925

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Reason for adding separate opinion to joint declaration — Issue of prima
facie jurisdiction in 1999 Orders on provisional measures — Position of Yugo-
slavia in period 1992-2000 not substantiated in Judgment — Implication for
other pending cases in which Applicant is party — Consistency with earlier case
law ignored by the Court.

918

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Removal from the List other than for reasons of discontinuance — Inherent
powers of the Court — Inherent powers not limited to two existing examples —
Reasons why this case should have been removed from the List — Inappropriate
for Judgment to have pronounced on Article 35, paragraph 2, of Statute.

917

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

While I concur with the Court’s findings in the operative paragraph of
the Judgment, I nevertheless consider it important to stress the following.
What the Court was asked to determine and has, in fact, ruled on
during this phase of the proceedings is the issue of jurisdiction.

912

JOINT DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA,

JUDGES GUILLAUME, HIGGINS, KOOIJMANS,
AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAL AND ELARABY

[English Original Text]

Various objections to the jurisdiction of the Court — Freedom of choice of
the Court — Guiding criteria: consistency; certitude; implications for the other
pending cases — Judgment of the Court inappropriately based on its lack of
jurisdiction ratione personae — Judgment incompatible with previous decisions
of the Court.

403

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MAMPUYA

[Translation]

The amount of compensation calculated by the Court in respect of the mor▯al
injury is excessive, and disproportionate to Mr. Diallo’s suffering — The principles
governing the assessment of pecuniary reparation in international law sh▯ould be

396

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MAHIOU

[Translation]

391

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GREENWOOD

385

DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF

Disagreement with point 3 of the operative paragraph — Improper character ‑
ization of actual material injury suffered — Reformulation of claim as loss of
professional remuneration is restrictive, without legal or logical reasoning — Exis

347

SEPARATE OPINION

OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. P rolegomena 1-3

II. The Subject of the Rights gBreached and the Subjecgt of
the Right to Reparationsg 4-13

309

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA

1. The Court’s Judgment accepts the view that the jurisdictional immu-
nity of a foreign State does not cover certain claims concerning repara -
tion for torts committed in the forum State. However, the Court

“considers that customary international law continues to require thatp
a State be accorded immunity in proceedings for torts allegedly com -