- 20 25. The Court observes that the Parties have expressed divergent views as to the subject-matter of the dispute brought by Ukraine before it. * * 26. According to the Applicant, its claims under the ICSFT concern the alleged violations by the Russian Federation of its obligations to take measures and to co-operate under Articles 8, 9, 10, 12 and 18 of the ICSFT in the prevention and suppression of terrorism financing offences, as defined in Article 2 of the Convention. In this regard, Ukraine contends that the Russian Federation has failed to take all practicable measures to prevent and counter preparations in its territory for the commission of terrorism financing offences in the context of the events which occurred in eastern Ukraine starting from the spring of 2014 and to repress them. In its Application, Ukraine also claimed that the Respondent supplied funds to groups that engage in acts of terrorism, but has not put forward the same claim either in its Memorial or in the proceedings on preliminary objections. The Applicant indeed stated that “[its] claim is not that Russia has violated Article 2 of the ICSFT”, but rather “that Russia has violated ICSFT Article 18 and other related cooperation obligations”. The Applicant submits that its claims on the basis of CERD concern alleged violations by the Russian Federation of its obligations under Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of CERD. In this regard, Ukraine maintains that the Russian Federation engaged in a campaign directed at depriving the Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea of their political, civil, economic, social and cultural rights and pursued a policy and practice of racial discrimination against those communities. 27. For its part, the Russian Federation considers that the dispute submitted by Ukraine to the Court in fact concerns matters which are unconnected to the two conventions relied on by the Applicant. It asserts that the Parties’ rights and obligations under the ICSFT cannot be invoked by Ukraine, since the acts referred to by the Applicant do not constitute offences within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention. The Russian Federation further asserts that the facts relied on and evidence submitted by the Applicant do not substantiate its claim that funds were provided or collected by various actors in the Russian Federation with the intention or knowledge that they were to be used to carry out acts of terrorism in eastern Ukraine. The Respondent also contends that the dispute does not concern its obligations under CERD and contests allegations that it is subjecting Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities in Crimea to a systematic campaign of racial discrimination. The Russian Federation argues that, under cover of allegations relating to violations of the ICSFT and CERD, Ukraine is seeking to bring before the Court disputes concerning alleged violations of “different rules of international law”. In particular, the Respondent contends that Ukraine is seeking to seise the Court of disputes over the Russian Federation’s alleged “overt aggression” in eastern Ukraine and over the status of Crimea. * *