2 4. In the present Judgment the Court, after noting the same jurisdictional point, has resolved it on the same basis as in the Blake Case. In doing so, it has drawn additional strength both from the fact that Bolivia has chosen not to raise any objection to jurisdiction, and from the fact that the Constitutional Court of Bolivia recently has confirmed, in respect to the very facts under consideration here, that “unlawful deprivation of liberty or unlawful detention …is a permanent crime”∗ as to which any applicable statute of limitations begins to run only when such crime has ceased, i.e., upon the detained individual being restored to liberty (para. 72). 5. While, as I see it, the Court has acted correctly in this regard, I believe that it should have founded jurisdiction over this entire case also on the broader principle of forum prorogatum, i.e., Bolivia’s “voluntary and indisputable acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction”7 through “the tacit consent of the parties, deduced from their conduct in pleading to the merits of [the] claim … without raising the question of jurisdiction”.8 Here the jurisprudence and practice of the International Court of Justice and its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, excellently collected and explicated by Rosenne,9 is instructive: The Court, taking a broad functional and teleological view of [its] Statute, … “cannot hold to be irregular a proceeding which is not precluded by any provision” in the texts governing the working of the Court.10 In consequence, the principle applies to perfect jurisdiction ratione materiae, as in the present case, as well as ratione personae.11 6. Surely acceptance of jurisdiction by this Court on this basis is not “precluded by any provision” in the Convention, the Statute of the Court or its Rules. Article 62 of the Convention basically parallels Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Article 62 (3) of the Convention provides that The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided ∗ Non – official translation of the author, for the purposes of this opinion only. 7 Corfu Channel Case, Judgment on Preliminary Objection: I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 27 8 Rosenne, Shabtai. The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920 – 1996, (3rd Edition) Volume II Jurisdiction, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1997, p. 714, referring to the Corfu Channel Case, Judgment of April 9th, 1949: I.C.J Reports 1949, p. 25. See also Mavrommatis Case as quoted by Rosenne, p. 699: It seems hard to deny that the submission of arguments on the merits, without making reservations in regard to the question of jurisdiction, must be regarded as an unequivocal indication of the desire of a State to obtain a decision on the merits of a suit …. A fortiori, Bolivia, having expressly admitted the factual allegations in this case and accepted fully its international responsibility for their consequences, could not possibly be understood otherwise than as submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction as regards the entire case. 9 10 Rosenne, pp. 695 – 725. Rosenne, p. 708, quoting the Corfu Channel Case (Preliminary Objection) 1948, p. 28. See also Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, pp. 620 - 621. 11 Rosenne, pp. 707 – 708.