- 43 The Court also stated that “evidence of such an attempt to negotiate — or of the conduct of negotiations — does not require the reaching of an actual agreement between the disputing parties” (I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 132, para. 158), and that “to meet the precondition of negotiation in the compromissory clause of a treaty, these negotiations must relate to the subject-matter of the treaty containing the compromissory clause” (ibid., p. 133, para. 161). 117. The Court further held that “the precondition of negotiation is met only when there has been a failure of negotiations, or when negotiations have become futile or deadlocked” (ibid., p. 133, para. 159). This statement was confirmed in the case concerning Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), in which, despite the fact that Belgium had sent Senegal four Notes Verbales and engaged in negotiations with Senegal, such steps did not lead to a settlement of their dispute (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 446, paras. 58-59). 118. The Court notes that Ukraine sent its first Note Verbale to the Russian Federation concerning alleged violations of CERD on 23 September 2014. In that Note, Ukraine listed a number of measures which, in its view, the Russian Federation was implementing in violation of the Convention, and the rights which such acts were allegedly violating, and went on to state that “the Ukrainian Side offers to the Russian Side to negotiate the use of [CERD], in particular, the implementation of international legal liability in accordance with international law”. On 16 October 2014, the Russian Federation communicated to Ukraine its willingness to hold negotiations on the interpretation and application of CERD. On 29 October 2014, the Applicant sent a second Note Verbale to the Respondent, asking for face-to-face negotiations which it proposed to hold on 21 November 2014. The Russian Federation replied to this Note on 27 November 2014, after Ukraine’s proposed date for the meeting had passed. Ukraine sent a third Note Verbale on 15 December 2014, proposing negotiations on 23 January 2015. The Russian Federation replied to this Note on 11 March 2015, after the date proposed by Ukraine for the negotiations had passed. Eventually, the Parties held three rounds of negotiation in Minsk between April 2015 and December 2016. 119. There are specific references to CERD in the Notes Verbales exchanged between the Parties, which also refer to the rights and obligations arising under that Convention. In those Notes, Ukraine set out its views concerning the alleged violations of the Convention, and the Russian Federation accordingly had a full opportunity to reply to such allegations. The Court is satisfied that the subject-matter of such diplomatic exchanges related to the subject-matter of the dispute currently before the Court, as defined in paragraphs 31-32 of this Judgment. 120. The Court observes that the negotiations between the Parties lasted for approximately two years and included both diplomatic correspondence and face-to-face meetings, which, in the Court’s view, and despite the lack of success in reaching a negotiated solution, indicates that a genuine attempt at negotiation was made by Ukraine. Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that, during their diplomatic exchanges, the Parties’ respective positions remained substantially the same. The Court thus concludes that the negotiations between the Parties had become futile or deadlocked by the time Ukraine filed its Application under Article 22 of CERD.