- 23 37. The Court will address the preliminary objection raised by the Russian Federation to its jurisdiction on the basis of the ICSFT in Part II of the Judgment. It will then address, in Part III, the preliminary objections to its jurisdiction on the basis of CERD and to the admissibility of the Application in so far as it concerns the claims made by Ukraine under CERD. II. THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM 38. The Court will now consider whether it has jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT and whether the procedural preconditions set forth in that provision have been met. A. Jurisdiction ratione materiae under the ICSFT 39. The Court recalls that its jurisdiction ratione materiae over the dispute under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT covers “[a]ny dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention”. * * 40. The Russian Federation contests the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae with regard to all aspects of the dispute submitted by Ukraine to the Court under the ICSFT. In the Russian Federation’s opinion, the fact that the Parties entertain different views on the interpretation of a treaty containing a compromissory clause is not sufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. According to the Respondent, the Court must interpret the key provisions of the relevant treaty and “[s]atisfy itself that the facts pleaded and the evidence relied on by the applicant State plausibly support the asserted characterisation of its claims” as claims under that treaty. The Russian Federation does not request from the Court a complete analysis of the facts at the stage of a decision on preliminary objections, but contends that some consideration must be given to the facts. 41. The Russian Federation recalls that, in its Order of 19 April 2017 on the Request for the indication of provisional measures in the present case, the Court affirmed that Ukraine’s claimed rights under the ICSFT were not plausible (I.C.J. Reports 2017, pp. 131-132, para. 75). In considering the plausibility of Ukraine’s case at the present stage, the Russian Federation maintains that the Court must rely on its earlier assessment. According to the Respondent, Ukraine has not put forward any new evidence related to elements of intention, knowledge and purpose concerning the funding of acts of terrorism which would allow the Court to depart from the findings made at the stage of its decision on provisional measures.