SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

1. In the course of the handling of proceedings on reparations in the present case of Armed

Activities on the Territory of the Congo (D.R. Congo versus Uganda), I have been having
concerns,  as already expressed on the occasion of two previous Orders (of 01.07.2015
and 11.04.2016),  which I deem it fit again to lay on the records in today’s Order
(of 06.12.2016), in the present Separate Opinion in the cas d’espèce.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC KATEKA
1. I voted in favour of the dispositif although I find the provisional measure indicated to be
inadequate. Crucially, I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion in paragraph 50, namely, that,
prima facie, a dispute capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention against
Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention) and therefore concerning the interpretation
or the application of Article 4 of that Convention does not exist between the Parties. I shall explain

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GEVORGIAN
Clarification on paragraph 49 of the Order  Relation between Article 4 of the Palermo
Convention and the principles of international law referred to therein  Immunities
ratione personae derive from the principle of sovereign equality of States.
1. I concur with the conclusions and reasoning of the Order. At the same time, I find it
necessary to clarify my views on the relation between Article 4 of the Palermo Convention and the
principles of international law referred to therein.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GAJA
Over the years the Court has increased the transparency of its deliberations. In its
judgments, the Court records in the operative part (dispositif) all the main decisions, whether it
accepts or rejects the requests of the Parties. Moreover, it gives the names of the judges who voted
in favour or against each decision. However, when it comes to orders on provisional measures,
transparency is still wanting. The Court states in the dispositif the decisions which grant, possibly

SEPARATE OPINION OF J UDGE AD HOC K ATEKA

1. I voted in favour of the dispositif although I find the provisional measure indicated to be
inadequate. Crucially, I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion in paragraph 50, namely, that,
prima facie, a dispute capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention against