The Court has already adjudicated on the preliminary objection raised by the Applicants regarding the alleged late lodgement of the Defence by Burkina Faso. Indeed, according to the Applicants, Burkina Faso, which received the Application on 28 May 2015, should have responded thereto within thirty days, at the latest – that is before 27 June 2015, from their point of view. However, in compliance with the provisions of Article 75(2) of the Rules of the Court, the Court held the view that all the time-limits of the procedure were frank and proper, and that since the last day for the lodgement was a day on which there was no official work at the Court, Monday, 29 June 2015 was indeed the last day for the Defendant State to lodge its Memorial in Defence. Now, it was on that very day that the lodgement was effected. Therefore, the preliminary objection regarding late lodgment of the Memorial in Defence is hereby dismissed. 14. The Court has equally adjudicated on the request for intervention, as filed by the law firm “Falana and Falana’s Chambers”. The Court has equally ruled that by virtue of Article 21 of the 1991 Protocol on the Court, the right of intervention is open to States only. Consequently, the Court has declared inadmissible the application for intervention submitted before it. 15. As regards the allegation by Burkina Faso that the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case before it, as a result of the non-concrete nature of the claims of violation brought by Burkina Faso, the Court has always held that it only makes rulings, in principle, on cases of human rights violation which are concrete, real and proven, and not on violations claimed to be possible, contingent or potential. One may thus be tempted, in the instant case, to question whether or not the matter before the Court is indeed well grounded, because as at the time the Court was seised with the case, no violation had as yet been committed, nor had any case of actual rejection of candidature been brought before the Court, and no individual candidature had been set aside in accordance with the new provisions; that, in a word, there is no real prejudice caused. 16. It would amount to consigning its own time-held case law to oblivion if the Court should rule that it may legitimately entertain violations which have not yet occurred, but are very imminent. In the instant case, the alleged 7