- 33 to be agreed by mutual consent”. Negotiations concerning the organization of the arbitration were subsequently held until a period of six months expired. During these negotiations, Ukraine also suggested to refer the dispute to a procedure other than arbitration, namely the submission of the dispute to a chamber of the Court. In any event, the Parties were unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration during the requisite period. The second precondition stated in Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT must thus be regarded as fulfilled. 77. The Court therefore considers that the procedural preconditions set forth in Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT were met. The Court thus has jurisdiction to entertain the claims made pursuant to that provision. III. THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION 78. The Court will now examine the Russian Federation’s preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Ukraine’s claims under CERD. As stated above (see paragraph 36), the Russian Federation argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD, and that the procedural preconditions to the Court’s jurisdiction set out in Article 22 of the Convention are not met; it also argues that Ukraine’s Application with regard to claims under CERD is inadmissible because local remedies had not been exhausted before the dispute was referred to the Court. The Court will deal with each objection in turn. A. Jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD 79. It is the Russian Federation’s position that the real issue in dispute between the Parties does not concern racial discrimination but the status of Crimea. The Russian Federation contends that the measures which Ukraine characterizes as racial discrimination are not in breach of CERD, since they are not based on any of the grounds set out in Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD. According to the Respondent, Ukraine’s claims of racial discrimination consist in asserting that measures allegedly taken by the Russian Federation in respect of members of certain ethnic communities were motivated by the opposition of these communities to the “purported annexation” of Crimea. 80. According to the Russian Federation, Ukraine’s attempt to define “ethnic groups” within the meaning of CERD on the basis of political self-identification and opinions is misconceived. The Russian Federation argues that Ukraine’s definition of “ethnicity” is not in consonance either with the ordinary meaning of CERD, or with the intention of its drafters, and is also unsupported both by State practice, and by the decisions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter the “CERD Committee”). The Russian Federation does not contest, in any event, that Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea constitute distinct ethnic groups protected by CERD.