917

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

While I concur with the Court’s findings in the operative paragraph of
the Judgment, I nevertheless consider it important to stress the following.
What the Court was asked to determine and has, in fact, ruled on
during this phase of the proceedings is the issue of jurisdiction.

912

JOINT DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA,

JUDGES GUILLAUME, HIGGINS, KOOIJMANS,
AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAL AND ELARABY

[English Original Text]

Various objections to the jurisdiction of the Court — Freedom of choice of
the Court — Guiding criteria: consistency; certitude; implications for the other
pending cases — Judgment of the Court inappropriately based on its lack of
jurisdiction ratione personae — Judgment incompatible with previous decisions
of the Court.

403

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MAMPUYA

[Translation]

The amount of compensation calculated by the Court in respect of the mor▯al
injury is excessive, and disproportionate to Mr. Diallo’s suffering — The principles
governing the assessment of pecuniary reparation in international law sh▯ould be

396

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MAHIOU

[Translation]

391

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GREENWOOD

385

DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF

Disagreement with point 3 of the operative paragraph — Improper character ‑
ization of actual material injury suffered — Reformulation of claim as loss of
professional remuneration is restrictive, without legal or logical reasoning — Exis

347

SEPARATE OPINION

OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. P rolegomena 1-3

II. The Subject of the Rights gBreached and the Subjecgt of
the Right to Reparationsg 4-13

309

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA

1. The Court’s Judgment accepts the view that the jurisdictional immu-
nity of a foreign State does not cover certain claims concerning repara -
tion for torts committed in the forum State. However, the Court

“considers that customary international law continues to require thatp
a State be accorded immunity in proceedings for torts allegedly com -

291

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF

The key question in these proceedings was whether Italian courts violate▯d the
jurisdictional immunity of Germany — The Italian courts set aside the immunity

179

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. P rolegomena 1-6

II. Preliminary Issue : The Inter-Temporal Dimensiopn in
the Consideration of Stpate Immunity 7-17