DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT ODA
TheCourt shouldin myviewhaveresponded specificallyinthe opera-
tiveparagraphs to the request filed by Yugoslaviaon 10August 1993for
the indication of provisional measures. Whilethe Court responds to the
second request of Bosnia-Herzegovina by reaffirming the provisional
measuresindicated initsOrder of8April1993,itdoesnot,intheoperative
part ofthisOrder, take anyposition on the request of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia has asked the Court to indicate the following provisional
measure :
"The Government ofthe so-calledRepublic of Bosniaand Herze-
govina should immediately, in pursuance of its obligation under the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide of 9 December 1948,take al1measures within its power
to prevent commission of the crime of genocide against the Serb
ethnic group."
Thesewordsreflectalmost exactlythe measureindicated bythe Courton
8 April 1993in paragraph 52A (l), which was addressed to Yugoslavia.
Yugoslaviahas now asked the Courtto indicate a similarmeasure, to be
addressed to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Yugoslavia filed its request on the
basis ofthe evidencecontained in the reports of Yugoslaviato the Com-
mission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution
780(1992) of 6 October 1992and in the "Memorandum on War Crimes
and Crimes of Genocide in Eastern Bosnia (Communes of Bratunac,
Skelaniand Srebrenica)Committedagainstthe SerbianPopulation from
April1992 to April1993" (whichisincludedin United Nationsdocument
A/48/77 - S/25835,annexed to Yugoslavia'srequestforthe indication of
provisional measures).
In itsOrder the Court has pointed out that
"the measurerequested by Yugoslaviawould be appropriateto pro-
tect rights under the Genocide Convention, which are accordingly
within the prima faciejurisdiction of the Court;...on the evidence
and information available to it, the Court must also recognize the
existence of some risk to the persons whose protection Yugoslavia
seeks; ... however the question for the Court is whether the cir-
cumstances are such as to 'require' the indication of provisional
measures, in accordance with Article 41 of the Statute" (para. 45).And the Court goes onto Saythat it :
"does not find that the circumstances, as they now present them-
selvesto the Court, are such as to require a more specificindication
of measures addressed to Bosnia-Herzegovinaso as to recall to it
both its undoubted obligationsunder the Genocide Convention, and
the need to refrain from action of the kind contemplated by para-
graph 52 Bof the Court's Order of 8April1993" (para. 46).
1donotfindthat these considerations provide grounds forthe Court to
avoid a direct response to the Yugoslav request,as paragraph 52 Bof the
Court's Order of 8April1993, though addressed also to Bosnia-Herzego-
vina, concerned only the need forthe Parties to refrain from action tend-
ingto the aggravation or extension of the existingdispute.
(Signed) Shigeru ODA.
DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT ODA
TheCourt shouldin myviewhaveresponded specificallyinthe opera-
tiveparagraphs to the request filed by Yugoslaviaon 10August 1993for
the indication of provisional measures. Whilethe Court responds to the
second request of Bosnia-Herzegovina by reaffirming the provisional
measuresindicated initsOrder of8April1993,itdoesnot,intheoperative
part ofthisOrder, take anyposition on the request of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia has asked the Court to indicate the following provisional
measure :
"The Government ofthe so-calledRepublic of Bosniaand Herze-
govina should immediately, in pursuance of its obligation under the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide of 9 December 1948,take al1measures within its power
to prevent commission of the crime of genocide against the Serb
ethnic group."
Thesewordsreflectalmost exactlythe measureindicated bythe Courton
8 April 1993in paragraph 52A (l), which was addressed to Yugoslavia.
Yugoslaviahas now asked the Courtto indicate a similarmeasure, to be
addressed to Bosnia-Herzegovina. Yugoslavia filed its request on the
basis ofthe evidencecontained in the reports of Yugoslaviato the Com-
mission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council resolution
780(1992) of 6 October 1992and in the "Memorandum on War Crimes
and Crimes of Genocide in Eastern Bosnia (Communes of Bratunac,
Skelaniand Srebrenica)Committedagainstthe SerbianPopulation from
April1992 to April1993" (whichisincludedin United Nationsdocument
A/48/77 - S/25835,annexed to Yugoslavia'srequestforthe indication of
provisional measures).
In itsOrder the Court has pointed out that
"the measurerequested by Yugoslaviawould be appropriateto pro-
tect rights under the Genocide Convention, which are accordingly
within the prima faciejurisdiction of the Court;...on the evidence
and information available to it, the Court must also recognize the
existence of some risk to the persons whose protection Yugoslavia
seeks; ... however the question for the Court is whether the cir-
cumstances are such as to 'require' the indication of provisional
measures, in accordance with Article 41 of the Statute" (para. 45).And the Court goes onto Saythat it :
"does not find that the circumstances, as they now present them-
selvesto the Court, are such as to require a more specificindication
of measures addressed to Bosnia-Herzegovinaso as to recall to it
both its undoubted obligationsunder the Genocide Convention, and
the need to refrain from action of the kind contemplated by para-
graph 52 Bof the Court's Order of 8April1993" (para. 46).
1donotfindthat these considerations provide grounds forthe Court to
avoid a direct response to the Yugoslav request,as paragraph 52 Bof the
Court's Order of 8April1993, though addressed also to Bosnia-Herzego-
vina, concerned only the need forthe Parties to refrain from action tend-
ingto the aggravation or extension of the existingdispute.
(Signed) Shigeru ODA.
Declaration of Vice President Oda