DECLARATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Tvanslation]

1have voted in favour of the Court's decision as I consider it to be in
accordance with the relevant law. 1should nonetheless have preferred the
Court to have been more explicit in respect of the problem of its advisory
jurisdiction, by laying stress on the fact that the structure of the question

put by the World Health Assembly did not permit it to exercisethe juris-
diction that it had, in any case.

(Signed) Raymond RANJEVA.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

1havevotedinfavour ofthe AdvisoryOpinionbut consideritnecessary
to explain my position on four aspects. These relate to: (i) the priority
basis of the request; (ii) Romania'sesewation to the Convention on the
Privilegesand Immunities of the United Nations, 1946;(iii) Romania's
caserelating to Mr. Mazilu'sstate of health; and (iv)the applicability of
the Convention to enable an experttoleavehis Stateofnationality orresi-
dence in connection with his mission.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE EVENSEN

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1. 1agreewith the Court's Opinionthat

"Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges
and Immunities of the United Nations is applicable in the case of
Mr. Dumitru Maziluas a special rapporteur ofthe Sub-Commission
on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities."
(Para.61 .)

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RUDA

1have voted in favour of the decision of the Court to comply with the
request for an advisory opinion, in favour of the reply given to Question 1,
and in favour of the reply givento Question II in sofar as it concernsthe legal
ties between the Mauritanian entity and the territory of Western Sahara, but
unfortunately 1cannot go along with the conclusions of the majority,of the
Court concerning the legal ties between the Kingdom of Morocco and this

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BONI

[Translation]

1 have voted without reservation in favour of the Advisory Opinion
delivered by the International Court of Justice.
The Court has decided that Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DILLARD

While 1 am in agreement with the Opinion and the approach taken by

the Court, my reasons do not altogether coincide with those set out in the
Opinion. Furthermore it seems to me desirable to make a few comments
touching the operative clauses of the Opinion and especiallythe significance
which, in my view,attaches to the response to Question II. This furnishes my
excuse for appending aseparate opinion.

[Translation]

Although 1found it unnecessary, hence inappropriate, for the Court to
reply to Question 1, 1voted on this question like my colleagues, since
abstention isnot allowed.Asfor Question II, 1 findmyself inagreementwith
what 1 regard as the essential content of the answer given in the Advisory
Opinion, though unable to subscribe to certain parts of that answer.
Accordingly,while 1 wasthus able to votewiththemajorityon Question II, 1
append this statement of my separate opinion to the Court's decision.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translation]

1subscribe to the AdvisoryOpinion of the International Court ofJustice of

16October 1975,inasmuch as it:
States:"that Western Sahara (Riode Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time
of colonization by Spain was not a territory belonging to no one (terra
nullius)",
finds that the materials and information presented to the Court: