DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AZEVEDO
[Translation.]
Whilst regretting that my opinion differsfrom that of the Court,
1 give an affirmative answer to both questions for the following
reasons :

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE READ

1 am unable to concur in the answer given by the Court to
Question III, or with the reasons by which it is justified, and
feel bound, with regret, to state the reasons for my dissent. As
1 am of the opinion that an affirmative answer should be given
to Question III, it is also necessary for me to state the reasons
which have led me to the conclusion that an affirmative answer
should be given to Question IV.

DISSENTING OPINION BY M. KRYLOV.

[Translation.]
To my regret, 1 am unable for the following reasons to concur in
the opinion of the Court.

[Translation.]
1 agree with the Court's opinion as regards its competence to
interpret the Charter, but 1 am sorry 1 cannot support the opinion,
firstlybecause 1consider that the Court shouldhave refrained from
answering the question put, and secondly because 1 cannot accept
the conclusions of the reply

DISSENTING OPINION

OF JUDGES BASDEVANT, WINIARSKI,
SIR ARNOLD McNAIR AND READ.

INDIVIDUAL OPINION BY M. AZEVEDO.
[Translation.]

1.-1 agree with the findings of the Court, and the purpose
of the following remarks is merely to explain certain reasons
which 1 should like to add to the opinion.

INDIVIDUAL OPINION Bi' M. ALVAREZ.
[Translation.]

1.

I do not agree with the method adopted by the Court in giving
the opinion for which it has been asked by the General Assembly
of the United Nations.

567

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC CALLINAN

1. I have voted in favour of the Order. There are, however, observa ‑
tions that I wish separately to make.
2. Australia has submitted that any Order that the Court now makes
should be dispositive of the whole proceedings brought by Timor‑Leste.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

1.Although I have concurre d in the adoption today, 22Apri l2015, of the present Order of

Provisional Measures of Protection in the case of Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention
of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste versus Australia), for standing in agreement with the
resolutory points of its dispositif, I do not entirely share the reasoning of the Court which has led to

585

DECLARATION
OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

1. I have voted in favour of the adoption — by unanimity — of the

present Order, whereby the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has foéund
that the proper course to take, in the present case of Armed Activities on
the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),