I have voted for the provisional measure in paragraph 52, subparagraph 1, with some hesitation because it is unnecessarily wide and goes beyond the circumstances and requirement of the Request of the Applicant. As stated in paragraph 47 of the Order the Tribunal has used its discretion in article 89, paragraph 5, to prescribe the provisional measure. That article states:

“5. When a request for provisional measures has been made, the Tribunal may prescribe measures different in whole or in part from those requested and indicate the parties which are to take or comply with each measure.”

In this case Guinea, the Respondent, is the party which is required to comply with the measure. The Tribunal has rationalised its decision in paragraph 41 of the Order by saying “that the rights of the Applicant would not be fully preserved if … the vessel, its Master and … crew, its owners or operators were to be subjected to any judicial or administrative measures in connection with the incidents leading to the arrest and detention of the vessel and to the subsequent prosecution and conviction of the Master”. In its final submissions the Applicant had requested that Guinea: