SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC POCAR

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BRANT
[Translation]
1. I am in general agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the Court as set out in the present Judgment. However, I cannot endorse the decision in subparagraph (5) of the operative clause, by which the Court finds that the Russian Federation, as a result of the measure banning the Mejlis, has violated the Order of 19 April 2017 indicating provisional measures. I therefore wish to set out briefly the reasons why I disagree with the majority of the Court on this aspect of the Judgment.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Concept of “funds” in the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism  Function of non-financial assets  Mental elements of the offence of terrorism financing.
Article 12 of the ICSFT  Unjustified delay as a failure to afford the greatest measure of assistance  Justification of a refusal to provide assistance.
Scope of Ukraine’s case under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination  No requirement for a pattern of racial discrimination under CERD.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA
The Court rejects the clean hands doctrine as a defence on the merits in a situation where the respondent State argues that the applicant State has engaged in unlawful conduct  The Court does not address the applicability of the clean hands doctrine in investment arbitration.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Interpretation of Article 1 (1) of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism  Definition of “funds”  Meaning of “assets of every kind”  Term “assets of every kind” includes weapons.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Original English Text]
Non-aggravation measure  Complementary measure  No violation  The Court has stepped outside its jurisdiction given the subject-matter of the dispute in the present case.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]
1. I voted in favour of all the subparagraphs of the operative part of the present Judgment, with the exception of subparagraph (6) whereby the Court finds that the Russian Federation has violated its obligation to comply with the provision of the Order indicating provisional measures of 19 April 2017 directing it to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute, or make it more difficult to resolve.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA
I.
1. In its Order on provisional measures, adopted on 19 April 2017, the Court indicated, among others, the following provisional measure:
“(1) With regard to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must, in accordance with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,