-95. In addition, by a letter dated 17 January 2017, the Registrar informed all Member States of the United Nations of the filing of the above-mentioned Application and Request for the indication of provisional measures. 6. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute, the Registrar notified the Member States of the United Nations, through the Secretary-General, of the filing of the Application, by transmission of the printed bilingual text of that document. 7. By letters dated 20 January 2017, the Registrar informed both Parties that, referring to Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Member of the Court of Russian nationality informed the President of the Court that he considered that he should not take part in the decision of the case. Pursuant to Article 31 of the Statute and Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Russian Federation chose Mr. Leonid Skotnikov to sit as judge ad hoc in the case. 8. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of Ukrainian nationality, Ukraine proceeded to exercise the right conferred upon it by Article 31 of the Statute to choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the case; it chose Mr. Fausto Pocar. 9. By an Order of 19 April 2017, the Court, having heard the Parties, indicated the following provisional measures: “(1) With regard to the situation in Crimea, the Russian Federation must, in accordance with its obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, (a) Refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis; (b) Ensure the availability of education in the Ukrainian language; (2) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.” (I.C.J. Reports 2017, pp. 140-141, para. 106.) 10. In a letter dated 19 April 2018, Ukraine drew the Court’s attention to the Russian Federation’s alleged non-compliance with point (1) (a) of operative paragraph 106 of the Court’s Order on the indication of provisional measures. Ukraine stated that this lack of compliance stems from the Russian Federation’s interpretation of the provision in question, which is contrary to its proper meaning. Consequently, in light of the “different and conflicting interpretations” ascribed to point (1) (a) by the Parties, Ukraine requested that the Court “exercise its authority to interpret its Order of 19 April 2017”. 11. Following this communication, on 17 May 2018 the Court requested the Russian Federation to provide, by 7 June 2018 at the latest, information on measures that had been taken by it to implement point (1) (a) of operative paragraph 106 of the Court’s Order