-2obligation to take appropriate measures and to co-operate in prevention and suppression of offences of financing acts of terrorism  Definition of “funds” in Article 1 need not be addressed at present stage of proceedings  Whether specific act falls within meaning of Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) or (b), of the ICSFT is matter for the merits  Questions concerning existence of requisite mental elements not relevant to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae  Objection to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae under the ICSFT cannot be upheld. * Whether the procedural preconditions under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT have been met. First precondition, namely, whether dispute between the Parties could not be settled through negotiation  Precondition requires genuine attempt to settle dispute through negotiation  Little progress made by the Parties during negotiations  Dispute could not be settled through negotiation within reasonable time  First precondition met  Second precondition, namely, whether the Parties were unable to agree on organization of arbitration  Failure to reach agreement during requisite period despite negotiations  Second precondition fulfilled. * The Court has jurisdiction to entertain Ukraine’s claims under the ICSFT. * * Whether the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae under CERD. Whether measures of which Ukraine complains fall within provisions of CERD  Parties agree that Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea constitute ethnic groups protected under CERD  Rights and obligations contained in CERD broadly formulated  Measures of which Ukraine complains are capable of having adverse effect on enjoyment of certain rights protected under CERD  These measures fall within provisions of CERD  Claims of Ukraine fall within scope of CERD. *