Decisio n of the Court 16.At its 38th Ordinary Session held from 31 August to 18 September 2015, the Court considered the Authors' request for the matter to be relisted and noted that the Authors did not supply any evidence to show that they had transmitted their response to the Registrar's letter of 30 June, 2014, to justify a relisting. 17. Be that as it may, the Court decided to examine the new request and noted that it still did not comply with the requirements under Rule 68(2) of the Rules of Court, which provides that: 'Any request for advisory opinion shall specify the provisions of the Charter or of any other international human rights instrument in respect of which the advisory opinion is being sought, the circumstances giving rise to the request as well as the names and addresses of the representatives of the entities making the request'. 18. The Court notes in this regard that the Authors have not specified the provisions of the Charter or any other international human rights instrument in respect of which the advisory opinion is being sought. The issues raised by the Authors are rather of general public internatio nal law and not of human rights. Indeed, the issues raised have to do with the hierarchy of norms in Public International Law. Now therefor e, having determi ned that: The Authors have not supplied any evidence to show that they responded to the Registrar's letter of 30 June, 2014, and that the new Request does not comply with the requirements under Rule 68 of the Rules of Court; The Court, by a majority of nine (9) to one (1), Judge Fatsah OUGUERGOUZ dissenting, Rejects the Authors ' request to relist this Request for Advisory Opinion and Orders that the same BE and is HEREBY struck out. 6