instant case. It is therefore unnecessary for me to go on record with regard to the other matters dealt with and decided in it. Nevertheless, I find it appropriate to make some general observations in which I include what I have stated previously in this dissenting opinion. First, regarding the powers of the Court, which are to interpret and apply the Convention,60 and thus determine, in keeping with international law, both treaty-based and customary, the international responsibility of the State under international law. 61 In this regard, the role of the Court is to do justice by applying the law; in other words, to seek justice in the law. And this, on the basis that, although its judgments have a relative effect,62 they are only an auxiliary source of international law63 and, thus, even though its case law is reiterated, consistent and uniform, it is not an autonomous source of international law. In other words, it does not create law and, consequently, it does not have the legitimacy to modify it, a function that, in the case of treaties, corresponds by express mandate to the States Parties, 64 as in the case of the Convention.65 60 Art. 62 of the Convention: “1. A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.[…] 3. 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 that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” 61 Art. 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “Internal law and observance of treaties. A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.” Article 3 of the draft articles prepared by the United Nations International Law Commission on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, contained in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/56/589 and Corr.1)] 56/83. Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, eighty-fifth session, 12 December 2001, Official Documents of the Genera Assembly, fiftysixth session. Supplement No. 10 and corrections (A/56/10 and Corr.1 and 2). 2 Ibíd., paras. 72 and 73.: ”Characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful. The characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law.” 62 Art. 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” 63 Art. 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: “1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:…d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” 64 Art. 9 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “General rule regarding the amendment of treaties. A treaty may be amended by agreement between the parties. The rules laid down in Part II apply to such an agreement except in so far as the treaty may otherwise provide.” Art. 41(1) of the same text: “Agreements to modify multilateral treaties between certain of the parties only. 1. Two or more of the parties to a multilateral treaty may conclude an agreement to modify the treaty as between themselves alone if: (a) the possibility of such a modification is provided for by the treaty; or (b) the modification in question is not prohibited by the treaty and: (i) does not affect the enjoyment by the other parties of their rights under the treaty or the performance of their obligations; 17