- 39 CERD would never satisfy the preconditions for States to seise the Court. Ukraine considers that the placement of Article 22 within Part III of CERD, while the CERD Committee procedures are governed by Part II, indicates that Article 22 was not intended to make the procedures before the CERD Committee a necessary precondition for seising the Court. According to the Applicant, as the preamble indicates that CERD was intended to be an effective instrument to eliminate racial discrimination promptly, it would be inconsistent with the object and purpose of CERD if Article 22 delayed the settlement of disputes by imposing cumulative procedural preconditions. 104. Although Ukraine expresses the view that recourse to supplementary means of interpretation is not necessary, it argues that, should recourse be had to the drafting history of CERD, it would not assist the Russian Federation’s case. According to Ukraine, the late addition, by the Three-Power amendment, of a reference to “the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention” to the compromissory clause of CERD merely aimed to clarify that the CERD Committee procedure was one of the options available before States referred their disputes to the Court. Ukraine also supports this view by reference to the statement that Ghana made as a sponsor of the Three-Power amendment, according to which the amendment was “self-explanatory” and contained a “simple refer[ence] to the procedures provided for in the Convention”. 105. Ukraine further maintains that the Russian Federation’s reliance on the compromissory clauses in other human rights treaties (see paragraph 101 above) is misplaced, as such treaties contain compromissory clauses which are different from Article 22 of CERD. * * 106. Pursuant to Article 22 of CERD, the Court has jurisdiction to decide a dispute brought under the Convention provided that such a dispute is “not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention”. In the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), the Court found that “in their ordinary meaning, the terms of Article 22 of CERD, namely ‘[a]ny dispute . . . which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention’, establish preconditions to be fulfilled before the seisin of the Court” (Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 128, para. 141; see also ibid., pp. 129–130, para. 147). In that case, the Court did not determine whether the preconditions set out in Article 22 of CERD are alternative or cumulative. In order to make this determination, the Court will apply the rules of customary international law on treaty interpretation as reflected in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention (Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016 (I), p. 116, para. 33).