INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2024/9
1 February 2024
Swearing-in of Their Excellencies Mr Bogdan-Lucian Aurescu, Ms Sarah Hull Cleveland, Mr Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo Verduzco and Mr Dire Tladi, new Members of the Court Tuesday 6 February 2024 at 10 a.m.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Summary
Unofficial
Summary 2024/2
31 January 2024
Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) Summary of the Judgment of 31 January 2024
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND (PARAS. 28-31)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website X YouTube LinkedIn
Press Release
Unofficial
No. 2024/8
31 January 2024
Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) The Court delivers its Judgment in the case

SEPARATE OPINION, PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING, OF JUDGE AD HOC TUZMUKHAMEDOV
Lack of evidence of terrorism financing — Lack of proof of terrorist intent.
No violation of Article 9 of ICSFT in light of absence of terrorism financing — Threshold adopted by the Majority for Article 9 of ICSFT too low — The Respondent fulfilled its obligations under Article 9 of ICSFT.
The meaning of “funds” excludes weapons — Treaty interpretation — Judicial practice.
The “clean hands” doctrine — Conditions met to apply the doctrine for ICSFT and CERD.

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.