Summary of the Order of 13 September 1993

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECONCERNINGAPPLICATION OFTHE ClONVENTIONON THE PREVENTIONION
AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (BOSNIAAND HERZEGOVINA

v.YUGOSLAVIA (SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)

Order ofof3 13 September 19933

In an arder issued in the case concerning Application of zegovina from April 1992up to the present day which, inn
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the its contention, amount to acts of genocide within the defi-
Crime of Genocide (Bosnia andHerzegovinana v.Yugoslaviaa nition given in the Genocide Convention and claims that
(Serbiaand Montenegro)),the Court issuedan interim orderr the acts complained of have been committed by former
of provisional measures reaffirmingthe measures it orderedd members of the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) and byy

on 8 April 1993, when Bosnia and Herzegovina first Serb m.ilitaryand paramilitary forces under the direction
moved in the Court against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Mon- of, at the behest of, and with assistance from Yugoslavia,
tenegro). lt held that "the present perilous situation de­ and that Yugoslavia is therefore fully responsible under
mands, not an indication of provisional measures addi-­ international law for their activities.
tional to those indicated by the Court's Order of 8 April The Court refers to the submissions of Bosnia and Her-
1993,but immediate and effective implementation ofthosee
measures". zegovina, which request the Court to adjudge and declare::

The Court declined to adopt more far-reaching injunc- [Seeparagraphs (a)-(r)reproducedonpages 46 and47, 47,
tions requested by Bosnia as well as an injunction sought in the Order of8 April 1993.1]
by Yugoslavia requiring Bosniatotake all measures withinn
its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide The Court further refers to the request made by Bosnia
against the Serbs in Bosnia. In declining Bosnian requests, and Herzegovina (also on 20 March 1993) for the indica-
among others, to interdict plans to partition Bosnian terri- tion of the following provisional measures:
tory, to declare annexation of Bosnian territory to be ille-
gal, andto hold that Bosnia must havethe means to preventnt [Seeparagraphs 1-6 reproduced on page 47, in then the
acts of genocide and partition by obtaining military sup­ Order of 8 April 1993.1
plies, the Court pointed out that it hadprima faciejurisdic-c­
tion in this case to order interim measures only within the The Court also refers to the recommendation by Yugo-
scope of thejurisdiction conferred on it by the Cqnventionn slavia (in written observations on the request for provi­
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno­ sional measures, submitted on 1 April 1993) that the
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Gene- Court order the application of the following provisional
cide. It was not entitled to deal with broader claims. measures:
At the sametime, the Courtrecordedthat, since its Order
of 8 April, and despite it and many resolutions of the "-to instruct the authorities controlled by A. Izetbe­
United Nations Security Council, "great suffering and loss &'-to instruct the authorities controlled by A. Izetbe-
of life has been sustained by the population of Bosnia and govic to comply strictly with the latest agreement on
Herzegovina in circumstances which shock the conscience a cease-fire in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Herze-
govina' which went into forceon 28 March 1993;;
of mankind and flagrantly conflict with moral law ....".. -to direct the authorities under the control of A. Izet-
It observed that the "grave risk" which the Court appre- begovic to respect the Geneva Conventions for the
hended in April of the dispute over the commission off Protection of Victims of War of 1949 and the 1977
genocide in Bosnia being aggravated and extended "has Additional Protocols thereof, since the genocide of
been deepened by the persistence of conflicts" on itster-­ Serbs living in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Herze­
ritory "and the commission of heinous acts in the coursee Serbs living in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Herze-
of those conflicts". The Court declared that it is "not sat­ govina' is being carried out by the commission ofof
isfied that all that might have been done has been done" very serious war crimes which are in violation of the
to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and reminded the Parties to obligation not to infringe upon the essential human
the case that they were obliged to take the Court's provi- rights;
sional measures "seriously into account". -to instruct the authorities loyal to A. Izetbegovic to
close immediately and disband all prisons and deten-
* tion camps in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Herze-
*
* * govina' in which the Serbs are being detained be­
* * cause of their ethnic origin and subjected to acts of
In its Order, the Court recalls that on 20 March 1993 torture, thus presenting a real danger for their life and
Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings against health;
Yugoslavia in respect of a dispute concerning allegeded -to direct the authorities controlled by A. Izetbegovic
violations by Yugoslavia of the Convention on thePreven-­ to allow, without delay, the Serb residents to leave
tion and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In thehe safely Tuzla, Zenica, Sarajevo and other places in the

Application Bosnia and Herzegovina, basing the jjurisdic- 'R.epublicof Bosnia and Herzegovina', where they
tion of the Court on article IX of the Convention for the ha.ve been subject to harassment and physical and
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,de, mentalabuse, andhaving inmind that they may sufferfer
adopted by the General Assembly oof the United Nations on the same fate as the Serbs in eastern Bosnia, which
9 December 1948 (hereinafter called "the Genocide Con- was the site of the killing and massacres of a few
vention"), recounts a series of events in Bosnia andHer-- thousand Serb civilians;

58 -to instruct the authorities loyal to A. Izetbegovic to armed forces (soldiers, sailors, airpeople) to the Govem­
cease immediately any further destruction of Ortho·· ment of Bosnia and Herzegovina at its request;
dox churches and places of worship and of other 10. That United Nations Peacekeeping Forces in
Serb cultural heritage, and to releasc and stop fur-· Bosnia and Herzegovina (i.e., UNPROFOR) must do all
ther mistreatment of all Orthodox Pliests being in in their power to ensure the flow of humanitarian relief

pnson; supplies to the Bosnian People through the Bosnian city
-to direct the authorities under the control of A. Izet-· of Tuzla".
begovic to put an end to all acts of discrimination The Court then recalls that on 5 August 1993 the Presi­
based on nationality or religion and the practice of dent of the Court addressed a message to both Parties,
'cthnic clcansing', including the discrimination relat­ referring to Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of

ing to the delivery of humanitarian aid, against the Court, which enables him, pending the meeting of the
Scrb population in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Her­ Court,
zegovina'. " "to caUupon the parties to act in such a way as will enable
After recalling its Order of 8 April 1993, the Court any order the Court may make on the request for provi­
sional measures to have its appropriate effects",
rd'ers to a second request of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
filed on 27 July 1993, by which it urgently requests the and stating:
Court to indicate the following additional provisional "1 do now cali upon the Parties so to act, and 1 stress
ml~asures: that the provisional measures already indicated in the
Order which the Court made after hearing the Parties, on
"1. That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must
immediately ccase and desist from providing, directly or 8 April 1993, still apply.
indirectly, any type ofsupport-including training, weap­ Accordingly 1 calI upon the Parties to take renewed
ons, arms, ammunition, supplies, assistance, finances, note of the Court's Order and to take ail and any meas­
direction or any other form of support-to any nation, ures that may be within their power to prevent any
group, organization, movement, military, militia or commission, continuance, or encouragement of the
paramilitary force, irregular armed unit, or individual heinous intemational crime of genocide".
in Bosnia and Herzegovina for any reason or purpose
whatsoever; The Court further refers to a request by Yugoslavia, filed
on 10 August 1993, whereby Yugoslavia requested the
2. That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Mont(:negro) and all Court to indicate the following provisional measure:
of its public officials-including and 4!specially the
President of Serbia, Mr. Siobodan Milosevic-must "The Govemment of the so-called Republic of Bosnia
immediately cease and desist from any and all efforts, and Herzegovina should immediately, in pursuance of
plans, plots, schemes, proposais or negotiations to par­ its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention
tition, dismember, annex or incorporate the sovereign and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 Decem­
territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina; ber 1948, take ail measures within its power to prevent
commission of the crime of genocide against the Serb
3. That the annexation or incorporation of any sov­ ethnic group".
ereign territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herze­
govina by Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) by any Hearings on the two requests were held on 25 and 26
means or for any reason shall be deemed ilIegal, nulI, August 1993.
and void ab initio;
4. That the Govemment of Bosnia and Herzegovina *

must have the means 'to prevent' the commission of * *
acts of genocide against its own People as required by
article 1of the Genocide Convention; After referring to several questions of procedure, the
S. That all Contracting Parties to the Genocide Con­ Court begins by considering that in order to be admissible
vention are obliged by article 1thereof 'to prevent' the the second request by Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that of
commission of acts of genocide against the People and Yugoslavia, should be based upon new circumstances such
State of Bosnia and Herzegovina; as to justify their being examined. The Court finds that that
is the case.
6. That the Govemment ofBosnia and:Herzegovina
must have the means to defend the People and State of
Sosnia and Herzegovina from acts of genocide and par­ *
tition and dismembemlent by means of genocide;
7. That all Contracting Parties to the Genocide Con­ * *

vention have the obligation thereunder 'to prevent' acts Tuming to the question of its jurisdiction, the Court re­
of genocide, and partition and dismembemlent by means calls that in its Order of 8 April 1993 the Court considered
of genocide, against the People and State of Bosnia and that article IX of the Genocide Convention, to which both
Herzegovina; the Applicant and the Respondent are parties, appeared to
8. That in order to fulfil its obligations under the the Court
Genocide Convention under the current 4;ircumstance,
the Govcmment of Bosnia and Herzegovina must have "to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the
Court might be founded to the extent that the subject­
the ability to obtain military weapons, equipment, and matter of the dispute relates to 'the interpretation,
supplies from other Contracting Parties; application or fulfilment' of the Convention, including
9. That in order to fulfil their obligations under the disputes 'relating to the responsibility of a State for
Genocide Convention under the current cl.rcumstances, genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in
all Contracting Parties. thereto must have the ability to Article III' of the Convention" (I.c.J. Reports 1993,
provide military weapons, equipment, supplies and p. 16, para. 26).

59 ftthereafter examines several additional bases of juris­ parties, but not by third States or other entities who would
diction relied on by the Applicant, finding that the 1919 not be bound by the eventual judgment to recognize and
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye is irrelevant for the respect those rights.
present request; that no new fact has been put forward
to reopen the question of whether the letter of 8 June 1992 Three of the measures requested by the Applicant pro­
addressed to the President of the Arbitration Commission vide that the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
of the International Conference for Peace in Yugoslavia "must have the means" to prevent the commission of
may constitute a ground for jurisdiction; that the Court's genocide.,and to defend its people against genocide, and
jurisdiction under customary and conventional laws of "must have the ability to obtain military weapons, equip­
ment and supplies" from the other parties to the Geno­
war and international humanitarian law is not prima facie cide Convention. The Court observes that Article 41 of
established; and that a communication Yugoslavia made the Statute empowers the Court to indicate measures
in the context of the first request for provisional meas­ "which ought to be taken to preserve the respective
ures by the Applicant, dated 1 April 1993, cannot, even rights of either party", and that this means measures
prima facie, be interpreted as "an unequivocal indication" which ought to be taken by one or both parties to the
of a "voluntary and indisputable" acceptance of the case; that, however, it is clear that the intentionof the
Court'sjurisdiction. Applicant in requesting these measures is not that the
Court indicate that the Respondent ought to take certain
* steps for the preservation of the Applicant's rights, but
rather that the Court make a declaration of what those
* * rights are, which "would clarify the legal situation for
The Court then observes that the power of the Court the entire international community", in particular the
to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the members of the United Nations Security Council. The
Statute of the Court has as its object to preserve the re­ Court acc:ordinglyfinds that this request must be regarded
spective rights of the parties pending the decision of the as outside the scope of Article 41 of the Statute.
Court, and presupposes that irreparable prejudice should
not be caused to rights which are the subject of dispute Two of the measures requested relate to the possibiJity
in judicial proceedings; and whereas it follows that the of "partition and dismemberment", annexation or incorpo­
Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures ration of the sovereign territory of Bosnia and Herze­
the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by the govina. The Court is unable to accept that a "partition
Court to belong either to the Applicant or to the Respon­ and dismemberment", or annexation of a sovereign
dent and that the Court, having established the existence State, or its incorporation into another State, could in itself
of one basis on which its jurisdiction might be founded, constitute an act of genocide and thus a matter falling
namely, articleIX of the Genocide Convention, and having within the jurisdiction of the Court under article IX of
been unable to find that other suggested bases could the Genocide Convention. On the other hand, in so far
as it is the Applicant's contention that such "partition
prima facie be accepted as such, ought not to indicate and dismemberment", annexation or incorporation will
measures for the protection of any disputed rights other result from genocide, the Court, in its Order of 8 April
than those which might ultimately form the basis of a 1993, has already indicated that Yugoslavia should "take
judgment inthe exercise ofthejurisdiction thus prima facie an measures within its power to prevent commission of
established. the crime of genocide", whatever might be its conse­
quences.
*

* * *
After reiterating the measures it indicated in its Order * •
of 8 April 1993, the Court then sums up the rights
sought to be protected, as enumerated in the second re­ Turning to the request by Yugoslavia,the Court does not
quest of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the indication of find that the circumstances, as they now presentthemselves
provisional measures, and concludes that nearly ail of to theCourt, are such as to require a more specific indica­
those rights were asserted in almost identical terms in tion of measures addressed to Bosnia and Herzegovina so
Bosnia and Herzegovina's first request and that only one as to recall to it both its undoubted obligations under the
of them is such that itmay prima facie to sorne extent Genocide Convention and the need to refrain from action
fall within the rights arising under the Genocide Conven­ of the kind contemplated by paragraph 52 B of the Court's
tion; and that it was therefore in relation to that para­ Order of 8 April 1993.
graph and for the protectionof rights underthe Convention
that the Court indicated provisional measures in its Order
of 8 April 1993. *
• *
The Court then turns to the list of measures which the
Applicant requests it to indicate and observes that it in­ The Court finally refers to Article 75, paragraph 2, of
cludes certain measures which wouId be addressed to the Rules of Court, which recognizes the power of the
States or entities not parties the proceedings.The Court Court, when a request for provisional measures has been
considers that the judgment in a particular case has, in made, to indicate measures that are in who le or in part
accordance with Article 59 of the Statute of the Court, other than those requested and observes that the Court
"no binding force except between the parties"; and that has to consider the circumstances drawn to its attention
accordingly the Court may, for the preservation of those and to determine whether those circumstances require the
rights, indicate provisional measures to be taken by the indication of further provisional measures to be taken by

60 the Parties for the protection of rights under the Genocide Declaration of Vice-President Oda
Convention.
lUter reviewing the situation and after referring to Vice-President Oda, in his declaration, regrets that the
several pertinent resolutions the Security Council, the Court took no specific position on Yugoslavia's request for
Court cornesto the conclusion that the indicationof a provisional measure to the effect that
Bosnia and Herzegovina should do ail in its power to pre­
"the present perilous situation demands, not an indica­ vent genocidal acts against the Serb ethnic group, a request
tion of provisionalm~:asu rdestional to those indi­ presented on the basisf evidence submitted to the United
cated by the Court's Order of 8 April 1993 ... but Nations. He is unconvinced by the Court's reasons for
immediate and effective implementation of those avoiding a direct response to this request.
measures".
Separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen
*
In his separate opinion, Judge Shahabuddeen explained
.. * his reasons for agreeing with the Court's holding on the
question of prorogated jurisdiction. He could not accept
The full text of the operative paragraph reads as followYugoslavia's objection that Bosnia and Herzegovina's
"61. For these reasons, request for interim measures amounted to a request for
an interim judgment. Nor could he accept that, in the cir­
THECOURT, cumstances of the case, Bosnia and Herzegovina was not
(1) By 13 votes to 2, entitled to rely on media material. In his view, Yugoslavia
Reaffirms the provisional measure indic:atedin para­
graph 52A (1) ofthe Ordermade by the COllrton 8 April had not complied with the provisional measures indicated
1993, which should be immediately and effectively by the Court on 8 April 1993. For this and other reasons
implemented; given by him, he considered that it would not be correct
for the Court to act on the basis the material presented
IN FAVOUR:President Sir Robert Jennings; Vice­ by Yugoslavia.
President Oda; Judges Schwebel, Be:djaoui, Ni,
Evensen, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar Mawdsley, Separate opinion of Jlldge Weeramantry
Weeramantry, Ajibola, Herczegh; Judge ad hoc Lauter­
pacht; Judge Weeramantry in his separate opinion stated that
AOAINSTJ :udge Tarassov; Judge ad hoc Kreéa; the facts before the Court fall into three categories:accounts
(2) By 13 votes to 2, and reports carried by the media; statementsof disinter­
ested third parties su as United Nations officiais; and
Reaffirms the provisional measure indicated in para­ communiqués issued by the Government of Yugoslavia
graph52 A (2) ofthe Order made by the Court on 8April and the Government of the Republic of Serbia. The opinion
1993, which should be immediately and effectively states that evenif the first category be completely ex­
implemented; cluded, the material placed before the Court in the second
IN FAVOUR: Presid~ S:rntobert Jennings; Vice­ and third categories is sufficient to satisfy the Court on a
President Oda; Judges Schwebel, Bedjaoui, Ni, provisional basis and for the limited purposeof interim
Evensen, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Aguilar Mawdsley, measures that circumstances exist, in termsf Article 41
Weeramantry, Ajibola, Herczegh; Judge ad hoc Lauter­ of the Statute of the Court, showing a prima facie case of
pacht; non-compliance by Yugoslavia with the Order of the Court

AOAINSTJ :udge Tarassov; Judge ad hoc Kreéa; of 8 April.
(3) By 14 votes to l, The rest of the opinion addresses the question
Reaffirms the provisional measure indicated in para­ whether a provisional order made by the Court is bind­
graph 52 B of theOrd( ~rde by the Court on 8 April ing in law. The opinion examines the general principles
1993, which should be immediately and effectively applicable to the matter as weil as the relevant provi­
implemented. sions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of
IN FAVOUR: Presid~ SmrtRobert Jennings; Vice­ the Court and the Rules of Court, and reaches the conclu­
President Oda; Judges Schwebel, Bedjaoui, Ni, sion that provisional measures once ordered impose an
Evensen, Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, obligationof compliance with that Order which is binding
in law.
Aguilar Mawdsley, Weeramantry, Ajibola, Herczegh;
Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht; Italso states that in the absence of such a principle the
AOAINSTJ :udge ad hoc Kreéa." competence of the Court to discharge the obligations rest­
ing upon it under the Charter and the Statute would be sig­
* nificantly impaired.

* * Separate opinion of Judge Ajibola

Vice-President Oda appended a declaration to the Order On the two requests for indication of provisional meas­
of the Court. ures presented to the Court by both Parties, Judge Ajibola
Judges Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry and Ajibola and reaches the same conclusion, in his separate opinion, as the
Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht appended separate:opinions to Court, albeit via another route.points out that since the
Parties have not complied with the first Order issued by
the Order. the Court, it has the power to insist that no subsequent
Judge Tarassov and Judge ad hoc Kre6a appended dis­ Order should be indicated until the Parties ensure that the
senting opinions to the Order. earlierOrder of 8 April 1993 has been complied with. In

61his view, the Court has that power, not only by invoking virtually unlimited requirements on Yugoslavia. Bos­
its statutory power under the Statute and Rules of Court, nia's second request confirmed his apprehensions in
but alsoas a part of its inherent power under general inter­ that it ascribed alleged actsf genocide entirely to Yugo­
nationallaw. slavia with no attempt to establish a causallink. To base
He further states that in his view the Court has the a finding of a State's responsibility on a simple ethnic
link with part of the population of another State would
power to indicate provisional measures as part of its be very dangerous for international law. Nevertheless,
incidental power and function, and that such mcasures the Court has reiterated its previous conclusions, but
ought to be binding, effective and enforceable, since other­
wise it may be impeded from functioning as a Court. It without duly mentioning Bosnia's own obligations
is for these alternative reasons that he supports the deci­ analogous to those of Yugoslavia, despite the latter's
sion of the Court, whereby it reaffirms the provisional specifie request in that sense. The Court thus seems to
measures indicated in paragraph 52 of its Order of 8 April have prematurely decided that Yugoslavia has the
1993. lion's shareof responsibility for the prevention of acts of
genocide.
Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht Judge Tarassov finds this a one-sided approach to a
fratricidal war in which ail ethnic groups involved have
Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht, concurring with the Court, sufferecl inexpressibly.He is unable to support an Order
says that he would have preferred the Court's Order to be enshrining it when ail interested parties have accepted a
more dctailed both in its statementof material facts and in constitutional agreement and are urged by the Security
the measures which it indicates. Emphasizing the unprece­ Council to conclude ajust and comprehensive political set­
dented human dimension of the case, he finds that the
atrocities committed by the Serbs against the Muslims in tlement as soon as possible. To stress the need for the Par­
Bosnia, especially the process of "ethnic c1eansing", ties to the case to facilitate that settlement would have been
amount to genocide and that the Respondent Government to indicate the most urgent and effective measure for the
has done nothing to rebut the evidence of its support for prevention of genocide, but unfortunately the Court made
the Bosnian Serbs. no reference at ail to that need. The Court's silence on the
point arnounts to a regrettable failure to exercise its moral
He observes that the Security Council's arms embargo authority.
has led to a marked imbalance between the weaponry in
the hands of the Serbian and Muslim populations ofBosnia Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Kreéa
and Herzegovina and that the United Nations Special Rap­
porteur (whose view has been adopted by the General Judg ac ~oc Kreéais of the opinion that the indicated
Assembly) has identified this imbalance as having contrib­ provisional measures, particularly the first two ofthem, are
uted to the intensity of ethnic c1eansing in the area. He not balanced, and that they are broad, being ambiguous and
points to the fact that the prohibition of genocide has long suggestive, so that both in wording and in content they
been accepted as a matter of jus cogens, a legal order come dangerously close to, and even incorporate, certain
superior to treaties. In so far, therefore, as the embargo canelements of an interim judgment.
be seen as contributing to ethnic cleansing and thus to
genocide, its continuing validity has becorne doubtful and He takes the view that the prejudicial nature of these
the Security Council should know this when reconsidering measures emanates from this Order which, in substance, is
the embargo. a reaffirmation of the Order of 8 April 1993.
In addition to sharing the Court's opinion that it
possesses jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, In his opinion, in this stage of proceedings in which
Judge Lauterpacht holds that the Respondent has, by the Court cannot make "definitive findings of fact and
imputability", if the Court found that al! requirements
a request that it made to the Court on 1 April 1993, given for the indication of such measures had been met, it
the Court additional jurisdiction to deal with certain should have decreed a general provisional measure which
other aspectsof the conflict in Bosnia. He, therefore,favours would, in substance, have coincided with the message of
the indicationof additional measures to coyer such matters the President of the Court of 5 August 1993 addressed
as compliance with the Geneva Conventions, the release to bothParties in the dispute, together with specifie interim
of detainees and the ending of discrimination on ethnie measures based on the concept of notoriety which wouId
grounds. include a request to the Applicant to continue the peace
negotiations as the most effective and expedient way to
Dissenting opinion of Judge Tarassov put an end to the inferno of civil war in Bosnia and Her­
zegovina.
Judge Tarassov recalls that he had been unable to
support one of the measures indicated by the Order of Judge ad hoc Kreéaalso believes that, in relation to the
the Court of 8 April 1993, because it came, in his view, general measure, such specifie interim measures should be
close to a prejudgment and imposed ill-defined and of either an alternative or a cumulative nature.

62