385
DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF
Disagreement with point 3 of the operative paragraph — Improper character ‑
ization of actual material injury suffered — Reformulation of claim as loss of
professional remuneration is restrictive, without legal or logical reasoning — Exis
347
SEPARATE OPINION
OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
table of contents
Paragraphs
I. P rolegomena 1-3
II. The Subject of the Rights gBreached and the Subjecgt of
the Right to Reparationsg 4-13
309
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA
1. The Court’s Judgment accepts the view that the jurisdictional immu-
nity of a foreign State does not cover certain claims concerning repara -
tion for torts committed in the forum State. However, the Court
“considers that customary international law continues to require thatp
a State be accorded immunity in proceedings for torts allegedly com -
291
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF
The key question in these proceedings was whether Italian courts violate▯d the
jurisdictional immunity of Germany — The Italian courts set aside the immunity
179
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
table of contents
Paragraphs
I. P rolegomena 1-6
II. Preliminary Issue : The Inter-Temporal Dimensiopn in
the Consideration of Stpate Immunity 7-17
172
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
Evolution of the customary rule of immunity — Change in the concept of sover ‑
eignty — Link between the law of international responsibility and jurisdictional▯
immunity — Right to have access to justice — Exceptional circumstances allowing
the lifting of immunity — Unity of international law — Mechanical conception of
the judicial task.
161
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KEITH
157
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
329
SEpARATE OpINION OF JUdgE dONOgHUE
Agreement with rejection of first preliminary objection but disagreement with
Court’s reasoning and methodology — Dispute involving the subject-matter of
CERD pre-dated 9 August 2008 — Imposition of prior notice and prior opposition
requirements contravenes Court’s established jurisprudence — Mischaracterization
of the requirement in South West Africa cases — Disagreement with Court’s
methodology giving no weight to opposing views in Parties’ submission▯s.
323
SEpARATE OpINION OF JUdgE gREENWOOd