DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC KATEKA
Disagreement with the operative part of the Judgment ⎯ Disagreement with the reasoning
on procedural and substantive grounds ⎯ Preliminary issues ⎯ The VCDR preamble alone
cannot be basis of consent condition ⎯ Circumstances for a property to acquire status of
“premises of the mission” ⎯ Judgment ignores “use” condition and prefers “consent”
condition ⎯ Interpretation of Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ⎯

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GAJA

Assignment of a building for the use as premises of a diplomatic mission ⎯
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ⎯ Absence of a requirement that the receiving State
gives its consent ⎯ Application of laws and regulations of the receiving State ⎯ Positions taken by
certain receiving States with regard to the location of premises of missions ⎯ Alleged abuse of rights
by the sending State ⎯ Compliance by the receiving State with its obligations under the Convention.

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT XUE

1. Regrettably, I disagree with the decision rendered by the Court in this case. As a judicial
duty, I shall explain the reasons for my position.
1. The issue involved in the present case

SEPARATE OPINION OF PRESIDENT YUSUF

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

IN THE NAME OF GOD
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE 1955 TREATY OF AMITY,
ECONOMIC RELATIONS, AND CONSULAR RIGHTS
(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
ANNEXES TO THE OBSERVATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS
ON THE U.S. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

23 December 2019