136

DECLARATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]

I agree with the conclusion of the Court that there is no reason to
indicate the provisional measures requested by the Applicant. However,
I am not entirely satisfied with the approach adopted by the Court,
which emphasizes the limits of the Applicant’s arguments and criticizes
it for not providing sufficient supporting evidence. While such an observa-

SEPARA'TE OPINION OF JUDGE MAVUNGU

[Translation]

1. The Court's findings on the request for the indication of provisional
measures submitted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo show - if
that were needed - how complex this case is. There are those who may

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DUGARD

Circumstcincesto he cor7sirlered in decidingivhento ren?oilecasejrom the List
- Manij2st luck ofjurisdiction wurrunting reniovuljrom List tchenno reason-

ablepossibility thutjurisdiction muy be estublishedinsuh.sequentproceedings -
Groundsuadvunced,for juriscliction iripresent proceedings marzij2stlyunfiunciecl
- Need to renzoi,eApplicutionjrorn List - E.xpressionqf'concernthut Court's
even-hurzu'ed coniments on situution rnight he irnproperlyinterpreted.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ELARABY

1. 1have voted against the rejection of the request for the indication of
provisional measures submitted by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, mainly because, in accordance with its Statute and its present
jurisprudence, the Court should, in principle grant a request for provi-
sional measures once the requirements of urgency on the one hand and

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

Language of'paragraphs 54 through 56 and 93 inappropriate - Absence of

jurisdiction to address subject-matter- Text gives credence, whether intended
or not, to c1aim.sof'one Party - Court's poi.t3erslimited to exercise of judicial
functions - "Feel-good" provisions not ivithin scope of,jurisdiction.

1. 1agree with the Court's decision rejecting the Democratic Republic

DECLARATION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

1.1 have voted in favour of the Order because, in my view, it has

attempted to address some of the concerns at the heart of the request.

2. In its request for the indication of provisional measures and during
the public hearings, the Congo invoked various legal instruments, includ-
ing inter alilthe United Nations Charter, the Charter of the Organiza-
tion of African Unity, the International Bill of Human Rights, the Geno-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE CARA

Distinctivent>s.O~L'LIS~- Riglzts to hepreserved - Di iision (fjurisdiction-
Itnnmunity jrom jurisdiction - Inviolability-- Dignity oj Heud ifStore - Risk
oj'prcjudice -- lrreparubility - Urgency - Risk of ag::ravation of dispute -
Stuteruieritsby a pcrrtj,ut lzeuri~~g s Good,filitlz - Oh'igation tu i~zfoïtn,judi-
ciu/ uut/~ority,

JOINT SEPARATE OPINlON OF JUDGES KOROMA AND

VERESHCHETIN

Substance of' Congo's request fbr provisionczl meusure- Detevrîzining "cir-
cumstances" to be tuken into considerution under Article 41 - Hoiv vulid is
distinction betcveen the damage to the alleged cluirned rights us such und the
consequences of tlieir violatio- Al1uspects of the dispute t» be consiu'rred.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ODA

1. 1should like to add a few lines of explanation in regard to my vote
in favour of the Court's Order constituting the Chamber to deal with

El Salvador's Application for revision.
2. Article 100, paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court provides as follows: