respect to a long and non-exhaustive list of specific rights9.
17. Finally, Article 1 (1)’s text answers those who argue that Ukraine’s CERD claims would open the floodgates to race discrimination. Under Article 1 (1)’s wording, an applicant can raise a CERD violation only when it can show: first, that the government’s distinction is discriminatory; second, that it is based on race, ethnicity or another protected characteristic; third, that it operates with respect to a human right or fundamental freedom; fourth, that it singles out the minority community for unequal access to that right; and fifth, that the distinction has either the purpose or effect not just of marginally burdening, but impairing or nullifying, that minority group’s rights.
9 General Recommendation No. 20: Non-discriminatory implementation of rights and freedoms (Art. 5), 15 March 1996, para. 1 (General Comments).
- 18 -
18. In sum, while claiming to meet its obligations under the CERD in Crimea, Russia has engaged in a campaign of cultural erasure against Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians. This concerted effort includes disappearing, kidnapping, exiling and persecuting Crimean Tatar leaders, disadvantaging Tatar media, and banning the Mejlis, culturally significant Ukrainian gatherings and Ukrainian language schools. Ukraine has substantiated claims that these Russian actions violate five specific provisions of the CERD. And because, as I demonstrated last time, these claims are fully “capable of falling within” those CERD provisions, they fall within the scope of your jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
19. Mr. President, Members of the Court, perhaps the most illuminating aspect of Russia’s presentation is what it revealed about Russia’s broader attitudes toward this Court and rules of international law. There is no clearer example than Russia’s continuing disdain for your Provisional Measures Order regarding the Mejlis. The legal gymnastics you have heard all mask an apparent conviction that the international rules that apply to other nations simply do not apply to Russia. Unlike other nations, Russia can play by its own rules, and do what it wants: even when that is the exact opposite of what its solemn treaty commitments require.
20. But Mr. President, Members of the Court, this is not just about Russian power; innocent Ukrainian lives are at stake. Ukraine asks this Court to invoke its legal authority to protect those lives. Unless this Court acts decisively, innocent Ukrainian civilians will pay the price.
21. That concludes my introduction. My colleague Professor Thouvenin will return to Russia’s misguided approach to these preliminary objections and its artificial narrowing of the ICSFT. Ms Cheek will respond to Russia’s attempts to distort Article 2 of the ICSFT. Mr. Gimblett will rebut Russia’s effort to place its wide-ranging campaign of racial discrimination beyond this Court’s reach. Finally, Ukraine’s Agent, Minister Zerkal will close, reiterating our solemn submission.
22. I thank you. I now ask that you call Professor Thouvenin to the podium.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor Koh and I now give the floor to Professor Thouvenin. Vous avez la parole, monsieur.
- 19 -
M. THOUVENIN : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président.
SUR L’EXCEPTION PRÉLIMINAIRE D’INTERPRÉTATION ET LA NOTION DE «TOUTE PERSONNE»
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, deux questions juridiques divisent les Parties sur la manière dont la Cour devrait aborder sa fonction judiciaire dans le cadre des présentes exceptions préliminaires.
2. La première est de savoir si vous devriez vous pencher sur la plausibilité des faits de terrorisme, financement du terrorisme et de discrimination raciale, allégués par l’Ukraine, pour déterminer l’existence d’un différend relatif aux conventions CIRFT et CERD10. Maître Wordsworth n’a rien apporté de nouveau hier, insistant sur les positions déjà affirmées par la Russie et y renvoyant abondamment11. De son côté le professeur Zimmermann a souligné que l’ordonnance de la Cour de 2017 constate l’existence d’un différend «under the ICSFT as such», ce qui pourrait être vu comme une concession significative de la Partie adverse, qui pour le reste maintient ses positions12.
3. Je ferai quatre brèves observations sur l’exception de plausibilité factuelle à laquelle la Russie arrime toute la présente procédure :
 Premièrement, l’arrêt sur les exceptions préliminaires dans l’affaire de la Licéité de l’emploi de la force à laquelle Me Wordsworth s’accroche vigoureusement ne dit rien qui soutienne sa thèse13, laquelle demeure exclusivement fondée sur la pratique de la Cour agissant comme juge de l’urgence. Or, c’est une erreur de droit, qui plus est élémentaire, que de confondre la procédure d’urgence et les exceptions préliminaires14 ; je note d’ailleurs qu’un avocat de la Russie affiche une opinion sainement dissidente par rapport à ses collègues en refusant de confondre les deux procédures15.
10 CR 2019/9, p. 22–25, par. 14–22 (Wordsworth) ; CR 2019/10, p. 20–23, par. 12–23 (Thouvenin).
11 CR 2019/11, p. 12–18, par. 3–22 (Wordsworth).
12 Ibid., p. 29, par. 19 (Zimmermann).
13 Ibid., p. 14–15, par. 9–10 (Wordsworth) ; CR 2019/9, p. 24, par. 20 (Wordsworth).
14 CR 2019/10, p. 21–23, par. 15–20 (Thouvenin).
15 CR 2019/9, p. 56, par. 11 (Pellet) ; CR 2019/11, p. 39–40, par. 3 (Pellet).
- 20 -
 Deuxièmement, il est, je crois, téméraire d’espérer gagner votre confiance en projetant à l’écran un extrait opportunément tronqué de votre propre ordonnance, comme l’a fait Me Wordsworth hier à propos de ce qu’il appelle la «basic architecture» de la CIRFT. Je n’y consacrerai pas grand-temps. Vous voyez projeté à l’écran ce dont il s’agit : le petit morceau de phrase escamoté change du tout au tout le sens du paragraphe.
«un Etat partie à la convention ne peut se fonder sur l’article 18 pour exiger d’un autre Etat partie qu’il coopère avec lui en vie de prévenir un certain type d’actes que s’il est plausible que les actes en cause puissent constituer des infractions au sens de l’article 2 de la CIRFT».
«a State party to the Convention may rely on Article 18 to require another State party to co-operate with it in the prevention of certain types of acts only if it is plausible that such acts constitute offences under Article 2 of the ICSFT».16
«[D]ans le contexte d’une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, un Etat partie à la convention ne peut se fonder sur l’article 18 pour exiger d’un autre Etat partie qu’il coopère avec lui en vue de prévenir un certain type d’actes que s’il est plausible que les actes en cause puissent constituer des infractions au sens de l’article 2 de la CIRFT.»17
La «basic architecture»  chère à mon contradicteur et qui est le coeur de sa thèse  n’est donc qu’un banal tour de passe-passe d’avocat.
 Troisièmement, la seule «basic architecture» qui vaille en l’espèce est celle de l’article 24 de la convention, qui est la base de compétence invoquée par l’Ukraine  car, faut-il le souligner, ce ne sont ni l’article 18 ni l’article 2 qui sont les bases de compétence, mais l’article 24. Or, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, on ne trouve rien dans cette disposition qui suggère que le consentement à votre compétence serait conditionné à un quelconque test de plausibilité des faits allégués.
 Enfin, quant à l’opinion de Mme la juge Higgins, ce n’est pas la trahir que de rappeler qu’elle postule comme un principe judiciaire cardinal que : «[c]e qui relève de la procédure au fond  et qui demeure intact, sans la moindre altération quand on aborde ainsi la question juridictionnelle , c’est d’établir ce que sont exactement les faits»18 ; or, ce que
16 CR 2019/11, p. 12–13, par. 3 (Wordsworth).
17 Application de la convention internationale pour la répression du financement du terrorisme et de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale (Ukraine c. Fédération de Russie), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 19 avril 2017, C.I.J. Recueil 2017, p. 131, par. 74 ; les italiques sont de nous.
18 Plates-formes pétrolières (République islamique d’Iran c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), exception préliminaire, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1996, opinion individuelle de Mme la juge Higgins, p. 857, par. 34.
- 21 -
Me Wordworth et le professeur Forteau vous demandent, c’est d’affirmer au stade des exceptions préliminaires «ce que sont exactement les faits». Autrement dit, ils vous objurguent de transformer la procédure incidente des exceptions préliminaires prévue à votre Statut en une procédure sommaire de rejet des requêtes qui n’existe pas à votre Statut.
4. Je me bornerai donc à répéter  et je m’en excuse auprès de la Cour, mais ce ne sera pas long : i) que l’exception préliminaire de non-plausibilité des faits forgée par Me Wordsworth, et à laquelle le professeur Forteau a adhéré, pour protéger la Russie du regard des juges sur ses illicéités, ne saurait être admise, ii) que si la Cour s’engageait dans une telle voie, ce serait une première19, et iii) que prendre cette voie serait extrêmement fâcheux. L’Ukraine a pleine confiance en la Cour et sait que ceci ne se produira pas. Je ne prendrai donc pas davantage de votre précieux temps sur ce point.
5. La seconde pomme de discorde porte sur la question de savoir si vous devriez vous livrer dès à présent à l’interprétation définitive des conventions invoquées par l’Ukraine. Je clarifierai notre position à cet égard en prenant pour exemple la convention CIRFT, mais ce qui vaut pour la CIRFT vaut mutatis mutandis pour la CERD. L’Ukraine soutient que :
 premièrement, la Cour n’est pas appelée à interpréter l’article 2 de la CIRFT concernant la définition des actes terroristes ; il n’existe pas d’exception préliminaire d’interprétation ;
 deuxièmement, et à titre subsidiaire, la prétendue exception d’incompétence relative au financement du terrorisme par des agents publics n’est pas exclusivement préliminaire ;
 en tout état de cause et troisièmement, «toute personne» signifie  encore une fois je suis désolé de prendre le temps de la Cour sur des évidences  toute personne.
19 Questions d’interprétation et d’application de la convention de Montréal de 1971 résultant de l’incident aérien de Lockerbie (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne c. Royaume-Uni), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 28-29, par. 50 (citant Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (nouvelle requête : 1962) (Belgique c. Espagne), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1964, p. 41, 46 ; Pajzs, Csáky, Esterházy, arrêt, 1936, C.P.J.I. série A/B no 68, p. 9 ; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), compétence et recevabilité, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 425, par. 76 ; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 31, par. 43 ; Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c. Nigéria), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 322–325, par. 112–117.
- 22 -
I. La Cour n’est pas appelée à interpréter à ce stade l’article 2 de la CIRFT concernant la définition des actes terroristes : inexistence d’une exception préliminaire d’interprétation
6. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, devez-vous à ce stade interpréter, et définitivement, l’article 2 de la convention CIRFT ? La Russie suggère que c’est le cas20 ; l’Ukraine dit que ce n’est pas le bon moment.
7. L’Ukraine considère en effet que l’interprétation d’un traité in limine litis ne s’impose pas pour la seule raison qu’il existe une controverse à cet égard entre les Parties. La notion «d’exception préliminaire d’interprétation», je l’ai déjà dit, n’existe pas. Tout au contraire, en principe, lorsqu’un différend s’est noué à propos de l’interprétation d’un traité, c’est au fond qu’il convient de le résoudre. C’est cette évidence que j’ai rappelée mardi21, et qui a été sommairement critiquée jeudi22.
8. En réalité, l’interprétation des clauses substantielles d’un traité au stade des exceptions préliminaires ne doit être entreprise par la Cour que lorsqu’elle est nécessaire à l’établissement de sa compétence ratione materiae23. Et une telle nécessité s’impose seulement dans le cas, et dans la seule mesure où, au regard du différend tel qu’il est porté devant la Cour, l’établissement de sa compétence pour en connaître est tributaire de cette interprétation.
9. Par contraste, l’interprétation desdites clauses substantielles n’est pas nécessaire au stade préliminaire si, quelle que soit cette interprétation, la compétence ratione materiae devra en tout état de cause être exercée par la Cour. Par exemple, dans les affaires iraniennes, la Cour n’a pas interprété tous les articles du traité de 1955, mais seulement ceux à propos desquels la controverse devait nécessairement être résolue pour déterminer si certaines allégations entraient dans les prévisions du traité.
10. En l’espèce, il n’y a objectivement aucune nécessité de procéder à l’interprétation des conventions litigieuses. Les réponses apportées aux deux questions suivantes conduisent à cette conclusion.
20 CR 2019/11, p. 16–17, par. 14–17 (Wordsworth).
21 CR 2019/10, p. 23, par. 22 (Thouvenin).
22 CR 2019/11, p. 16, par. 15–16 (Wordsworth).
23 Immunités et procédures pénales (Guinée équatoriale c. France), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2018, p. 328, par. 118–119.
- 23 -
11. Première question : quel est le différend ? C’est, par exemple, à déterminer l’objet du différend que la Cour a consacré ses premières analyses dans l’affaire Guinée équatoriale c. France24. Il s’agit d’une étape clef puisque la compétence ratione materiae conduit à se demander si ce différend entre dans les prévisions de la convention.
12. J’ai été conduit à rappeler la substance du différend mardi25. Il entre manifestement dans les prévisions de la convention26. La Russie ne m’a nullement contredit. Pas le moindre mot. Comme dirait le professeur Zimmermann, «it is telling»27. La Russie a bien entendu cherché à pervertir l’objet du différend28, y compris en présentant l’Ukraine comme une vilaine complotiste cherchant à utiliser des portes dérobées («backdoor»)29 et autres «leurres»30 pour, à force de simulacres, faire engager la responsabilité de la Russie à propos de règles que la convention ne contiendrait pas31, ou plus grotesque encore, pour avoir le plaisir de jouer une pièce de théâtre devant vous32.
13. Mais aucun de ces mots ne changera les faits incontestés : le différend porté devant vous concerne la violation des articles 8, 9, 10, 12 et 18 de la convention CIRFT33 par la Russie.
14. Deuxième question : ce différend entre-t-il dans les prévisions de la convention invoquée, ou bien pourrait-il ne pas y entrer, selon l’interprétation que la Cour retiendrait des dispositions contestées ? Cette question est tout aussi importante que la première, car ce n’est que dans la seconde hypothèse que la Cour devrait procéder immédiatement à l’interprétation des dispositions disputées. Votre pratique confirme cette saine méthodologie. Dans l’affaire Guinée équatoriale c. France, la Cour a procédé à l’interprétation de l’article 4 de la convention de Palerme uniquement parce que l’interprétation qu’elle devait retenir conditionnait l’existence ou
24 Immunités et procédures pénales (Guinée équatoriale c. France), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2018, p. 308-317, par. 48–73.
25 CR 2019/10, p. 16–20, par. 4–10 (Thouvenin).
26 Ibid.
27 CR 2019/11, p. 34, par. 23 (Zimmermann).
28 CR 2019/9, p. 24, par. 20 (Wordsworth) ; voir aussi, par exemple, EPR, par. 175–184.
29 CR 2019/9, p. 37, par. 4 (Zimmermann).
30 Ibid., p. 54, par. 7 (Pellet) ; voir aussi ibid., p. 65, par. 35 (Pellet).
31 Ibid., p. 37, par. 4 et 6 (Zimmermann), p. 39, par. 20 (Zimmermann).
32 CR 2019/11, p. 47, par. 27 (Pellet).
33 CR 2019/10, p. 17–19, par. 9 (Thouvenin) ; MU, par. 653.
- 24 -
non de sa compétence pour connaître des allégations du demandeur relatives à la violation des immunités de l’Etat34. Dans l’affaire relative à Certains actifs iraniens, la Cour a procédé à l’interprétation des articles du traité qui, selon le demandeur, incorporaient les règles relatives à l’immunité de l’Etat, précisément parce que les allégations du demandeur portaient pour une part sur la violation des immunités de l’Iran35 et que le défendeur soutenait que ces dispositions n’incorporaient pas les règles sur les immunités de l’Etat. La même logique est à l’oeuvre dans les autres affaires où la Cour a été conduite à interpréter des clauses substantielles de traités au stade de la vérification de sa compétence.
15. Or, ce qui est tout à fait remarquable dans la présente espèce, est que le défendeur ne fait pas valoir, ni ne démontre, que son interprétation de l’article 2 priverait la Cour de sa compétence ratione materiae. Ce que la Russie persiste à prétendre est que les preuves avancées par l’Ukraine, pas les faits allégués, pas les allégations, les preuves de ces allégations, ne permettraient pas de considérer que ces faits sont établis de manière plausible36. Ceci ne saurait justifier une quelconque nécessité pour la Cour d’interpréter l’article 2 de la convention à ce stade. Comme Me Cheek l’a indiqué mardi sans être contredite37, et pour reprendre les termes du paragraphe 186 des observations écrites de l’Ukraine, elles-mêmes restées sans réponse :
«[L]es arguments que la Russie tire de l’interprétation des traités demeurent pour l’essentiel purement théoriques, puisque les allégations factuelles de l’Ukraine satisfont même à ces interprétations exagérément restrictives.»38
16. La Cour n’est pas confrontée à la nécessité d’interpréter l’article 2 à ce stade afin d’établir sa compétence ratione materiae, cette dernière étant établie indépendamment du point de savoir si c’est l’interprétation de la Russie, ou celle de l’Ukraine, qui est correcte. Le raisonnement que je viens d’esquisser vaut tout autant s’agissant de la CERD mutatis mutandis.
34 Immunités et procédures pénales (Guinée équatoriale c. France), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2018, p. 319, par. 84–85.
35 Certains actifs iraniens (République islamique d’Iran c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt du 13 février 2019, par. 52–80.
36 CR 2019/9, p. 25–26, par. 23 et 28 (Wordsworth), p. 29, par. 36 et 38 (Wordsworth), p. 34, par. 52–54 (Wordsworth).
37 CR 2019/10, p. 32, par. 11 (Cheek).
38 EEU, par. 186.
- 25 -
II. L’exception relative aux agents publics n’est pas exclusivement préliminaire
17. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, à titre subsidiaire, et en tout état de cause, l’Ukraine maintient que l’exception relative aux agents publics n’est pas exclusivement préliminaire39. Avant d’y revenir brièvement, je relève que le professeur Zimmermann a bien voulu confirmer jeudi que «Russia’s objection relates exclusively to a pure question of law»40, ce qui confirme que l’exception préliminaire qu’il défend est une «exception préliminaire d’interprétation», ce qui n’existe tout simplement pas dans la pratique de la Cour.
18. Pour en venir à cette exception relative aux agents publics, je rappelle que ce que l’Ukraine reproche à la Russie est de n’avoir rien fait pour prévenir le financement d’actes terroristes commis par des «personnes». Parmi ces personnes, certaines exercent des emplois publics, mais ce n’est aucunement parce qu’ils sont fonctionnaires que leurs actes ont été dénoncés par l’Ukraine à la Russie afin qu’elle agisse conformément à la convention. L’analogie proposée par mon contradicteur avec l’affaire du Génocide en Bosnie est donc erronée puisque, dans cette affaire, l’allégation fondamentale portait sur la commission du génocide par la Serbie41.
19. L’argument russe relatif au fait que certaines personnes seraient exclues du champ de préoccupation de la convention n’est donc rien d’autre qu’une défense au fond. Du reste, la Cour constatera que le défendeur n’a même pas tenté de définir ce qu’il entend par «State officials». La traduction du Greffe retient les termes «représentants de l’Etat»42. Mais qu’est-ce que cela veut dire exactement ? Le Greffe n’a pas à se prononcer là-dessus ; c’est la Russie qui devrait proposer une interprétation. Elle ne le dit pas. Or, faute de cette précision élémentaire, on voit mal comment la Cour pourrait entrer, à ce stade, dans de telles considérations.
III. En tout état de cause, les agents publics ne sont pas exclus du champ de préoccupation de la convention
20. En tout état de cause, les agents publics ne sont pas exclus du champ de préoccupation de la convention.
39 CR 2019/10, p. 25–26, par. 30–32 (Thouvenin) ; p. 31, par. 5–8 (Cheek).
40 CR 2019/11, p. 30, par. 9 (Zimmermann) ; voir aussi CR 2019/11, p. 31, par. 11 (Zimmermann).
41 CR 2019/11, p. 31, par. 10 (Zimmermann).
42 Voir, par exemple, EEU, par. 112 [traduction du Greffe].
- 26 -
21. Sans répéter ce qui a déjà été dit, quatre observations pourront, je l’espère, éclairer les délibérations de la Cour, si tant est, quod non, que la Cour devait entrer dans ces considérations à ce stade préliminaire.
22. Premièrement, la Russie s’attache à ce que, selon elle, la convention ne dit pas. Et d’en inférer que «sub silentio», ce qui n’est pas expressément dit doit être considéré comme exclu43. Mais la convention n’est pas silencieuse puisqu’elle mentionne «toute personne»44. Sur cela, c’est-à-dire sur le texte de la convention, il y a un silence, révélateur, de la Russie, qui ne s’y intéresse que pour en pervertir le sens, comme pour ce qui concerne l’article 5 qui ne contredit nullement le sens ordinaire qu’il convient de reconnaître aux termes «toute personne»45, contrairement à ce qui a été dit hier, mais se borne à préciser comment l’infraction s’applique aux personnes morales, simplement parce que, s’agissant des personnes morales, cela ne va pas de soi.
23. La Russie préfère regarder ce qui est dit dans d’autres conventions, et soutient que, comme c’est le cas dans ces autres conventions qui visent expressément les agents publics, si ces derniers avaient été visés au titre de l’article 2, la CIRFT l’aurait expressément indiqué46. Mais la convention sur la torture limite la torture qu’elle vise à des actes commis par des fonctionnaires ou des personnes agissant à titre officiel47, et devait donc les viser expressément. Quant à la Convention sur le génocide, elle utilise une terminologie différente de la CIRFT.
24. Par contraste, la convention internationale pour la répression des attentats terroristes à l’explosif adoptée seulement deux ans avant la CIRFT vise «toute personne» à son article 2, paragraphe 1, et exclut expressément à son article 19 les faits commis par les forces armées opérant dans certaines conditions. Cet article 19 n’aurait aucun sens si «toute personne» signifiait «toute personne privée» seulement, comme le prétend avec insistance le défendeur. En outre, la pratique abondante s’agissant des conventions plus récentes prévoyant une obligation de prévention démontre que lorsqu’une catégorie relevant de la sphère publique doit être exclue de l’obligation de
43 CR 2019/9, p. 39, par. 21 (Zimmermann) ; CR 2019/11, p. 30, par. 6 (Zimmermann).
44 CR 2019/10, p. 26–28, par. 33–42 (Thouvenin).
45 CR 2019/11, p. 33, par. 18–20 (Zimmermann).
46 CR 2019/9, p. 38, par. 15 (Zimmermann), p. 40, par. 24 (Zimmermann), p. 42, par. 33 (Zimmermann) ; CR 2019/11, p. 30, par. 6 (Zimmermann) ; p. 35, par. 29 (Zimmermann).
47 CR 2019/9, p. 43, par. 41 (Zimmermann).
- 27 -
prévention, elle l’est expressément48. Le traité sur le commerce des armes, évoqué hier49, va dans ce même sens puisque son article 2, paragraphe 3, exclut expressément de son champ d’application le «transport international par tout État Partie ou pour son compte d’armes classiques destinées à son usage, pour autant que ces armes restent sa propriété»50.
25. Quant à la convention SUA51, je confirme l’interprétation que j’en ai donnée mardi52. Du reste, c’est parce que la France, le Royaume-Uni, et les Etats-Unis en font la même lecture qu’ils ont introduit une «saving clause» dans le texte du protocole de 2005. Je lis le rapport du Sénat français sur cette «savings clause», rapport qui est publiquement accessible et reproduit à l’onglet no 32 du dossier des juges :
«La France, le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis ont veillé à ce que figure dans cet article 3 bis une clause de sauvegarde (dite «saving clause») … introduite pour deux raisons :
 … l’article 3 bis de la convention SUA 2005 prévoit que «commet une infraction … toute personne qui…» … Cette formulation générale risquait donc d’incriminer des activités effectuées par des États».
 … l’article 3 bis, paragraphe 1, indique que «commet une infraction … toute personne qui … cette formulation risquait d’incriminer des transferts effectués par des États»»53.
26. Deuxièmement, mon contradicteur a fait valoir lundi que si les fonctionnaires étaient visés par la CIRFT, cette dernière aurait dû prévoir que l’ordre d’un supérieur ne saurait justifier un crime de financement du terrorisme54. C’est l’exception de l’ordre du supérieur dont il est question. Mais c’est très exactement le principe inverse que la CIRFT a entendu faire prévaloir, car le démantèlement des réseaux de financement du terrorisme exige souvent de recourir à des agents
48 Convention de Londres sur la prévention de la pollution des mers résultant de l’immersion des déchets de 1972, art. VII, 4 ; voir aussi convention internationale pour la prévention de la pollution des eaux de la mer par les hydrocarbures de 1954, art. II, d) ; convention concernant la prévention des accidents du travail des gens de mer de 1970, art. 1.1.
49 CR 2019/11, p. 36, par. 35–36 (Zimmermann).
50 Traité sur le commerce des armes de 2003, art. 2 3).
51 CR 2019/11, p. 33–34, par. 21–25 (Zimmermann).
52 CR 2019/10, p. 28, par. 40 (Thouvenin).
53 République française, Sénat, session ordinaire de 2016-2017, no 549, projet de loi autorisant la ratification du protocole relatif à la convention pour la répression d’actes illicites contra la sécurité de la navigation maritime et du protocole relatif au protocole pour la répression d'actes illicites contre la sécurité des plates-formes fixes situées sur la plateau continental (10 mai 2017), accessible à l’adresse : https://www.senat.fr/leg/pjl16-549.html.
54 CR 2019/9, p. 40, par. 25–26 (Zimmermann).
- 28 -
infiltrés, lesquels sont conduits à participer, pour les besoins de l’infiltration, au financement du terrorisme55. Comme l’indique le guide établi par le secrétariat du Commonwealth — que j’ai évoqué mardi dernier — durant les négociations : «it was agreed to include «unlawfully» since undercover police might wish to give money to suspected terrorists as part of a plan to infiltrate them»56.
27. Troisièmement, et dernièrement, mon contradicteur vous a entraînés dans une lecture parfaitement erronée de l’arrêt rendu par votre Cour dans l’affaire du Génocide en Bosnie57, pour lui faire dire que l’obligation de prévention qui pèse sur les Etats ne peut concerner que les personnes privées, tandis que ce serait la seule obligation de ne pas commettre qui pèserait sur les Etats eux-mêmes et leurs fonctionnaires58.
28. C’est un argument clef de la thèse russe, déjà développé dans ses écritures59, allégué lundi60, et à nouveau mis en avant jeudi61. Il vise à vous convaincre.
Le PRESIDENT : Excusez-moi, Monsieur le professeur, il semble qu’il n’y a pas d’interprétation en anglais. Peut-être que nous avons un problème technique.
M. THOUVENIN : Je le décompte de mon temps de parole, si vous le permettez.
Le PRESIDENT : Vous pouvez le faire.
M. THOUVENIN : Dois-je faire un essai ?
Le PRESIDENT : Très bien, essayons de nouveau.
55 UNODC, Recueil de cas sur les affaires de terrorisme (2010), p. 39–40, par. 92, accessible à l’adresse : https://www.unodc.org/documents/terrorism/Digest_French.pdf.
56 Secrétariat du Commonwealth, Implementation Kits for the International Counter-Terrorism Conventions, p. 268, par. 9, accessible à l’adresse : http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/key_reform_pdfs/Implemen… %20Kits%20for%20Terrorism%20Conventions_0.pdf.
57 CR 2019/9, p. 41, par. 28–30 (Zimmermann).
58 Ibid., p. 41, par. 31 (Zimmermann).
59 EPR, par. 213–214.
60 CR 2019/9, p. 41, par. 31 (Zimmermann).
61 CR 2019/11, p. 30, par. 5 (Zimmermann).
- 29 -
M. THOUVENIN : Monsieur le président, puis-je continuer ? La traduction est-elle simultanée ?
Le PRESIDENT : Oui. Allez-y.
M. THOUVENIN : Où en étais-je ? Oui, l’affaire du Génocide en Bosnie. Mon contradicteur vous a donc expliqué une série de choses à propos de cet arrêt, à propos de l’obligation de prévention qui ne pourrait pas concerner les agents de l’Etat, lesquels seraient couverts par l’obligation de ne pas commettre qui pèse sur l’Etat. Et, selon mon contradicteur, l’arrêt de la Cour confirmerait cette thèse. Clef de voûte de la thèse russe, développée à de multiples reprises et qui vise à vous convaincre que dans le contexte de l’article 18 de la convention, qui pose une obligation de prévention, la notion de «toute personne» ne saurait viser des agents de l’Etat. On s’est plaint que je n’en dise rien. Je ne voulais pas être cruel, mais puisqu’on m’y enjoint.
29. Il est vrai que, comme le rappelle le professeur Zimmermann, dans son arrêt la Cour a vérifié d’abord si la Serbie était responsable d’actes génocidaires commis par ses organes, puis s’est tournée vers la question de savoir si la Serbie avait respecté son obligation de prévention d’actes génocidaires commis par d’autres personnes62. Mais il est grossièrement inexact d’en inférer que la Cour pourrait considérer que l’obligation de prévention ne peut concerner que d’autres personnes que les agents de l’Etat.
30. Il suffit de lire ce que dit expressément la Cour pour constater qu’elle a dit exactement l’inverse.
«Si, en effet, un Etat est reconnu responsable d’un acte de génocide (en raison de ce que cet acte a été commis par une personne ou un organe dont le comportement lui est attribuable) ou de l’un des autres actes visés à l’article III de la Convention (pour la même raison), la question de savoir s’il a respecté son obligation de prévention au regard des mêmes faits se trouve dépourvue d’objet, car un Etat ne saurait, par construction logique, avoir satisfait à l’obligation de prévenir un génocide auquel il aurait activement participé.»63
31. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, si un Etat ne peut pas, par construction logique, avoir satisfait à l’obligation de prévenir un génocide, auquel il aurait
62 CR 2019/9, p. 41, par. 29 (Zimmermann).
63 Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Serbie-et-Monténégro), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I), p. 201, par. 382 ; les italiques sont de nous.
- 30 -
activement participé, par le biais de ses organes, c’est, et c’est seulement, parce que l’obligation de prévention s’applique à ses organes, et pas seulement aux personnes privées. L’affaire du Génocide en Bosnie contredit donc cruellement la thèse centrale de mon contradicteur.
32. Trois points de conclusion, Monsieur le président :
 premièrement, l’exception préliminaire de plausibilité des faits forgée par la Russie n’existe pas en droit international ; pas davantage que l’exception préliminaire d’interprétation. Puisque l’exception préliminaire de la Russie n’est composée que de ces deux allégations, l’Ukraine soutient qu’elle devrait être rejetée ;
 deuxièmement, à titre subsidiaire, l’Ukraine soutient que l’exception relative aux agents publics n’est, a minima, pas exclusivement préliminaire ;
 troisièmement, si la Cour voulait absolument interpréter les termes «toute personne», l’Ukraine soutient que la Cour devrait leur donner leur sens ordinaire.
33. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de votre patiente attention et vous demande de bien vouloir appeler à la barre Me Cheek.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor Thouvenin and I will now give the floor to Ms Marney Cheek. You have the floor, Madam.
Ms CHEEK:
THE OFFENCE OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM UNDER ICSFT ARTICLE 2
I. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court. I have two tasks this morning. First, I will respond to Russia’s arguments on the interpretation of Article 2 of the ICSFT. Second, I will demonstrate, contrary to Russia’s contentions yesterday, that Ukraine has pled facts that plausibly satisfy the definition of a terrorism financing offence under Article 2.
- 31 -
II. Interpretation of Article 2 of the ICSFT
A. ICSFT 2 (1): Financier’s knowledge
2. I will start with the knowledge requirement under Article 2 (1), that is, that a person “provides or collects funds . . . in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out” a terrorist act.
3. Russia admitted yesterday that Article 2 (1) does not require knowledge that specific funds will be used for specific terrorist acts64. Instead, it appears to embrace a quote by Finnish ICSFT negotiator Marja Lehto that “the financing of a group which has notoriously committed terrorist acts would meet the requirements of paragraph 1” of Article 265. Russia states that if Ukraine agrees with Ms Lehto, then the only way to establish knowledge is if the groups which committed the terrorist acts have been labelled as terrorist organizations by the United Nations or others66. But this misses the point.
4. Mr. Wordsworth made two errors. First, Russia apparently agrees with Ukraine that this is one way to establish knowledge under Article 2 (1), but Russia goes further and suggests that it is the only way. That is not what Ms Lehto says, and Ukraine agrees with Ms Lehto, not with Russia.
5. Second, Mr. Wordsworth says that, if the DPR and LPR have not been labelled as terrorist organizations, Ukraine “cannot state a plausible case that the DPR and LPR have notoriously committed terrorist acts”67. But Ms Lehto’s statement  and more importantly, Article 2 itself  does not focus on labels or designations. What matters is the acts themselves.
6. And what is a notorious act? It is an act that is well known. In Ukraine and in Russia especially, the torture and killing of Mr. Rybak as punishment for raising the Ukrainian flag over his town hall was covered by multiple news outlets68. When a self-proclaimed DPR leader says that civilians are targets and that “the goal is to ‘immerse them in horror’”, and this is reported by the
64 CR 2019/11, pp. 18-19, para. 26 (Wordsworth).
65 Marja Lehto, Indirect Responsibility for Terrorist Acts (2009), p. 289 (MU, Ann. 490).
66 CR 2019/11, pp. 18-19, paras. 26-28 (Wordsworth).
67 CR 2019/11, p. 19, para. 28 (Wordsworth).
68 See, e.g. MKRU, SBU: “‘People’s Mayor’ Slavyansk discussed with an Officer of the GRU RF how to get rid of Deputy Rybak’s corpse” (24 April 2014) (MU, Ann. 509); “Ukrainian Deputy Rybak was tortured and then drowned”, MKRU (23 Apr. 2014) (MU, Ann. 508); “Leaders of the Outrages of the DNR”, Tatyana Popova, Ukrainska Pravda (23 Sept. 2014) (MU, Ann. 544); “Terrorist Shot a Resident of Donetsk Region in front of his Family”, Unian (18 May 2014) (MU, Ann. 516).
- 32 -
United Nations Human Rights Chief, that is notorious69. The shelling of a civilian checkpoint with Grad rockets, which the OSCE reported on and a United Nations Security Council statement condemned, was similarly well known70. That is particularly true in the immediate aftermath of the attack  which is when more Grad rockets were supplied for use against the people of Mariupol. And shortly after that attack, amidst an intense period of international diplomacy, another devastating attack on Kramatorsk. All well known71. Perhaps not in every State capital, but certainly well known in Moscow and Kyiv and the cities in between. The fact that the groups carrying out these notorious acts do not carry an international label of terrorist organization is beside the point.
7. Article 2 (1) does not mention designation. It focuses on knowledge that funds are to be used to commit acts of terrorism. And the broader context of Article 2 (1) is relevant to the interpretation of the knowledge requirement, where the text reflects that the funds provided are to be used “in full or in part”. This context was important in the negotiations of the Convention.
8. A working document prepared by France, for example, explained that “[t]his convention is aimed both at ‘those who give orders’, who are aware of the use of the funds, and contributors, who are aware of the terrorist nature of the aims and objectives of the whole or part of the association which they support with their donations in cash or in kind”72.
9. Returning to Ms Lehto, she has observed that it was “recurrently mentioned in the negotiations” that the required knowledge under Article 2 would be met by “the funding of an organisation that carries out multiple activities of a political and social as well as military nature,
69 OHCHR, “Intensified Fighting Putting at Risk Lives of People in Donetsk and Luhansk”, Pillay (4 July 2014) (Ann. 295).
70 United Nations Security Council, Security Council Press Statement on “Killing of Bus Passengers in Donetsk Region, Ukraine” (13 Jan. 2015) (MU, Ann. 305).
71 See also, e.g. Maddie Smith, “Ten Civilians Killed in Ukrainian Bus Attack as Donetsk Airport Control Tower is Destroyed”, VICE (13 Jan. 2015) (MU, Ann. 552); United Nations Security Council, Security Council Press Statement on Killing of Bus Passengers in Donetsk Region, Ukraine (13 Jan. 2015) (MU, Ann. 305); Human Rights Watch, Ukraine: “Rising Civilian Death Toll” (3 Feb. 2015) (MU, Ann. 1108); “Mariupol Recovers after Shelling”, Viktoria Savitskaya, LB.ua (24 Jan. 2015) (MU, Ann. 556); “Ukraine Rebels Announce New Offensive as Rockets Kill 30”, Oleksandr Stashevsky and Dmitry Zaks, AFP (24 Jan. 2015) (MU, Ann. 555); “Avdiivka, Evacuating Again as Fighting Escalates”, John Wendle, Al Jazeera (8 Feb. 2017) (MU, Ann. 594); “Avdiivka Civilians Caught in Crossfire as Clashes Rage”, Al Jazeera (5 Feb. 2017) (MU, Ann. 593); International Partnership for Human Rights, Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure in Eastern Ukraine, (2017) (MU, Ann. 454); United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, 7876th Meeting, document S/PV.7876 (2 Feb. 2017) (MU, Ann. 315).
72 France, Working Document: “Why an International Convention Against the Financing of Terrorism?”; later reproduced as UN doc. A/AC.252/L.7/Add.1 (March 11, 1999), p. 2, para. 5 (MU, Ann. 275).
- 33 -
and where it may not be possible for the financier to make a distinction between the different possible end uses”73.
10. And that makes perfect sense because a financier can fund terrorism directly, by directly providing a bomb, or indirectly, by freeing up money that was originally committed towards other things but now can be used to buy a bomb.
11. Mr. Wordsworth yesterday kept repeating the phrase “actual knowledge” with regard to the knowledge requirement in Article 2 (1)74. The word “actual” is not referred to in the Convention. The only source where it is used is an IMF handbook which has no citations to support the proposition, and it is a source which Russia introduced into the record in this case only on Monday.
12. I presume that Mr. Wordsworth likes the language of the IMF handbook, as opposed to the language of the ICSFT, because he wishes to argue for the highest degree of knowledge. And that is Russia’s strategy overall  every element must be interpreted as the highest possible bar, whether or not there is good support for that interpretation.
13. Further, contrary to Mr. Wordsworth’s suggestion, the lack of an explicit reference to “nature or context” in Article 2 (1) does not suggest that the drafters of the Convention meant to contravene the widely accepted principle that knowledge is usually proved by the circumstances75. Article 2 (1) (b) refers to acts committed by someone other than the perpetrator of the financing offence. And in that situation, it was important to establish an objective standard for evaluating the third party’s purpose, thus an express reference to nature or context.
14. The long and short of it is that there is international consensus as to how to interpret the knowledge requirement in Article 2 (1), and it does not support Mr. Wordsworth’s heightened standard. The agencies and governments that are directly involved in the implementation and
73 Marja Lehto, Indirect Responsibility for Terrorist Acts (2009), p. 293 (MU, Ann. 490).
74 See, e.g. CR 2019/9, p. 27, para. 30 (Wordsworth); CR 2019/11, p. 18, para. 25 (Wordsworth).
75 See WSU, para. 211 and fn. 368; International Military Tribunal, United States of America v. Alstötter, et al. (“The Justice Case”), Law Reports of Trials of War Crimes, Vol. 3 (1951), pp. 1080–81; Prosecutor v. Tadić, ICTY case No. IT-94-1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment (May 7, 1997), paras. 656–57; see also Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., ICTY case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment (2 Nov. 2001), para. 324; International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes (2011), p. 1, para. 3.
- 34 -
application of the Convention do not operate as if Mr. Wordsworth’s heightened standard were the law.
15. Instead, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) advises that “the offence [of] implementing the Convention must also punish provision or collection of funds with the knowledge and willing acceptance of the possibility that they may be used for terrorist acts”76.
16. Similarly, the Commonwealth Implementation Kit77 defines the requirement this way: every person who provides or collects funds “with the intention that they should be used, or having reasonable grounds to believe that they are to be used, in full or in part”78.
17. The Supreme Court of Denmark has held that knowing financing of terrorism was established where the perpetrators were “aware” that the funded groups were committing covered terrorist acts79.
18. Similarly, US courts have held that “[a]nyone who knowingly contributes to the nonviolent wing of an organization that he knows to engage in terrorism is knowingly contributing to the organization’s terrorist activities”80.
19. Ultimately, Mr. Wordsworth’s reasoning yesterday was circular. After making his various points, he conceded that Ukraine’s knowledge argument, and I quote, “essentially come[s] back to the question of whether events such as the shooting down of Flight MH17 and the shelling incidents were acts of terrorism, such that providing funds to those organizations would be financing a group that engage[s] in terrorist acts”81. That is not Ukraine’s only knowledge argument, but Ukraine does agree that that is a perfectly valid way of establishing knowledge. Ukraine also would include the well-known incidents of torturing and killing civilians that pre-dated the shoot down of MH17 and the shelling attacks. And, at the risk of repeating myself, Russia
76 UNODC, Legislative Guide to the Universal Legal Regime Against Terrorism (2008), p. 31 (MU, Ann. 285) (judges’ folder, tab 11).
77 CR 2019/11, p. 33, para. 20 (Zimmermann).
78 Commonwealth Secretariat, Implementation Kits for the International Counter Terrorism Conventions, pp. 292-293, publicly available at http://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/key_reform_pdfs/Implemen… Kits%20for%20Terrorism%20Conventions_0.pdf.
79 Fighters and Lovers Case, Case 399/2008 (Sup. Ct., Den., 25 Mar. 2009), p. 2 (MU, Ann. 476) (judges’ folder, tab 12).
80 Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d, pp. 685 and 698 (7th Cir. 2008) (MU, Ann. 474) (judges’ folder, tab 12).
81 CR 2019/11, p. 20, para. 31 (Wordsworth).
- 35 -
has not challenged the facts alleged by Ukraine which establish knowledge on the basis of these and other incidents. Thus, Mr. Wordsworth ultimately confesses that Russia has no stand-alone knowledge argument; its argument depends on the Court accepting his argument that there were no underlying acts of terrorism.
20. So what we are left with is a question of fact. If the well-known killings of civilians by DPR and LPR fighters were acts of terrorism as defined by the Convention, then those who contributed to the DPR and LPR knew they were making contributions that would fund terrorist acts.
B. ICSFT Article 2 (1) (a): the Bombings Convention and the Montreal Convention
21. With regard to the Bombings Convention, Russia acknowledges that the Parties do not have an interpretive dispute82. And despite all its creativity, it has come up with no argument to challenge the facts of these bombings, or their knowing financing. Yesterday Russia, for the first time in these proceedings83, said that it asked Ukraine for additional evidence of the bombings in Kharkiv in diplomatic correspondence that preceded this case. Russia has never made an objection that negotiations on this issue were somehow not sufficient. Russia essentially concedes that all claims related to the financing of terrorist bombings will proceed to the merits.
22. Mr. Wordsworth did return to the Montreal Convention, but his attempt to find support for the proposition that the word “civilian” should be read into Article 1 (1) (b) of the Montreal Convention fails.
23. Mr. Wordsworth suggested that the ILC commentary on the Internationally Protected Persons Convention (hereinafter “IPP Convention”) somehow proves that the Montreal Convention drafters meant to require intent as to the civilian status of the aircraft destroyed84. As you can see on your screen, the language of the two conventions is different. Article 2 (1) of the IPP Convention includes the status of the victim in the definition of the offence85. As I previously
82 CR 2019/11, p. 28, para. 63 (Wordsworth).
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., p. 22, paras. 40-41 (Wordsworth).
85 Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents, Art. 2 (1), 14 Dec. 1973, United Nations, Treaty Series (UNTS), Vol. 1035, p. 167.
- 36 -
explained, the Montreal Convention does not. And in fact, despite this difference, States parties to the IPP Convention have treated status of the victim as a jurisdictional requirement, not part of the mens rea86. That conclusion is only more compelling for the Montreal Convention.
C. ICSFT Article 2 (1) (b): “act intended to cause”
24. Let me now turn to Article 2 (1) (b). The best reading of the “act intended to cause” requirement is that it is not a mental element at all.
25. But again reaching for the highest bar possible, Mr. Wordsworth urged you to interpret “act intended to cause” as a requirement of “specific intent”, or dolus specialis87. He said that under this standard, “desire” to kill civilians must be proved88. The basis of this argument is an analogy to the Genocide Convention89.
26. But Mr. Wordsworth ignored two critical differences between the ICSFT and the Genocide Convention.
27. First, Article 2 of the Genocide Convention is written to create a subjective mental element: “committed with intent”. In French, “dans l’intention”90.
28. By contrast, Article 2 (1) (b) of the ICSFT is written objectively: “act intended to cause”. In French, “acte destiné à”.
29. In fact, when the Genocide Convention was negotiated, the Soviet delegation proposed to change the language of Article 2 to make it objective, and that proposal was rejected. But that objective language that did not make it into the Genocide Convention is reflected in Article 2 (1) (b) of the ICSFT91.
30. Second, and importantly, the Genocide Convention requires intention to destroy a group “as such”. Mr. Wordsworth did not mention those words. But they are critical. This Court
86 MU, para. 222.
87 CR 2019/9, p. 32, paras. 45-46 (Wordsworth); CR 2019/11, p. 24, para. 48 (Wordsworth).
88 CR 2019/9, p. 31, para. 44. (Wordsworth).
89 Ibid., para. 46 (Wordsworth).
90 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 Dec. 1948, UNTS, Vol. 78, p. 277, Art. II (authentic English and French texts).
91 See WSU, para. 228; Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, 73rd Meeting, Continuation of the Consideration of the Draft Convention on Genocide: Report of the Economic and Social Council, UN doc. A/C.6/SR.73 (1948), p. 95 (emphasis added) (WSU, Ann. 1).
- 37 -
emphasized the words “as such” in the Bosnian Genocide case when concluding that genocide must be committed with specific intent92.
31. The ICTR has likewise stated that genocide is a “specific intent” crime because “[t]he ‘destroying’ has to be directed at the group as such”93.
32. The basic point is this: “act intended to cause” is objective, which makes sense, because it refers to the act of a third party, not the Article 2 perpetrator. And even if it were a mental element, “intent” would include the normal direct and indirect degrees, just like it does in international tribunals, and just like it does in Russia.
D. ICSFT Article 2 (1) (b): purpose of act, by nature or context, to intimidate or compel government action
33. There is little more to say about the “purpose to intimidate” language of Article 2 (1) (b). The Convention says this is to be evaluated based on the “nature or context”. The cases Ukraine cites, which Mr. Wordsworth attempts to distinguish, confirm that purpose to intimidate is heavily fact-specific. This is simply not the type of inquiry that should be performed at the preliminary objections phase of the case.
III. Ukraine has put forward facts that meet the elements of an Article 2 offence
34. Let me now turn to the factual evidence. Mr. Wordsworth made much of the fact that there is an armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, but as Professor Koh already noted, Article 2 (1) (b) makes plain that covered acts may occur in “situations of armed conflict”.
35. This is not just Ukraine’s view. International and regional courts, such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and the European Court of Justice, have interpreted Article 2 (1) (b) terrorist acts to apply in armed conflict, and have observed that these acts may qualify as both a violation of IHL and an act of terrorism94.
92 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 121, para. 187.
93 Prosecutor v. Kayishema & Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, Judgement of 21 May 1999, para. 99 (emphasis in the original).
94 Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Case No. STL-11-01, Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, pp. 70-71, para. 108 (STL, 16 Feb. 2011) (MU, Ann. 469); Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) v. Council of the European Union, Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition), T-208/11, p. 5 (16 Oct. 2014) (MU, Ann. 471).
- 38 -
36. The Agent for Russia is wrong when he asserts that “[o]n Ukraine’s case, any time an armed group or, indeed, an army violates rules of international humanitarian law, it engages in terrorism”95. That is not Ukraine’s case.
37. Before moving on, let me briefly comment on Russia’s suggestion that the acts of terrorism by those affiliated with the DPR and LPR cannot possibly qualify as terrorism because Ukraine has engaged in similar acts. That is a brazen assertion, with no evidence presented by Russia to support it.
38. Mr. Wordsworth points to a shelling incident involving a checkpoint at Olenivka and said that “Ukraine uses the same types of munitions in the same types of circumstance leading to more, not less, civilian casualties”96. This is false.
39. It is false that this attack involved the “same type[] of munitions[.]” The Olenivka checkpoint was attacked using 122-mm artillery guns97. General Brown explains that this is a much more precise weapon than the BM-21 Grad fired at the Volnovakha checkpoint98.
40. It is also false that the attack involved “the same type[] of circumstances”. The OSCE found DPR “firing positions” in the close vicinity of the Olenivka checkpoint99. There were no such firing positions in the vicinity of the Volnovakha checkpoint, which operated as a de facto civilian border crossing, and was attacked midday when traffic was known to be particularly heavy100.
41. Finally, you heard from Mr. Wordsworth yesterday, and not for the first time, that “it appears inconceivable that Ukraine would have agreed to . . . amnesty if it considered the events at Volnovakha, Mariupol and Kramatorsk to have been even plausibly ‘terrorist’ acts”101. It appears that Mr. Wordsworth may not have all of the facts because Ukraine has not granted amnesty to
95 CR 2019/11, p. 60, para. 12 (Lobach).
96 CR 2019/9, p. 34, para. 53 (Wordsworth); emphasis in the original.
97 OSCE, Spot Report by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM): Shelling in Olenivka (28 Apr. 2016) (WSU, Ann. 2).
98 Expert Report of Lieutenant General Christopher Brown (5 June 2018), para. 85 (hereinafter “Gen. Brown Report”) (MU, Ann. 11).
99 OSCE, Latest from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), based on information received as of 19:30 hrs (29 Apr. 2016) (WSU, Ann. 3).
100 MU, paras. 80-82, and accompanying annexes cited therein.
101 CR 2019/11, p. 28, para. 61 (Wordsworth).
- 39 -
those who have committed terrorist acts. It should suffice to look at the record in this case, which includes witness statements from the lead investigators in Ukraine’s criminal investigations into the shellings of Volnovakha, Mariupol and Kramatorsk102.
42. While Russia did spend time yesterday commenting on the broader armed conflict in eastern Ukraine, with regard to the terrorist acts that are the focus of the case before you, Russia did not even attempt to rehabilitate its many unsupported factual assertions that Ukraine proved on Tuesday are contradicted by the record. Russia also chose not to engage directly with the extensive evidence Ukraine provided in the judges’ folder regarding the Mariupol shelling attack.
43. Instead, Russia stated that Ukraine passed over the evidence regarding the shoot-down of MH17 and failed to engage with Russia’s position. That is most certainly not the case.
A. Flight MH17
44. It is Russia, not Ukraine, that passes over the evidence related to the financiers’ knowledge when providing the Buk TELAR to the DPR fighters. The evidence in the record shows the following:
45. First, the individuals who requested the Buk included Igor Girkin103, who was already infamous for summary executions of civilians104. Three months earlier, in a well-publicized attack, DPR fighters abducted, tortured, murdered and mutilated a town councillor, Volodymyr Rybak, because he raised the Ukrainian flag105. This killing so obviously meets the elements of a terrorist act under Article 2 (1) (b) that Russia has never responded to. So when the Buk was supplied, it was in response to a request from men with an undisputed history of terrorist acts. How those men justified their request to their funders in Russia does not negate those facts.
102 See Witness Statement of Dmytro Volodymyrovych Zyuzia (29 May 2018), paras. 1-2, (MU, Ann. 6); Witness Statement of Igor Evhenovych Yanovskyi (31 May 2018), paras. 1-2 (MU, Ann. 5) (judges’ folder, tab 10); Witness Statement of Kyrylo Ihorevych Dvorskyi (4 June 2018), paras. 1-2 (MU, Ann. 3).
103 Intercepted Conversation between Igor Girkin, Viktor Anosov and Mykhaylo Sheremet (8 June 2014) (MU, Ann. 391); Confirmation of Authenticity, Senior Special Investigator with the Second Branch of the First Pre-Trial Investigations Department at the Main Investigations Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine (4 June 2018) (MU, Ann. 184).
104 Anna Shamanska, “Former Commander of Pro-Russian Separatists Says He Executed People Based on Stalin-Era Laws”, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (19 Jan. 2016) (MU, Ann. 587); OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine (15 July 2014), para. 47 (MU, Ann. 296); MU, para. 46.
105 MU, paras. 43-45, and accompanying annexes cited therein.
- 40 -
46. Second, the Buk TELAR was sent alone, without a combat control centre106. With a combat control centre, it is at least possible to differentiate civilian aircraft107. But without one, it is impossible108. They could have supplied the Buk with the equipment necessary to differentiate military from civilian targets, but they chose not to, knowing the consequences.
47. Third, the day the Buk was in transit to Ukraine, Russian aviation authorities closed civilian airspace on the Russian side of the border109. The implication is obvious: everyone involved in supplying the Buk knew they were introducing a weapon that would put civilian aircraft at grave risk.
48. What is the bottom line? It is that an indiscriminate weapon was knowingly provided to individuals who had an undisputed track record of terrorist acts against civilians, with full awareness of the consequences for civil aviation. That amply meets the knowledge requirement of Article 2 (1).
49. Let me also add that Mr. Wordsworth is not correct that Ukraine has abandoned a theory of intentional financing. Ukraine has focused on knowledge because that is easily satisfied and suffices. But the facts demonstrate intention as well. Recall Russia’s own definition: an act is “committed intentionally” if “the person realized the social danger of his actions . . . but consciously allowed those consequences or treated them with indifference”110. Certainly that describes the provision of the Buk according to the facts I have just laid out.
B. Shelling attacks
50. Finally, I would like to briefly respond to Mr. Wordsworth’s claim that Ukraine has not pled facts sufficient to meet Article 2 (1) (b) with regard to the shelling attacks111. Given that time is short, I will focus once again on Mariupol. Mariupol is a strategic port city located in
106 MU, para. 74 and accompanying annexes cited therein.
107 Expert Report of Anatolii Skorik (6 June 2018), para. 34 (emphasis added) (MU, Ann. 12) (judges’ folder, tab 19).
108 Ibid., paras. 28, 39.
109 MU, para. 289 (citing Dutch Safety Board, “Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17” (17 July 2014), p. 180 (MU, Ann. 38)).
110 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 25; WSU, Ann. 51; judges’ folder, tab. 13.
111 CR 2019/11, p. 27, para. 58 (Wordsworth).
- 41 -
south-eastern Ukraine that is not near the contact line. It is the second largest city in the Donetsk region.
51. As for the “act intended to cause” prong of Article 2 (1) (b), Ukraine’s expert Lieutenant General Brown concluded, based on the overall circumstances of the attack, that the Vostochniy neighbourhood was the target of the attack112, not the northern checkpoint as Russia has claimed113.
52. There were no units of the Ukrainian armed forces deployed in Mariupol114; only National Guard personnel manned the checkpoint and performed tasks previously performed by police115; the northern checkpoint was too far from the residential areas shelled to plausibly have been the target116; and General Brown concluded that “[t]here was no apparent military advantage in attacking the northern checkpoint given that there was no ground assault in the wake of the attack”117.
53. Moreover, the timeline on your screen illustrates that the attack on the residential neighbourhood could not have been a mistake, as Russia would have you believe. Russia’s theory is that the DPR attacked the residential neighbourhood in error at 9.15 a.m. in the morning, realized it was a mistake, but then repeated the attack again at 11 a.m. in the morning, after the first so-called mistake. That is not credible, much less sufficient, to conclude that Ukraine’s position is not even plausible.
54. The United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs reached the same conclusion as General Brown, noting that “Mariupol lies outside of the immediate conflict zone. The conclusion can thus be drawn that the entity that fired these rockets knowingly targeted a civilian population”118.
112 MU, para. 238.
113 Ibid.
114 Ministry of Interior of Ukraine, Main Department of the National Guard of Ukraine, Letter No. 27/6/2-3553 to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, 31 May 2018, p. 1; MU, Ann. 183; judges’ folder, tab 10.
115 Gen. Brown Report, para. 49; MU, Ann. 11.
116 Gen. Brown Report, para. 57.
117 Ibid., para. 58.
118 United Nations, Official Record of the Security Council, 7368th meeting, UN doc. S/PV.7368, 26 Jan. 2015, p. 2, statement of Jeffrey Feltman, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs (MU, Ann. 307).
- 42 -
55. As for the second prong of Article 2 (1) (b), a purpose to intimidate civilians or compel a government to act or abstain from acting, I have already brought your attention to the fact that DPR members celebrated the fear that the attack caused. Let me quickly highlight two additional pieces of evidence.
56. First, the DPR attacked the residential neighbourhood at a time designed to maximize its terrorizing impact  on a Saturday morning, when many civilians were likely either home with their families, or outside conducting their errands for the day119.
57. Second, the DPR shelled Mariupol only a week before a planned Trilateral Contact Group meeting, comprised of representatives of the Russian Government, Ukrainian Government, and the OSCE to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the situation in eastern Ukraine120. Attacking civilians in close proximity to peace efforts is a classic terrorist strategy designed to maximize leverage at the bargaining table121. Thus, this political “context” further reinforces that the attack also was designed to coerce Ukrainian Government officials to accede to the DPR’s political goals.
58. This strategy was not limited to Mariupol, but in fact was present for the Volnovakha and Kramatorsk shellings as well. It can hardly be a coincidence that these devastating civilian attacks happened at a period of heightened diplomatic efforts. Indeed, Russia concedes that the participants would have expressly had these recent shelling events in mind122.
59. While I have focused in detail on the Mariupol shelling attack, Ukraine also put forward similar evidence for the shelling attacks in Volnovakha, Kramatorsk and Avdiivka, and they all qualify as acts of terrorism under Article 2 (1) (b)123. As for Mr. Wordsworth’s brief reference to an anti-terrorist operation base at the Kramatorsk airport124, the map Ukraine put before you earlier this week, as well General Brown’s expert report, make clear that the airport was not the target of
119 MU, para. 242; Viktoria Savitskaya, “Mariupol Recovers after Shelling”, LB.ua, 24 Jan. 2015, pp. 2, 4 (MU, Ann. 556).
120 MU, para. 234; OSCE, Statement by the Chairmanship on the Trilateral Contact Group Consultations in Minsk on 31 January 2015, 1 Feb. 2015 (MU, Ann. 330).
121 See, e.g. Michael G. Findley and Joseph K. Young, “Terrorism, Spoiling, and the Resolution of Civil Wars”, J. of Politics, 2015, Vol. 77, No. 4, p. 1119; MU, Ann. 495.
122 CR 2019/11, p. 28, para. 60 (Wordsworth).
123 MU, paras. 37-48, 56-67, 226-234, 245-260.
124 CR 2019/11, p. 27, para. 58 (Wordsworth).
- 43 -
the shelling attack that struck the residential neighbourhood125. Regarding Avdiivka, Mr. Wordsworth says that I did not address his claim about the presence of Ukrainian armed forces126. But apparently, he did not hear what I said earlier this week, which was that General Brown concluded that “[m]any shelling attacks against residential areas were too far away from any UAF site to be plausibly considered to have been directed at military targets”127 in Avdiivka.
60. Finally, let me briefly recall the long, and not even exhaustive, list of disputed facts that I presented to the Court on Tuesday, which the Court would have to resolve in Russia’s favour in order to grant its preliminary objection. You did not hear one word about that from Mr. Wordsworth yesterday. That silence speaks volumes.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation on Article 2. I now ask that you call Mr. Gimblett to the podium to address the CERD.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Ms Cheek for her statement. I now give the floor to Mr. Gimblett. You have the floor.
Mr. GIMBLETT:
UKRAINE’S SATISFACTION OF ANY PRECONDITIONS TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER THE CERD DISPUTE
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honour to appear before you again on behalf of Ukraine.
2. I will respond to the remarks of Professors Pellet and Forteau concerning the supposed jurisdictional prerequisites to Ukraine’s CERD claims.
I. Interpretation of Article 22
3. Let me begin with the interpretation of Article 22 and whether it imposes alternative or cumulative preconditions  or perhaps even no preconditions at all. And with regard to that last possibility, notwithstanding Russia’s attempt yesterday to imply otherwise, Article 59 of the Statute of the Court leaves the Court entirely free to decide the issue anew here.
125 MU, Map 5; Gen. Brown Report, paras. 68 and 76 (MU, Ann. 11).
126 CR 2019/11, p. 27, para. 58 (Wordsworth).
127 Gen. Brown Report, para. 95; MU, Ann. 11.
- 44 -
A. Ordinary meaning
4. Starting with ordinary meaning, my opponent made an important concession yesterday. Having claimed on Monday that “or” can never have an alternative meaning when it comes after “not”128, yesterday he agreed that context is important in determining “or’s” meaning in a negative sentence structure129. This is critical because, as I will explain in a moment, Russia’s advocate had no persuasive response to the many contextual arguments Ukraine has advanced in support of its disjunctive reading of “or” in the phrase at hand130. And still less was he able to reconcile his cumulative reading with the object and purpose of the Convention to speedily eliminate racial discrimination.
5. Before I move on to those issues, though, I need to make one more remark about Professor Pellet’s exposition of the meaning of “or”. He engaged in some further helpful development of the example I advanced on Tuesday: “Any customer who is not satisfied with her appetizer or main course may complain to the Manager.”131 According to Russia’s advocate, this use of “or” effectively means “and/or”132. I agree with him on that. This use of “or” is not uncommon, but it remains a disjunctive, not a cumulative one. Indeed, you could say it represents a double disjunctive because “or” co-ordinates not two but three alternative propositions in this usage. In this example, the customer can complain about her appetizer, she can complain about her main course, or she can complain about both.
6. Assuming that Article 22 imposes any preconditions to the Court’s jurisdiction, the third “or” in that provision can be understood in exactly the same way, as presenting a disputing party with three options. First, it can negotiate. Second, it can avail itself of the procedures provided for in the Convention. And, third, it can choose to do both, in either order. What Article 22 does not do, if “or” is read in this way, is to require a State both to negotiate and to go through the CERD Committee procedure.
128 CR 2019/9, p. 57, para. 14 (Pellet).
129 CR 2019/11, p. 43, paras. 13–14 (Pellet).
130 CR 2019/10, pp. 68–70 (Gimblett); see also WSU, paras. 316–323.
131 CR 2019/10, p. 68, para. 12 (Gimblett).
132 CR 2019/11, p. 43, para. 14 (Pellet).
- 45 -
B. Context
7. Let me turn now to context, and then to object and purpose. I argued on Tuesday that both factors weighed heavily in favour of giving “or” a disjunctive meaning in Article 22133. Russia has now conceded the importance of context in this analysis134 but, strikingly, had no convincing response to the contextual problems I had argued its interpretation creates.
8. First, Professor Pellet tried to explain away the incongruity of his cumulative reading of the third “or” in Article 22 where “or” is previously used twice in the same sentence in its disjunctive meaning. He did so by arguing that the second “or” is really an “and/or”135. This distinction is of no assistance to Russia. As I have explained “and/or” is no less disjunctive  indeed, it is actually more so  than “or” in its ordinary disjunctive meaning. The fact remains that it would be highly unusual for the drafters of the CERD to use “or” twice in the Article 22 sentence with a disjunctive meaning and then use it a third time with a quite different cumulative meaning.
9. Another argument advanced by Russia on Monday could, I suppose, be considered a response of sorts to this contextual issue. The argument is that the cumulative precondition that, on Russia’s hypothesis, the drafters were trying to write into Article 22 could not have been conveyed by using “and” and they were therefore constrained to use “or” instead136. According to my opposing counsel, it would have made no sense to refer to “[a]ny dispute . . . which is not settled by negotiation and by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention”137. If that is correct, however, it does not support the inference that the drafters intended a cumulative precondition in the first place. If that was what the drafters wanted to convey, they could simply have chosen a different structure for the article which made the point unambiguously. For example, the 1975 Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character uses the following language to indicate that consultations and conciliation are successive, sequential steps:
“If the dispute is not disposed of as a result of the consultations referred to in article 84 within one month from the date of their inception, any State participating in
133 See CR 2019/10, pp. 68–71 (Gimblett).
134 CR 2019/9, p. 57, para. 12 (Pellet); CR 2019/11, p. 43, paras. 13–14 (Pellet).
135 CR 2019/11, p. 43, para. 16 (Pellet).
136 CR 2019/9, pp. 57–58, para. 14 (Pellet); CR 2019/11, p. 44, para. 16 (Pellet).
137 Ibid.
- 46 -
the consultations may bring the dispute before a conciliation commission constituted in accordance with the provisions of this article by giving written notice to the Organization and to the other States participating in the consultations.”138
10. It is easy to imagine a further sentence after this allowing referral to the International Court of Justice if the dispute is not resolved by conciliation.
11. My second contextual point on Tuesday was that Russia’s cumulative reading of Article 22 leads to the absurd outcome of requiring disputing States to first negotiate for an unspecified amount of time and then to renegotiate for six months as part of the CERD Committee process139. On Tuesday, I explained that it was no answer to this problem to argue, as Russia’s counsel did on Monday, that negotiations as part of a conciliation process are distinguishable from direct negotiations140. Even if such a distinction was meaningful, it does not correspond to Article 11 of the CERD, which clearly requires bilateral negotiations before a conciliation process is launched141. Yesterday, Russia ignored that response and doubled down on its original argument, its advocate saying that negotiations conducted under the aegis of the CERD Committee doubtless presented advantages compared to purely bilateral negotiations142. But that in no way answers my point that Article 11 makes clear that the six-month negotiation procedure it imposes does not implicate the CERD Committee. Rather, it is a negotiation that must be undertaken by the disputing parties alone, before a dispute can be referred back to the CERD Committee and a decision to launch a conciliation process can be taken.
12. The only other response Russia had on this issue yesterday was to try to change the subject, saying that it was important not to focus exclusively on the length of the process but also to consider its quality143. But that is no answer to the point Ukraine actually made  which is that the double negotiation requirement created by Russia’s reading of Article 22 is a contextual problem that weighs heavily against that reading.
138 Vienna Convention on the Representation of States in their Relations with International Organizations of a Universal Character, 14 March 1975, Art. 85.
139 CR 2019/10, pp. 68–69, para. 16 (Gimblett).
140 CR 2019/10, p. 69, para. 17 (Gimblett); see also CR 2019/9, p. 58, para. 16 (Pellet).
141 CERD, Art. 11 (2).
142 CR 2019/11, p. 45, para. 20 (Pellet).
143 Ibid.
- 47 -
13. Perhaps most striking was Russia’s non-answer yesterday to Ukraine’s third contextual argument  that a cumulative reading of Article 22 robs of any effect that article’s provision for interpretive disputes to be referred to the Court. First, Professor Pellet tried to minimize the problem claiming that it was hard to imagine a purely interpretive dispute arising under the Convention144. But purely interpretive disputes are not uncommon, including in the jurisprudence of this Court, as, for example, Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco illustrates145. As the Permanent Court of International Justice observed in Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, “[t]here seems to be no reason why States should not be able to ask the Court to give an abstract interpretation of a treaty; rather would it appear that this is one of the most important functions which it can fulfil”146.
14. Russia’s only other response on this point yesterday was to deploy a hitherto unknown principle of treaty interpretation. In Professor Pellet’s words, “si, par impossible, une telle situation venait à survenir, il est difficilement envisageable que le Comité adopte une interprétation rigide de sa compétence et refuse de se prononcer”147.
15. Thus, according to what appears to be a new principle of ineffectiveness, an otherwise intractable contextual problem with a proposed treaty interpretation can be overcome by assuming that the language in question will simply be ignored in practice.
C. Object and purpose
16. So much for context. Russia also has not explained this week how its interpretation of Article 22 can be squared with the object and purpose of the CERD of “speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations”. On Monday, Professor Pellet tried to duck that question by suggesting that the length of the process created by Russia’s interpretation was “of no legal significance”148. But that misses the point. The practical implications of Russia’s
144 CR 2019/11, pp. 45–46, para. 21 (Pellet).
145 Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176.
146 Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Merits, Judgment No. 7, 1926, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 7 pp. 18-19.
147 CR 2019/11, p. 46, para. 21 (Pellet).
148 CR 2019/9, p. 61, para. 24 (Pellet).
- 48 -
interpretation are highly relevant to the correct interpretation of Article 22 under the Vienna Convention, precisely because prolonged delay in accessing this Court is not compatible with the object and purpose of the CERD.
17. Russia’s advocate also claimed on Monday that Articles 11 to 13 of the Convention established deadlines that limited the risk of the CERD Committee procedure unreasonably delaying access to this Court149. But that simply is not true. Articles 11 to 13 impose no time-limits at all upon the CERD Committee’s own investigations, or the process of ad hoc conciliation envisaged by Article 12. Contrary to Russia’s casual dismissal of the risks, there is no limit to the extent to which the CERD Committee procedure set out in Part II of the Convention could delay a referral to this Court by disputing parties.
18. Yesterday, Russia pivoted from these unconvincing arguments and sought instead to make a virtue of the lengthy delay its interpretation would impose on States parties seeking to avail themselves of this Court’s jurisdiction. “Il faut laisser le temps au temps”, Professor Pellet said  “time takes time”150. But that obviously does not reconcile Russia’s interpretation of Article 22 with the object and purpose of the CERD, which emphasizes urgency, and not the healing properties of time.
19. Russia also argued yesterday that it would be a mistake to underestimate the interest that a conciliation procedure could present by comparison with bilateral negotiations151. That may well be right. But, if it is, that simply supports a reading of Article 22 as offering States parties a choice between the two, rather than requiring them to undertake two overlapping and mutually redundant settlement procedures in sequence, thereby delaying by years the judicial resolution of the dispute in question.
20. In sum, we end the week with Russia admitting the importance of context in interpreting Article 22, but with no persuasive Russian argument as to how either context or object and purpose can be squared with its reading of that provision. The Vienna Convention’s general rule of
149 CR 2019/9, p. 61, para. 24 (Pellet).
150 CR 2019/11, p. 46, para. 24 (Pellet).
151 CR 2019/11, p. 46, para. 23 (Pellet).
- 49 -
interpretation squarely supports an interpretation of Article 22 as giving States parties a choice between negotiation and the CERD Committee procedure. Your analysis can end there.
II. Travaux préparatoires
21. It remains Ukraine’s position that the Court does not need to have recourse to supplementary means of interpretation under Article 32 of the Vienna Convention in order to determine the meaning of Article 22. But, if the Court reviews the travaux, it will find no support for the interpretation that Russia wishes to impose on Article 22. Russia theorizes that the words “or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention” were added as a compromise, to reconcile opponents of this Court’s compulsory jurisdiction to a compromissory clause that allowed any party to a dispute to refer it to the Court. But it cannot point to any statements by those involved in the drafting that actually say that.
22. The best Russia’s advocate could muster on Monday was the statement of the Ghanaian representative, Mr. Lamptey, at the meeting of the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 7 December 1965 at which the Three-Power amendment proposed by the Philippines, Ghana and Mauritania was adopted. In the selected quote cited by Russia, Mr. Lamptey says: “Provision had been made in the draft Convention for machinery which should be used in the settlement of disputes before recourse was had to the International Court of Justice.”152
23. This is hardly compelling evidence that the amendment was intended to make recourse to the CERD Committee mandatory for any State wishing to refer a dispute to the Court. It is even less persuasive when you see the surrounding statements by Mr. Lamptey, which Professor Pellet omitted from his slide 8 on Monday. Thus, immediately before the quote on which Russia focuses, Mr. Lamptey introduced the amendment by saying that it was “self-explanatory”153. And immediately afterwards, he goes on to say that “[t]he amendment simply referred to the procedure provided for in the Convention”154.
152 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1367th Meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1367, 7 Dec. 1965, p. 453, para. 29 (WSU, Ann. 98); see also CR 2019/9, p. 60, para. 22 (Pellet).
153 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1367th Meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1367, 7 Dec. 1965, p. 453, para. 29 (WSU, Ann. 98).
154 Ibid.
- 50 -
24. The record of the 7 December 1965 Third Committee meeting is in your binders at tab 32. Numerous other statements in that record by delegates support the conclusion that the intention behind the Three-Power amendment was more prosaic than Russia suggests. According to the Belgian delegate, Mr. Cochaux, the amendment “introduced a useful clarification”155. Mr. Capatorti, the Italian delegate, supported the Three-Power language as “a useful addition”156. The French delegate, Mr. Boulet, said that it brought the clause “into line with provisions already adopted in the matter of implementation”157.
25. These statements cannot be reconciled with the grand purpose that Russia ascribes to the Three-Power amendment. They are, however, fully explained if that amendment is understood as pursuing a more limited objective  that of making it clear that the Court was available not only to disputing States that had undertaken bilateral negotiations, but also States that had navigated the CERD Committee inter-State dispute procedure.
26. This reading finds support in the record of a meeting of the Third Committee just two weeks earlier, on 25 November 1965158. That meeting considered a joint proposal from the Three Powers for measures of implementation, which superseded an original proposal by the Philippines, a rival text proposed by Ghana, and amendments suggested by Mauritania. Notably, the earlier proposals by the Philippines and Ghana made clear that States parties would be able to refer disputes to the Court whether or not they had undertaken the CERD Committee conciliation procedure159. The combined Three-Power proposal, however, omitted this mention of the Court160,
155 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1367th Meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1367, 7 Dec. 1965, p. 454, para. 40 (WSU, Ann. 98)
156 Ibid., para. 39.
157 Ibid., para. 38.
158 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Twentieth Session, 1354th meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1354, 25 Nov. 1965.
159 See United Nations Economic and Social Council, Draft International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Mr. Ingles: Proposed Measures of Implementation, UN doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/L.321, 17 Jan. 1964, Art. 18 (WSU, Ann. 92); United Nations General Assembly, Draft International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Philippines: articles relating to measures of implementation to be added to the provisions of the draft International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, UN doc. A/C.3/L.1221, 11 Oct. 1965, Art. 19; United Nations General Assembly, Draft International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Ghana: Revised Amendments to Document A/C.3/L.1221, UN doc. A/C.3/L.1274/REV.1, 12 Nov. 1965, Art. IX (WSU, Ann. 95).
160 United Nations Economic and Social Council, Draft International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Ghana, Mauritania, and Philippines: amendments to the suggestions for final clauses submitted by the Officers of the Third Committee (A/C.3/L.1237), UN doc. A/C.3/L.1313, 30 Nov. 1965 (WSU, Ann. 97).
- 51 -
with the Ghanaian delegate noting that the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes would be dealt with in the final provisions of the Convention161. Indeed, the United Nations Secretariat had already circulated to the Third Committee a set of proposed final provisions, including several variations of a dispute resolution provision providing for inter-State disputes to be referred to the Court at the initiative of the parties to a dispute162.
27. The deletion of the reference to the Court from the measures of implementation proved controversial at the meeting of the Third Committee on 25 November163. The delegates of the United Kingdom, Belgium and Norway all expressly regretted its omission164. The Soviet delegate downplayed the change, arguing that disputing States retained the ability to submit a dispute to the Court by mutual consent at any time165. On the face of the record of that meeting, which is in your binders at tab 33, there is therefore a disagreement among at least four delegations as to the implications of deleting the reference to the Court in the measures of implementation.
28. Against that background, the modest language used on 7 December 1965 by supporters of the Three-Power amendment to add a reference to the CERD Committee procedures to Article 22 makes perfect sense. The amendment was “self-explanatory”, as the Ghanaian delegate put it, because it did no more than make the Court available to States parties that had undertaken the CERD Committee procedure166. It was a “useful clarification”, in the words of the Belgian delegate precisely because it left no doubt that parties for whom the CERD Committee machinery had failed to produce a resolution could still turn to the Court167. Or, as the French delegate put it,
161 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1349th meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1349, 19 Nov. 1965, p. 348, para. 29.
162 United Nations Economic and Social Council, Draft International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Final Clauses, Working paper prepared by the Secretary-General, UN doc. E/CN.4/L.679, 17 Feb. 1964, pp. 15–16.
163 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1354th meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1354, 25 Nov. 1965.
164 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1354th meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1354, 25 Nov. 1965, p. 376, para. 24; ibid., paras. 25, 36.
165 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1354th meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1354, 25 Nov. 1965, pp. 378–379, para. 53.
166 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Third Committee, 1367th meeting, doc. A/C.3/SR.1367, 7 Dec. 1965, p. 453, para. 29 (WSU, Ann. 98).
167 Ibid., para. 40.
- 52 -
the amendment simply brought Article 22 “into line with provisions already adopted in the matter of implementation”168.
29. I admit that this is a less interesting explanation of the negotiating history than that presented in Russia’s papers and by its counsel this week. But, as the principle of logic known as Occam’s Razor postulates, a simple and straightforward explanation is generally to be preferred over complex theories that require many assumptions.
III. Role of the CERD Committee
30. One of the assumptions that Russia has repeatedly asked the Court to make this week is that the CERD Committee was imbued by the drafters with an almost sacred role as what Professor Pellet described on Monday as “the guardian of the integrity of the Convention”169. Russia relies on this to suggest that it would run counter to the guiding principles of the CERD to allow inter-State disputes to reach the Court without being first filtered through the CERD Committee’s inter-State complaints procedure. But, when viewed more closely, there is just no hard evidence that anyone intended the CERD Committee to play such a pre-eminent role.
31. The negotiating history, for example, shows that many delegations believed that measures of implementation were essential if the treaty was to amount to more than a series of high-minded declarative principles. As the delegate for the Côte d’Ivoire memorably stated in the Third Committee on 17 November, “without such measures the Convention would be like a body without a head or a worker without tools”. The establishment of the CERD Committee was one aspect of the measures of implementation, but there is no evidence that it was regarded by the principal champions of such measures as being so central to the delivery of the Convention’s objectives that its prerogatives were to be protected at all costs. Indeed, as I have already observed, both the Philippines’ and the Ghanaian proposals for measures of implementation anticipated that States parties would be able to bring their disputes to this Court without first going through the CERD Committee procedure.
168 Ibid., para. 38.
169 CR 2019/9, pp. 60–61, para. 23 (Pellet); CR 2019/11, p. 45, para. 20 (Pellet).
- 53 -
32. It is clear from the negotiating history that the purpose of including measures of implementation within the CERD was to ensure the Convention was an effective tool in the fight against racial discrimination. Specifically, the supporters of such measures wanted there to be ongoing reporting of States parties’ compliance with their obligations; they wanted mechanisms for the resolution of disputes between States under the Convention; and they wanted individuals to be able to have their own complaints heard. Russia’s approach, which elevates the CERD Committee’s supposed prerogatives above the practical needs of disputing States for effective judicial means of dispute resolution, is inconsistent with those practical purposes. It prioritizes bureaucratic purity to the detriment of the effective implementation of the terms of the Convention.
33. Russia’s theory is also at odds with actual practice under the Convention. From the Convention’s entry into force in 1969 until 2018  almost half a century  the CERD Committee received no inter-State complaints, pursuant to the mechanism in Article 11. Even now, over a year on from the Committee’s first receipt of such complaints, it has taken no decisions in any of those cases. As a press release from the Committee at the close last month of its most recent session announced:
“The Committee had examined three interstate communications submitted under article 11 of the Convention . . . While it had held hearings on these communications, the Committee had decided not to take any decisions, due to the legal complexity of the issues broached and a lack of resources.”170
34. In short, if this Court exercises jurisdiction in this case, it is not going to undermine an already-functioning and effective alternative mechanism for addressing inter-State disputes under the Convention. Nor will it open the floodgates for countless further inter-State disputes to reach this Court pursuant to Article 22. As Professor Koh has explained on Monday and again today, the circumstances of this case are exceptional, with literally hundreds of thousands of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea suffering the effects of a comprehensive campaign of racial discrimination against them. Ukraine’s claims can and should be heard by this Court.
170 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Concludes its Ninety-Eight Session, 10 May 2019, available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/ Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24601&LangID=E.
- 54 -
IV. Exhaustion of local remedies
35. Finally, I will respond briefly to what Professor Forteau had to say yesterday concerning Russia’s remarkable claim that Ukraine’s claims are barred because of a failure to exhaust local remedies.
36. Russia’s advocate began by trying to distinguish the rather clear statement made by the Russian Federation in the Georgia proceedings, to which I drew attention on Tuesday171, acknowledging that the exhaustion requirement applies only in the context of diplomatic protection. His point: Russia did not raise an exhaustion objection in the Georgia case172. That in itself is quite telling because there is no indication in the record of the Georgia proceedings that local remedies were indeed pursued before Georgia brought its claim to this Court. One can only surmise that it was less obvious to Russia’s counsel then than now that the exhaustion principle could have any application to inter-State claims brought under Article 22 of the CERD. And with good reason. Russia’s dogged pursuit of this untenable objection in the present proceedings only underlines its desperation to escape the Court’s scrutiny.
37. Russia continued yesterday to misstate the record, continuing with its ill-advised argument that Ukraine has shifted its position since filing its Memorial in response to Russia’s exhaustion objection173. That remains untrue. Contrary to Russia’s claims, the Memorial does not seek relief from this Court on behalf of particular individuals. Let us look again at submission (l) from Ukraine’s Memorial, which makes clear that Ukraine seeks relief “in its own right and as parens patriae for its citizens”174. Presumably, Russia would have you read “citizens” here as relating to specific identifiable individuals whose claims might be amenable to diplomatic protection. But it is rather obvious if you read the Memorial that this is not the case. Instead, the Memorial makes clear repeatedly that the victims of Russia’s policy of discrimination are entire communities, namely the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian ethnic groups in Crimea. Where a State acts on behalf of a collectivity of citizens in this way, it is acting in its capacity as a State, as the
171 CR 2019/10, p. 74, para. 34 (Gimblett).
172 CR 2019/11, p. 55, para. 15 (Forteau).
173 CR 2019/11, p. 56, para. 17 (Forteau).
174 WSU, para. 654.
- 55 -
protector of the rights of its population as a whole, and not espousing claims belonging to one or more identifiable individuals.
38. It is also clear from submission (l) that Ukraine asserts its own injury in this case. Russia said yesterday that this cannot be so, because the only rights Ukraine possesses under the CERD are procedural and that any substantive obligations are owed only to individuals175. But that is contradicted by this Court’s own jurisprudence. In the Barcelona Traction case, the Court recognized that the obligation not to discriminate on a racial basis is owed erga omnes176. Accordingly, every State is injured by Russia’s violation of this jus cogens norm. Moreover, under Article 42 of the Articles on State Responsibility, Ukraine is entitled to invoke the Russian Federation’s responsibility because it is specially affected by the breach of that obligation owed by Russia to all States177. The massive breaches of the CERD that Professor Koh has detailed are aimed almost exclusively at Ukraine’s citizens, whether they be of Crimean Tatar or Ukrainian ethnicity.
39. In sum, it could not be clearer that this is not the sort of case involving identifiable individuals to which the principle of exhaustion of local remedies could apply. The Court should reject this baseless objection.
40. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my remarks. I respectfully request, Mr. President, that you now call the Agent of Ukraine, Her Excellency Olena Zerkal, to the podium. Thank you.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr. Gimblett for his statement. I now call upon the Agent of Ukraine, Her Excellency Ms Olena Zerkal, to take the floor. You have the floor, Madam.
175 CR 2019/11, pp. 56–57, para. 18 (Forteau).
176 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 32, para. 34.
177 Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 53rd. Sess., UN doc. No. A/56/10, 23 Apr.–1 June, 2 July–10 Aug. 2001, Art. 42 and commentary, pp. 117–119.
- 56 -
Ms ZERKAL:
CONCLUDING REMARKS AND SUBMISSIONS
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court. I am honoured to conclude the oral pleadings of Ukraine and make our final submissions.
2. I will be brief, because there is no more to say. Russia has tried to change the subject, twisted the law and denied the facts. But Ukraine’s claims are clear. The disputes are clear. Our good faith efforts to resolve them are clear. The Court’s jurisdiction is clear.
3. Yesterday, we heard only more distractions. Mr. Wordsworth says you should declare that there was no terrorism in Ukraine, without considering the facts on the merits, just because various monitors did not use the word “terrorism”. Professor Zimmermann admitted that Russia’s own law prohibits the financing of terrorism by State officials178. But he thinks it is ridiculous for Ukraine to ask Russia to prevent such crimes.
4. Professor Pellet asked, apparently seriously, Ukraine to rely on Russia’s “bonne grâce”179. He also suggested that Russia would consider unfair, and might not accept, a judicial decision of this Court180. And Professor Forteau decided that the Court’s Provisional Measures Order has become “deprived of object”181. Apparently, Russia thinks it can decide for itself that binding orders are not binding. All this confirms what I said on Tuesday regarding Russia’s attitude towards international law.
5. As for the Agent of Russia, he mocks the treaties we are here to discuss. Russia clearly does not see these treaties as important. So it assumes Ukraine has no interest in them, and only wanted to bring “any kind of case”182. This is not “any kind of case”. It is a serious case, about serious violations of serious treaties. I am sorry that Russia does not take it seriously.
6. We have also heard a lot about the Minsk process. With the same passion as when Professor Pellet says that “or” means “and”, Russia demands that three equals five. The working
178 CR 2019/11, p. 46, para. 16 (Zimmermann).
179 CR 2019/11, p. 46, para. 24 (Pellet).
180 Ibid.
181 CR 2019/9, p. 38, para. 13 (Forteau).
182 CR 2019/9, p. 38, para. 6 (Lobach).
- 57 -
group is called Trilateral183, with Ukraine and Russia as parties and OSCE as facilitator. There are not five parties.
7. As duly noted by OHCHR in its report of August 2016 on the human rights situation in Ukraine, “[n]o amnesty can be given” for the most serious crimes and human rights violations184. And whatever Mr. Wordsworth says, amnesty for such crimes  like the acts of terrorism we are discussing here  was never under consideration within the Minsk process.
8. But this is all irrelevant. Russia’s discussions of Minsk and amnesty are more distractions. As this Court said in Nicaragua v. United States, the Court has a responsibility to resolve legal disputes that are properly brought before it, even if the “question before the Court is intertwined with political questions”185. Whatever other disputes we have with Russia, there is a dispute under the ICSFT and CERD between Ukraine and Russia, and we have a right under the treaties for our claims to be heard.
9. We are also disappointed in Russia’s attitude toward MH17. The evidence continues to mount. Every party to the JIT endorsed the conclusions of investigations presented so far. The investigation is nearing the end, and we are confident that indictments will follow. Individual justice is important. So is this case. MH17 is a tragic part of the story of financing of terrorism. That full story must be heard on the merits.
10. Finally, we are shocked that the Agent of the Russian Federation would stand before the World Court and comment on the internal affairs of my country. I can understand that Russia might be confused by a peaceful transfer of power after free and fair elections. For my part, I am confused by Russia’s attitude. On Monday, Russia accused us of a “violent coup d’état”. Yesterday it tried to use our elections against us. Let me explain it to those who doubt: I am here on the instructions of the President of Ukraine, with the clear mandate to defend the interest of Ukraine and seek justice for its people.
183 United Nations Security Council resolution 2202, UN doc. S/RES/2202 Ann. 1 (2015).
184 OHCHR, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine (16 May to 15 August 2016), para. 73.
185 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 439, para. 104.
- 58 -
11. As I said on Tuesday, Ukraine came here only as a last resort. Russia may feel entitled to bully its neighbours and seed instability in the world. But we are not required to stay silent while Russia violates treaties. We do not have to accept their manipulations.
12. All Ukraine asks in this Court of international law is the chance to be heard on merits.
13. Members of the Court, as Ukraine has now made its last statements of argument at this hearing, I have the honor to respectfully submit to the Court, pursuant to Article 60, paragraph 2, of its Rules, Ukraine’s Final Submissions.
14. Ukraine respectfully requests that the Court:
a. Dismiss the Preliminary Objections submitted by the Russian Federation in its submission dated 12 September 2018;
b. Adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims in the Application submitted by Ukraine, dated 16 January 2017, that such claims are admissible, and proceed to hear those claims on the merits; or
c. In the alternative, to adjudge and declare, in accordance with the provisions of Article 79, paragraph 9, of the Rules of Court that the objections submitted by the Russian Federation do not have an exclusively preliminary character.
15. This concludes Ukraine’s oral pleadings and its submissions. Ukraine thanks the Court for its attention during these hearings.
16. I wish to express my gratitude to the Registry and its staff for their kind assistance in these proceedings; to the interpreters for their hard work; and finally, Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your attention and serious consideration.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent of Ukraine. The Court takes note of the submissions which you have just read on behalf of your Government.
This brings us to the end of this week of hearings. I would like to thank the Agents, counsel and advocates of the two Parties for their statements. In accordance with the usual practice, I shall request both Agents to remain at the Court’s disposal to provide any additional information the Court may require. With this proviso, I declare closed the oral proceedings on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation in the case concerning Application of the International
- 59 -
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). The Court will now retire for deliberation. The Agents of the Parties will be advised in due course as to the date on which the Court will deliver its Judgment.
As the Court has no other business today, the sitting is closed.
The Court rose at 12 noon.
____________