1. I have voted for operative paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Judgment for reasons which, in some places, differ substantially from those the Judgment is primarily based upon. The separate opinion sets out the grounds for my disagreement and provides for alternative reasons for the holdings of the Judgment; in particular it will concentrate on the following issues: the mode concerning the appreciation of evidence as developed and applied in the Judgment; the reasoning concerning registration and nationality of the M/V Saiga; interpretation and application of the principle of the exhaustion of local remedies; relationship between the Convention on the Law of the Sea and national law as well as the competences of the Tribunal to establish violations of national law.

Appreciation of evidence

2. The Judgment refers to principles on the appreciation of evidence to be applied in this case in several places (paragraphs 66 to 70, 72 to 74, 122, 135, 148, and 175). These paragraphs do not really reveal which mode concerning the appreciation of evidence the Tribunal considers to be appropriate although it is evident that the appreciation of evidence occupies a decisive role in the reasoning of the Judgment. As a matter of transparency of the Judgment, the system on the appreciation of evidence should be clearly identified and fully reasoned. One may even consider this to be a mandatory conclusion to be drawn from the principle of fair trial, an established principle of international law.