Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :

Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :

Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :

Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO

1am unable to concur in the Order of the Court, and therefore I voted
against its adoption.
In my view, the Court should not have indicated measures of protec-
tion. Notwithstanding contrary opinion, the special features of this case

36 FISHERIES JURlSVlCTlON(ORVER17 VI11 72)

case,it shall, at an appropriate time before 15 August 1973, review
the matter at the request of either Party in order to decide whether the
foregoing measures shall continue or need to be modified or revoked.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation]

DISSEN'TING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

304 FlSHERlES JURISDICTION(ORDER 12VI1 73)

adjudged by the Court to belong respectivelyto the Parties;

Accordingly,

by 11votes to 3,

Confirms that the provisional measures indicated in operative para-
graph (1) of the Order of 17August 1972should, subject to the power of
revocation or modification conferred on the Court by paragraph 7 of
Article 61 of the 1946Rules, remain operative until the Court has given
finaljudgment in the case.

DTSSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO

1an1 unable to concur in the Order of the Court and therefore 1 voted
against its adoption.
In my view, the Court should not have indicated measures of protec-
tion. Notwithstanding contrary opinion, the special features of this case
do not justify such measures against a State which denies the jurisdiction
of the Court, which is not a party to these proceedings and whose rights