1. Although I find the reasoning of the Tribunal is inadequate I agree with the decision reached in paragraph 183(1), (2) and (13) and therefore I have voted in favour. I do not however agree with the decision of the Tribunal in paragraph 183(3) and (5) and consequently I have been obliged to vote against on the rest of the paragraph.

2. The Judgment as a whole lacks transparency. In the first place the summary of evidence and arguments of the parties is inadequate in that it has omitted some important aspects of such evidence and argument. The summary of evidence and arguments that has been made is not objective. I do not intend to elaborate further on this point in greater detail as far as the whole judgement is concerned but I will demonstrate this point as I deal with the issues on which I have reached a different conclusion from that of the majority.

3. The reasoning of the majority is also not adequate in the sense that it has in places departed from the evidence and arguments of the parties. In addition such reasoning has been vague to the extent of making the Judgment lack transparency. Having said that I now turn to the issue of the registration of the Saiga.

4. On the question of nationality of the Saiga the Judgment of the Tribunal states as follows in paragraphs 62 and 63: