submit to it a report on the execution of its decision on the non-conformity of the said laws within a timeframe that would serve as a moratorium. 61 . Invoking Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Court, the Respondent State argues that this text establishes the immutability of the dispute and that the claims of the parties which form the subject of the dispute are set out in the original Application. Acknowledging however, that even though the subject of the dispute may be modified in the course of the proceedings by supplementary Applications, the Respondent State contends that such amendment must have sufficient nexus, a connection with the initial claims. 62.The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant does not plead violation of his rights by any of the laws of which he seeks annulment or suspension and that, besides, the said laws were adopted and incorporated into Benin legal corpus long after the Applicant's referral of the case to the Court . It therefore prays the Court to declare the Applicant's additional submissions unfounded and dismiss the same. 63.The Court notes that , among the laws submitted to it for examination of conformity, the one establishing CRIET has connection with the initial Application, but the same cannot be said of the others. 64. Accordingly, the Court declares inadmissible the additional submissions which are not connected with the instant Application, except for the law creating CRIET Admissibility of the Application 65.ln terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, "The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter". 66.ln accordance with Rule 39(1) of its Rules: "The Court shall conduct preliminary examination ... of the admissibility of the Application in accordance with articles 50 and 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of these Rules ". I