SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEPÚLVEDA-AMOR

I find myself in full agreement with most of the reasoning of the Court
in the present Judgment. The same is true of almost all the conclusions
reached by the Court in the operative clause of the Judgment. However,
as regards the legality of Nicaragua’s imposition of visa requirements, the

293

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC YUSUF

[Translation]

I. Jurisdiction of the Court — II. Violation by France of the 1986 Conven-
tion on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (CMACM) — A. Violation by
France of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in
Criminal Matters — B. Violation by France of Articles 2 and 3, paragraph 1,
and Article 17 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters —
III. Attacks on the immunity from jurisdiction and inviolability of the Head of

288

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GUILLAUME

[Translation]

Jurisdiction — Reference to the Court pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5, of
the Rules of the Court — Scope of the consent given by the Parties — The
Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain new claims not formulated in the Applica-
tion.

1. This is the first time in the Court’s history that a case has been
referred to it pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules, according
to which:

284

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV

JURISDICTION

1. The Court has determined that the Parties accepted its jurisdiction
to examine the claims contained in Djibouti’s Application as a whole. I
concur with that conclusion.

278

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KEITH

1. While I agree fully with the decision reached by the Court in this
case, I disagree with aspects of its reasoning relating to France’s refusal
to comply with Djibouti’s letter rogatory. I will take this opportunity to
explain why.

269

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA

[Translation]

265

DECLARATION OF JUDGE OWADA

I concur with all the points in the operative clause of the Judgment
relating both to jurisdiction and to the merits, except one. However, I
have voted against subparagraph (1) (d) relating to jurisdiction to adju-
dicate upon the dispute concerning the arrest warrants issued against the

two senior Djiboutian officials on 27 September 2006.
For this reason, I wish to make this statement to clarify my position on
that point.

**

258

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

Consent to jurisdiction under Article 38, paragraph 5, of Rules of Court —
Court’s understanding of the French reply as encompassing all claims mentioned
in Djibouti’s Application — Interpretation should be restricted to those claims
mentioned in paragraph 2 of Djibouti’s Application.

1. My vote in favour of paragraph 205, subparagraphs (1) (a) and
(d), and of subparagraph (2) of the Judgment does not mean that I agree

252

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

248

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]