133 were expressly couched as an “interpretative statement”; furthermore, that representative added a significant comment: “[W]e understand that other members of the Council share our view regarding the following clarifications related to the Statute” 358 including the “clarification” concerning Article 5. 359 With regard to the representative of the Russian Federation, his statement concerning Article 5 was expressly conceived of as an interpretative declaration. 360 Nevertheless, this declaration was made in such terms as to justify the proposition that for the Russian Federation, Article 5 “encompasses” crimes committed with a “discriminatory intent” without, however, being limited to these acts alone. 300. The Appeals Chamber, first of all, rejects the notion that these three statements - at least as regards the issue of discriminatory intent - may be considered as part of the “context” of the Statute, to be taken into account for the purpose of interpretation of the Statute pursuant to the general rule of construction laid down in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. 361 In particular, those statements cannot be regarded as an “agreement” relating to the Statute, made between all the parties in connection with the adoption of the Statute. True, the United States representative pointed out that it was her understanding that the other members of the Security Council shared her views regarding the “clarifications” she put forward. However, in light of the wording of the other two statements on the specific point at issue, and taking into account the lack of any comment by the other twelve members of the Security Council, it would seem difficult to conclude that there emerged an agreement in the Security Council designed to qualify the 358 See U.N. Doc. S/PV. 3217, p. 15. On Article 5 the United States representative said that: “[I]t is understood that Article 5 applies to all acts listed in that Article, when committed contrary to law during a period of armed conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population on national, political, ethnic, racial, gender, or religious grounds” (U.N. Doc. S/PV. 3217, p.16). 360 He said the following: “While believing that the text of the Statute addresses the tasks that face the Tribunal, and for that reason supporting it, we deem it appropriate to note that, according to our understanding, Article 5 of the Statute encompasses criminal acts committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia during an armed conflict - acts which were widespread or systematic, were aimed against the civilian population and were motivated by that population’s national, political, ethnic, religious or other affiliation” (U.N. Doc. S/PV. 3217, p. 45). 361 Article 31(1) and (2) provide: 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; 359 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999