JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES KOROMA
AND YUSUF

Obligation aut dedere aut judicare — The purpose of Belgium’s request for

provisional measures — Senegal’s assurances serve the purpose of Belgium’s
request — Impunity not allowed.

1. We have voted in favour of the Order but nevertheless have decided
to append this declaration given the importance of the matters raised in
the Application and the legal principle involved at this stage of the pro-
ceedings.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA

While I have voted in favour of all the provisional measures, including
those under A, I cannot share the view that the conditions are met for
addressing the latter measures also to the applicant State. The respondent
State did not even allege that in Abkhazia, South Ossetia or adjacent
areas the conduct of Georgian authorities or of individuals, groups or

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
AL-KHASAWNEH AND JUDGES RANJEVA,
SHI, KOROMA, TOMKA,
BENNOUNA AND SKOTNIKOV

[English Original Text]

1. We have regretfully been obliged to vote against the Order granting
provisional measures, persuaded as we are that the conditions for the
adoption of such measures laid down in Article 41 of the Statute and by
the jurisprudence of the Court are not met in the present case. Needless

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV

1. I fully share Mexico’s concerns regarding the scheduled execution of

a Mexican national. I understand Mexico’s frustration with the United
States being hitherto unable to take measures which would ensure its
compliance with the Avena Judgment. However, I voted against the
Court’s Order indicating provisional measures for the reasons which are
explained below. I believe that the Court should have proceeded differ-
ently in order to support Mexico’s ultimate goal of enforcement of the

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES
OWADA, TOMKA AND KEITH

1. To our great regret we find ourselves unable to support the Order
for provisional measures adopted by the Court (para. 80 II (a)). Humani-
tarian considerations which clearly underlie the decision cannot override
the legal requirements of the Statute of the Court. In our view Mexico
has not demonstrated in its Application for interpretation that there is “a
difference of opinion between the Parties as to those points in question in

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

1. I agreed with and voted in favour of the Court’s Judgment in the

Avena case (Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United
States of America)). In that case, the Court held that the United States
had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations with regard
to various Mexican nationals incarcerated in the United States. I found
that Judgment sound as a matter of law and policy, and I continue to
support it without any reservations. The same is not true of the present

26

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC TORRES
BERNÁRDEZ

[Translation]

Agreement and disagreement with the Order — The question of the prima
facie jurisdiction of the Court and of the admissibility of the request submitted
by Uruguay — Argentina’s arguments based on a lack of jurisdiction and on

21

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

1. Although I agree with the Court’s decision to deny Uruguay’s
request for provisional measures in this case, I regret that in doing so the

Court assumed that its power under Article 41 of its Statute is limited to
only one type of provisional measures.

2. The Court has the power, in my opinion, to indicate two distinct
types or categories of provisional measures. By focusing only on one

19

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Article 41 of the Statute — Requirements for the indication of provisional
measures — Prima facie jurisdiction established — Threat of imminent irrepa-
rable harm or prejudice to rights not demonstrated — Judicial role of the Court
in encouraging the peaceful and lawful settlement of disputes — Position
reached by the Court consistent with its judicial role.

147

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC VINUESA

Partial agreement with certain of Court’s considerations and findings — The
dispute does not concern a confrontation between environmental protection of
shared natural resources and the right of sustainable development — Objective
and purpose of the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay — Requirements for the
indication of provisional measures — Rights claimed to be preserved —