Ill "The Authors have nor supplied an)' evidence to show that they responded tv the Court 's letter of 30 June, 2014, ond that the new Request does not c:omplv with the requirements under Rule 68 of the Rules oJCourr". 12. With regard to the first reason, I believe that the Court should ha ve offered the Authors of the request the opportunity to adduce evidence that they have indeed responded to the letter of 30 June 2014. The Court should therefore have instructe d the Registry to write to the Authors of the request asking them, for example, to produce a receipt for dispatch of their response. 13. It is however, in my opinion, the second reason that is more substantial and more probative in the instant case, to wit, that ''the new Request does not comply with the requirements under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court". In this regard, a reading of the first sentence of paragraph 17 of the Order shows that reference is being made more speeiiically to the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 of Rule 68. 14. ln the opinion of the Court, the Authors of the request "have not specified the provisio ns of the Charter or any other internarional human rig/11.\' instrume nt in respect of which the advisaty opinion is being soughr'' and "the issues raised by tlte Authors are of general public inrernational law and not 1 of hurnan rights"; the Court then spcci lies that "the issues raised have to do with the hierarchy a,( norms in Public lnterncrtional Law". 15. 1do not share the position of my colleagu es on these points. 16. With respect to the ftrst point, J would like to underline that both in their new request dated 1 July 2015, and in the request received at the Registry on 28 March 2014, and registered under N° 001 /2014, the Authors indicated their reliance in particular on Articles 1. 4, 5, I 2, 13 and 86 of the Rome Statute of tbc Interna tional Criminal Court; they also specified the circumstances giving rise to their request. 17. The question was therefore to know whether or not the Rome Statute could be considered "a human rights instnnne nl" under Article 4 of the Protocol ; the Court should have clearly pronounced itself on this question. 18. Regarding the second point, i.e. that " the issues raised by the Authors are of general public international law and not ofhuman rights" and "have to do with the hierarch y o.f norms in Public international Law", it is an assertion which the These ure the very reasons given in the Court'<; Order of 5 June 20 15 to rejec t the request lor advisory opinion No. 00 1/20 t4. 1