INDIVIDUAL OPINION Bi' M. ALVAREZ.
[Translation.]

1.

I do not agree with the method adopted by the Court in giving
the opinion for which it has been asked by the General Assembly
of the United Nations.

567

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC CALLINAN

1. I have voted in favour of the Order. There are, however, observa ‑
tions that I wish separately to make.
2. Australia has submitted that any Order that the Court now makes
should be dispositive of the whole proceedings brought by Timor‑Leste.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

1.Although I have concurre d in the adoption today, 22Apri l2015, of the present Order of

Provisional Measures of Protection in the case of Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention
of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste versus Australia), for standing in agreement with the
resolutory points of its dispositif, I do not entirely share the reasoning of the Court which has led to

585

DECLARATION
OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

1. I have voted in favour of the adoption — by unanimity — of the

present Order, whereby the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has foéund
that the proper course to take, in the present case of Armed Activities on
the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),

214

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC CALLINAN

1. I have formed the view that it is unnecessary for the Court to indi ‑
cate provisional measures. Before explaining why I have formed that
view, I should say something about the facts of the case so far as they f
may be discerned at this early stage of these proceedings.

Context

208

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE

1. Certain circumstances giving rise to the present case are not in dis ‑
pute. During the pendency of State‑to‑State arbitration, one State seizefd
documents and data from the office of counsel to the opposing State (ffor
convenience, I refer to all seized documents, data and material as “tfhe

194

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GREENWOOD

Legal criteria for indication of provisional measures — Necessity for caution on
the part of the Court — Undertaking given by the Attorney‑General of Australia
dated 21 January 2014 — Formal undertaking given by a State is legally binding

167

SEPARATE OPINION
OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. P rolegomena 1‑2

II. The Centrality of the Quefst for Justice 3‑12

163

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KEITH

1. I regret that I cannot agree with two of the measures the Court has
adopted. My regret is the greater for I do have some understanding of the
“deep offence and shock” felt in Timor‑Leste about the actions off ASIO
to which the Agent of Timor‑Leste referred at the outset of this proceedf‑

391

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC DUGARD