- 14occasions in the response) is the official name of the Respondent State". 46. In the view of the Court, an error as such in the title of the Application, though related to the identity of the Applicant or the Respondent State, cannot therefore be deemed to constitute a ground for the inadmissibility of the Application. In its Order in the Matter of Karata Ernest and Others v. The United Republic of Tanzania, in which the Court was required to rule on the issue of whether it may amend the title of an Applicatiqn before it, by substituting the name of a Party which was erroneously mentioned with the name of the proper Party, the Court ruled that it had the discretion to effect such amendment to the title of the Application if it were deemed necessary and that the change of the title of the Application would not adversely affect either the procedural or substantive rights of the Respondenf'. 1 47. In the instant case, it would appear that even if the Applicant has on occasion, in his Application used the name "Peoples' Democratic Republic of Burkina Faso", the alleged violations by the Applicant clearly stem from a decision of the Burkinabe courts. That aside, Burkina Faso has filed a Response to the Application; it has even complied with some of the 4 October 2013 interim measures required by the Court in the Order on Provisional Measures in this same matter. 48. On these grounds therefore, the Court finds that the Party designated in the Application as "People's Democratic Republic of Burkina Faso" is indeed Burkina Faso, the Respondent State. 1 African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, in the Matter of Karata Ernest and Others v. The United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 001/2012, Order, 27 September 2013, paragraphs 6 and 7. --