- 41 solution. The Court considers that the context of Article 22 of CERD does not support this interpretation. In the view of the Court, the context of Article 22 rather indicates that it would not be reasonable to require States parties which have already failed to reach an agreed settlement through negotiations to engage in an additional set of negotiations in accordance with the modalities set out in Articles 11 to 13 of CERD. 111. The Court considers that Article 22 of CERD must also be interpreted in light of the object and purpose of the Convention. Article 2, paragraph 1, of CERD provides that States parties to CERD undertake to eliminate racial discrimination “without delay”. Articles 4 and 7 provide that States parties undertake to eradicate incitement to racial discrimination and to combat prejudices leading to racial discrimination by adopting “immediate and positive measures” and “immediate and effective measures” respectively. The preamble to CERD further emphasizes the States’ resolve to adopt all measures for eliminating racial discrimination “speedily”. The Court considers that these provisions show the States parties’ aim to eradicate all forms of racial discrimination effectively and promptly. In the Court’s view, the achievement of such aims could be rendered more difficult if the procedural preconditions under Article 22 were cumulative. 112. The Court notes that both Parties rely on the travaux préparatoires of CERD in support of their respective arguments concerning the alternative or cumulative character of the procedural preconditions under Article 22 of the Convention. Since the alternative character of the procedural preconditions is sufficiently clear from an interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the terms of Article 22 in their context, and in light of the object and purpose of the Convention, the Court is of the view that there is no need for it to examine the travaux préparatoires of CERD. 113. The Court concludes that Article 22 of CERD imposes alternative preconditions to the Court’s jurisdiction. Since the dispute between the Parties was not referred to the CERD Committee, the Court will only examine whether the Parties attempted to negotiate a settlement to their dispute. 2. Whether the Parties attempted to negotiate a settlement to their dispute under CERD 114. The Russian Federation argues that, although the Parties made reciprocal accusations and replies to each other, Ukraine did not negotiate in good faith within the meaning of Article 22 of CERD. According to the Russian Federation, Ukraine’s Notes Verbales were replete with accusations, including of occupation and aggression, which resulted in escalating tensions between the Parties. The Respondent expresses the view that Ukraine had never aimed at solving the dispute between the Parties, but that its only aim was to hold the Russian Federation responsible by bringing the matter before the Court. The Russian Federation also refers to the diplomatic exchanges between the Parties in 2014, emphasizing that Ukraine set very short deadlines for the Parties to organize face-to-face meetings, and that it wrongly accused the Russian Federation of not replying positively to negotiation proposals. The Russian Federation acknowledges that the Parties finally held face-to-face negotiations, but states that Ukraine did not behave in good faith during such negotiations, as it insisted on its positions, refusing to devote the necessary time to examining