464

DECLARATION OF JUDGE OWADA

1. I have voted in favour of the Judgment in support of all the points
contained in its operative paragraph 122. Nevertheless, I entertain some
divergence of views from the position taken by the present Judgment withv

70

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MAHIOU

[Translatwn}

App!Jcatwnfor revrswn - Admrsslblilfy of the Appllcatwn - Article 61 of
the Statute of the Court- Notwn of 'fact"- Existence or non-ex1stenceof a
newfact- Membersh1pm the Umted Natwns- Jurzsdzctwn ratiOne personae,
ratwne matenae arJd'fat'lOne.tempons of the Court -Admtsswn to the Umted
Natwns and consequences- GenoctdeConventwn- Conduct of the Appltcant
- Fault of the Appl!cant

53

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DIMITRIJEVIé

51

DECLARATION OF JUDGE REZEK

[Translatwn]

1 In the opmton of the maJonty of the Court, the Apphcatwn for
revlSlonsubmltted by the Federal Repubhc ofYugoslavta ISmadmtsstble
Accordmgly, the Genoczde case, m whtch Bosma and Herzegovma ts the
Apphcant and the Federal Repubhc of Yugoslavta the Respondent, must
take tts normal course In no way can 1 support this concluswn

39

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

34

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC VINUESA

1. Although I agree with the first paragraph of the dispositive concern-
ing Uruguay’s breaches of procedural obligations under the 1975 Statute,
I do not share the views of the majority concerning: (1) the relationship
between procedural obligations and substantial obligations; (2) the non-

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC
TORRES BERNÁRDEZ

[Translation]

The opinion only focuses on certain conclusions in the Judgment relating to

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GREENWOOD

Procedural obligations under the Statute of the River Uruguay — Whether

Uruguay has violated those obligations — Duty to inform CARU of proposed
works — Duty to notify Argentina — Duty to negotiate in good faith —
Whether steps taken or authorized by Uruguay violate those obligations — Evi-
dence before the Court — Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Relationship
between experts, witnesses and counsel — Continuing obligations of the Parties.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF

1. I concur in the Judgment, but have some reservations regarding the

manner in which the Court decided to handle the abundant factual mat-
erial presented by the Parties. I am of the view that the Court should
have had recourse to expert assistance, as provided in Article 50 of its
Statute, to help it gain a more profound insight into the scientific and
technical intricacies of the evidence submitted by the Parties, particularly
with regard to the possible impact of the effluent discharges of the Orion