- 28 58. At the present stage of the proceedings, an examination by the Court of the alleged wrongful acts or of the plausibility of the claims is not generally warranted. The Court’s task, as reflected in Article 79 of the Rules of Court of 14 April 1978 as amended on 1 February 2001, is to consider the questions of law and fact that are relevant to the objection to its jurisdiction. 59. The ICSFT imposes obligations on States parties with respect to offences committed by a person when “that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out” acts of terrorism as described in Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) and (b). As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Convention is to adopt “effective measures for the prevention of the financing of terrorism, as well as for its suppression through the prosecution and punishment of its perpetrators”. The ICSFT addresses offences committed by individuals. In particular, Article 4 requires each State party to the Convention to establish the offences set forth in Article 2 as criminal offences under its domestic law and to make those offences punishable by appropriate penalties. The financing by a State of acts of terrorism is not addressed by the ICSFT. It lies outside the scope of the Convention. This is confirmed by the preparatory work of the Convention, which indicates that proposals to include financing by States of acts of terrorism were put forward but were not adopted (United Nations, docs. A/C.6/54/SR.32-35 and 37). As was recalled in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by the General Assembly which contributed to the drafting of the ICSFT, some delegations even proposed to exclude all matters of State responsibility from the scope of the Convention (United Nations, doc. A/54/37). However, it has never been contested that if a State commits a breach of its obligations under the ICSFT, its responsibility would be engaged. 60. The conclusion that the financing by a State of acts of terrorism lies outside the scope of the ICSFT does not mean that it is lawful under international law. The Court recalls that, in resolution 1373 (2001), the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, decided that all States shall “[r]efrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts”. 61. When defining the perpetrators of offences of financing acts of terrorism, Article 2 of the ICSFT refers to “any person”. According to its ordinary meaning, this term covers individuals comprehensively. The Convention contains no exclusion of any category of persons. It applies both to persons who are acting in a private capacity and to those who are State agents. As the Court noted (see paragraph 59 above), State financing of acts of terrorism is outside the scope of the ICSFT; therefore, the commission by a State official of an offence described in Article 2 does not in itself engage the responsibility of the State concerned under the Convention. However, all States parties to the ICSFT are under an obligation to take appropriate measures and to co-operate in the prevention and suppression of offences of financing acts of terrorism committed by whichever person. Should a State breach such an obligation, its responsibility under the Convention would arise. 62. As the title of the ICSFT indicates, the Convention specifically concerns the support given to acts of terrorism by financing them. Article 2, paragraph 1, refers to the provision or collection of “funds”. This term is defined in Article 1, paragraph 1, as meaning: