the abovementioned paragraph 39, that is that the Court has actually examined1 the application, even though it concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain it; however, according to its interpretation of Article 34(6), the Court should not examine an application if the State Party concerned has not made the optional declaration. 5. It should further be observed that the Court gave a judicial consideration to the application filed by Mr. Amir Adam Timan without transmiting it to Sudan, nor even informing this State that an application had been lodged against it. The adoption by the Court of a judicial decision under such circumstances amounts to a violation of the adversarial principle (Audiatur et altera pars), which principle must apply at any stage of the proceedings. This breach of fairness and equality of arms is all the more remarkable given that the application lodged by Mr. Amir Adam Timan was, upon receipt, publicized on the website of the Court. 6. Failure to transmit the application to Sudan also deprived that State of the possibility to accept the jurisdiction of the Court by way of forum prorogatum (on this question, see my separate opinion in the case concerning Michelot Yogogombaye v. Republic of Senegal). Judge Fatsah Ouguergouz Robert Eno, Registrar 1 The French text of the last sentence of paragraph 39 of the Yogogombaye Judgment, which is the authoritative one, refers to the examination applications (pour que la Cour puisse connaître de telles requ?tes) and not to the hearing of the cases as it is mentioned in the English text (conditions under which the Court could hear such cases). 2

Select target paragraph3