DECLARATION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. Although I have voted in favour of the operative paragraphs of the Judgment, I wish to comment on two aspects of the decision.
State responsibility
2. The first seven sentences of paragraph 59 of the Judgment read as follows:

DECLARATION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE 1. In this declaration, I offer some observations with respect to the Court’s decision to reject the Respondent’s preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae, with which I agree. 2.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
Table of Contents
Paragraph
I. Prolegomena ................................................................................................................. 1
II. Basis of Jurisdiction: Its Importance for the Protection of the Vulnerable under U.N. Human Rights Conventions. ................................................................................ 4

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Jurisdiction ratione materiae of Court under ICSFT  Criminal law nature of ICSFT  Ukraine’s claims related to support in internal armed conflict  Rights Ukraine seeks to protect implausible at provisional measures stage  Court should have analysed whether Ukraine’s claims within scope of ICSFT  Supply of arms outside scope of “funds”  Ukraine’s claims outside Court’s jurisdiction.

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT XUE
1. With much regret, I departed from the majority and voted against the decision on the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter the “ICSFT”). I firmly believe that the Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT in this case.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC JILLANI

DECLARATION OF JUDGE IWASAWA
Applicability of the clean hands doctrine to the present case  Anti-terrorism conventions also require consular access to be granted without delay  Relationship between the Vienna Convention and subsequent agreements  If the 2008 Agreement was intended to allow limitation of consular access in cases of espionage, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention would prevail over the 2008 Agreement.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
Jurisdiction of the Court  Relationship between Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 36 (1) (c) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations  Systemic Integration and Article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties  Interpretation of Subsequent Agreements under Article 73 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations  Relationship between Article 73 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 2008 Agreement between India and Pakistan on Consular Access.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
Table of Contents
Paragraphs
I. Prolegomena. .................................................................................................................. 1
II. Jurisprudential Construction: The Legacy of the Pioneering Advisory Opinion n. 16 (1999) of the IACtHR............................................................................................. 5
III. The Evolution with the Advisory Opinion n. 18 (2003) of the IACtHR........................ 10