grant violation of the purporis and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The Government of Sou~thAfrica had also submitted a request that a plebiscite should be held in the Territory of Namibia under the joint supervision of the Court and the Government of South Africa. The Court having concluded that no further evidence was required, that the Mandate had been validly terminated ar~dthat in con!requf:nce South Africa's presence in Namibia was illegal and its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia illegal and invalid, it was not able to entertain this proposal. By a letter of 14 May 1971 the President ir~forniedthe representatives of the States and organizations which had participated in the oral proceedings that the Court had decided not to accede to the two above-mentioned requests. .ANDSEPARATE OR DECLARATION DISSENTING OPINIONS Subparagraph 1 of the operative clause of the Advisory Opinion (illegality of the ]presence of South Africa in Namibia-see page 1 of this Communiqd) was adopted by 13 votes to 2. Subparagraphs 2 and 3 were adopted by 11 votes to 4. Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice (dissenting opinion) considers that the Mandate was not validly revoked, that the Mandatory is still subject to the obligations of the Mandate whatever these may be, and that States Members of the United Nations are bound to respect the position unless and until it is changed by lawful means. Judge Gros (dissentingopinion) disagrees with the Court's conclusions as to the legal validity and effects of General Assembly resolution 2145 (XXI),but considers that South Africa ought to agree to negotiate on the conversion of the Mandate into a United Nations trusteeship. Judges Pe&n and Onyeama (separate opinions) voted for subparagraph 1 of the operative clause but against subparagraphs 2 and 3, which in their view ascribe too broad a scope to the effects of non-recognition. Judge Dillard (separate opinion), concurring in the operative clause, adds certain mainly cautionary comments on subpariigraph 2. Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Gros, Petdn, Onyeama and Dillard also criticize certain decisions en by the Court with re;ference to its composition. The President (declaration) and Judges Padilla Newo and de Caslro (separate opinions) accept the operative clause in full. The Vice-President (separate opinion), while sharing the views expressed in the Advisory Opinion, considers that the operative clause is not sufficiently explicit 01- decisive.