ed that 8. By letter dated 17 April20 14, the Executive Secretary of the Commission confirm ssion. the subject matter of the Request was not related to any matter before the Commi ed the 9. At its 33rd Ordinary Session held from 28 May to 13 June, 2014, the Court examin Rules Request and noted that it did not comply with the requirements under Rule 68 of the of Court, and instructed the Registrar to notify the Authors accordingly. decision, 10. By letter dated 30 June 2014, the Registrar notified the Authors of the Court's Rules that is, that the said Request does not meet the requirements under Rule 68 of the of Court, in particular, Rule 68(2). that the 11.At its 34th Ordinary Session held from 8 to 19 September, 2014, the Court noted Authors had not responded to the Registrar's letter of 30 June 2014. that the 12.At its 36th Ordinary Session held from 9 to 27 March 2015, the Court noted Authors had still not responded to the Registrar's letter of 30 June 2014. an Order, 13. At its 37th Ordinary Session held from 18 May to 5 June, 2015, the Court, by under struck out the Request on the grounds that it does not satisfy the requirements Rule 68 of the Rules of Court and for lack of interest on the part of the Authors . . 14.By letter of 30 June 2015 , the Registrar served the Court Order on the Authors dated 14 15.By email dated 1 July 2015, the Authors transmitted to the Court a document y in November, 2014, by which they claimed they had sent the same to the Registr to relist response to the Registrar's letter of 30 June, 2014, and requested leave of Court the Request for consideration. 5