8 36. Jn the present case, Senega l havi ng formally raised preliminary objections in iu, ·•statement of defense" 18 dated 9 April 2009, the Court deemed it necessary to comply wiLh the provisions of Rule 52 (7) of its Rules which stipu lates that '·The Court shall give reasons for its ruling on the preliminarJ objection" 19. [Ed. Note : The expressiOn "arret motive'' in French appears as '1nding" in the English version of Rule 52 (7) of the Rules]. 37. Howevt!r, consideration by the Court of Sene gal's preliminary objections, in a judgment, required that it addresses rhc question of it's jurisdiction in a more comprehensive manner by developing in parti cular the poss ibili ty of a forum prorogarum. This poss ibility is all the more suggested in paragraph 3 7 of the Judgmen t where the Court, on the grounds of its rulin g that Senegal has not mad e the optional decl aration, conc luded that the said State, on that basis, "has not accepted the jurisdiction nf the Court to hear cases instituted directly against the CounLry by individuals or non gove rnmental organiza tions". [Ed. Note: The expression •·sur celfe base" in French does not appear in the English version of paragraph 3 7 ofth t! Judg ment j 38. Nevertheless, il is th is possibility of ajon1rn pror ogatum. however slight, that explains why the app lication of Mr. Yogogombaye was not reje~ ted right after I 0 February 2009; and it is the filing of preliminary objections by Sene gal which explains why the Court did not close the case in a less solemn manner by issuing an order or by simple leuer by the Registry. 39. The submission of preliminary objections by Sene gal may. in turn, be explained by scrupulous compliance by th1s Stare with the prov isi ons of Rule 37 and 52 ( I ) of' the Rules. * * 40. Today, the question is whether "all" applicati ons filed with the Registry should be placed on lhe Court's general list, notiJied to the States again st which they are directed, and above all, as provided for under Article 35 (3) of the Rules, notified to the Chairperson of the African Union Commission and, through him, to the Executive Council of the Union, as well as to all the other Stares Parties to the Protocol. As a judicial organ, nnce the Coun receives an application, it hus the ob ligation to ensure, at lt:ast in a prima facie manner, that it has "Proceedings before ,, Committee", prov1des In ItS pur.ugraph 2 tbut "in accordance w1th Article 28 o f the Convenuon, the Committee may. unon•mously, declure an applic ation to be m~dm1ssibh: or c;tril..e 11 oiT the cuuse list, \\'hen such a llecision can be madew1thou1 ony fun her exmnmauon. I he dcc1sion shull be nnnl and shall be: brou!!ht to the: aucntion of the aopllcan! ~·· (emph11s1s added). 11 Exprt:ss1on used m the testimonium cluu::.e on pag..: 17 of Sencgol's \\Till en nbserw tions. 1 ' The reference to Art1cle 39 of the Rules m Pttrugruph 29 of tht Judgment is not t1mely preliminary cx81Tlination by lhc: Coun of Its jurisd us iction, I.e 11 suge of lhe proceedangs durin~ which this provision t:oncems 11 musl ensure thul 11 has 111 leasl prtmu fa<'lt' Junsdicuon to entertllm an oppilc auon At the stag.: of c:xumining o preliminary ot>je~tinn jur isdic tinn the Cuun m~Ul muke IL Jo:ITn• li>r lud• ,, r t•vc rulmg on liS jllTISdictiun ¥