- 18- 65. The Respondent State alleges that the Applicant uses disparaging language in referring to its identity. At the Public Hearing of 20 March 2014, it states that: "When, instead of "Burkina Faso", one says "People's Democratic Republic of Burkina Faso", the Court should take note that this refers, in a devious and biased manner, to the former peoples democracies of Eastern Europe and to a sadly notorious People's Republic in Asia over which everyone agrees that its main characteristics were or are dictatorship and massive violations of human rights. Therefore, to refer to Burkina Faso as "People's Democratic Republic" in a case where it stands accused of violating freedom of the press and freedom of expression, cannot be deemed to be trivial or considered as a mere oversight, as the Applicant claims; it is indeed disparaging within the meaning of Rule 40 of the Rules and Article 56 of the Charter". 66. The Applicant however submits that the name "People's Democratic Republic" is merely an unfortunate typographical error and that the Respondent State has not shown how such an error would be prejudicial to its position in the present case. 67. The basic concern here is to ascertain whether the name "People's Democratic Republic" as used by the Applicant in designating the Respondent State may be considered as disparaging or insulting towards the latter and as a result, invalidate the Application on the basis of Articles 56 (3) of the Charter and Rule 40 (3) of the Rules. 68. Rule 40 (3) of the Rules provides that an Application must "not contain any disparaging or insulting language". Article 56 (3) of the Charter further states that the language in question must not be directed against "the State concerned and its institutions or the OAU".