9. In its Memorial in Defence, Burkina Faso avers that the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case, that the Application lodged is inadmissible, and that it is equally ill-founded. 10. In terms of lack of jurisdiction of the Court, the Defendant State claims that there is no concrete case of human rights violation filed before the Court by the Applicants, but that at best, what is filed before the Court is only a probable or hypothetical case of human rights violation; and that the Court has always declared that it has no remit for adjudicating on cases of that nature. 11. As to the inadmissibility of the matter before the Court, Burkina Faso avers that the right at stake, concerning participation in the management of public affairs, is “an individual and subjective right”, and not a collective right. Thus, Burkina Faso claims that at least the portion of the Application submitted by the political parties must be declared inadmissible. 12. Finally, as to the claim that the Application is ill-founded, as made by Burkina Faso, the latter maintains that the right to participate in elections “... is not a right of an abslute nature”, and that a State may institute restrictions thereto. The resultant effect of the argumentation of the Defendant State is that the exclusion of a number of organisations and citizens from the current electoral process could be justified by the support they may have provided for the former authorities of the country during the draft constitutional amendement process to perpetuate the political power already in place. The Defendant State further claims that the said constitutional amendment process, perceived as “anti-constitutional” in the Law of 7 April 2015, was the source of the upheavals which led to the fall of the Government. IV – ANALYSIS OF THE COURT 13. As to formal presentation, 6