DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA
While I have voted in favour of all the provisional measures, including
those under A, I cannot share the view that the conditions are met for
addressing the latter measures also to the applicant State. The respondent
State did not even allege that in Abkhazia, South Ossetia or adjacent
areas the conduct of Georgian authorities or of individuals, groups or
institutions under their control or influence may cause the risk of irrepa-
rable harm to rights conferred under CERD. Nor does the Court give an
adequate explanation when appraising that risk (see Order, para-
graph 143).
In the present factual situation it seems unlikely that the applicant
State could be responsible for violations of rights under CERD that may
occur in the relevant areas. Even before the recent events in those areas,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that
Georgia had “difficulty in exercising its jurisdiction with regard to the
protection of human rights and the implementation of the Convention in
those regions” [Abkhazia and South Ossetia] (CERD/C/GEO/CO/3,
27 March 2007, para. 4).
(Signed) Giorgio G AJA.
58
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA
While I have voted in favour of all the provisional measures, including
those under A, I cannot share the view that the conditions are met for
addressing the latter measures also to the applicant State. The respondent
State did not even allege that in Abkhazia, South Ossetia or adjacent
areas the conduct of Georgian authorities or of individuals, groups or
institutions under their control or influence may cause the risk of irrepa-
rable harm to rights conferred under CERD. Nor does the Court give an
adequate explanation when appraising that risk (see Order, para-
graph 143).
In the present factual situation it seems unlikely that the applicant
State could be responsible for violations of rights under CERD that may
occur in the relevant areas. Even before the recent events in those areas,
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination found that
Georgia had “difficulty in exercising its jurisdiction with regard to the
protection of human rights and the implementation of the Convention in
those regions” [Abkhazia and South Ossetia] (CERD/C/GEO/CO/3,
27 March 2007, para. 4).
(Signed) Giorgio G AJA.
58 DÉCLARATION DE M. LE JUGE AD HOC GAJA
[Traduction]
Si j’ai voté en faveur de l’indication de toutes les mesures conserva-
toires, y compris celles qui sont visées au point A du dispositif, je ne
peux faire mienne l’idée que les conditions justifiant d’adresser également
ces mesures à l’Etat demandeur sont remplies. L’Etat défendeur n’a pas
même prétendu que la conduite des autorités géorgiennes ou de per-
sonnes, groupes ou institutions sous leur contrôle ou sous leur influence
pourrait faire peser sur les droits conférés par la CIEDR un risque de
préjudice irréparable en Abkhazie, en Ossétie du Sud et dans les régions
adjacentes. En outre, la Cour ne fournit pas d’explication satisfaisante à
l’appui de son appréciation de ce risque (ordonnance, par. 143)
En l’état actuel des choses, il semble peu probable que la responsabilité
de l’Etat demandeur soit susceptible d’être engagée à raison des viola-
tions de droits conférés par la CIEDR qui pourraient se produire dans les
zones considérées. Avant même les récents événements dont celles-ci ont
été le théâtre, le Comité pour l’élimination de la discrimination raciale
avait constaté qu’«il [était] difficile à [la Géorgie] d’exercer, dans ces
régions [l’Abkhazie et l’Ossétie du Sud], sa compétence en matière de pro-
tection des droits de l’homme et de mise en Œuvre de la Convention»
(CERD/C/GEO/CO/3, 27 mars 2007, par. 4).
(Signé) Giorgio G AJA .
58
Declaration of Judge ad hoc Gaja