of the Rules, which requires that the Application be accompanied by copies of documents relating to any other international investigation or settlement procedure relevant to the Application. 207. The Respondent State submits that the proceedings pending before the EACJ are at a more advanced stage as it has filed its pleadings on jurisdiction, admissibility and the merits. 208. The Respondent State argues that through these parallel proceedings, the Applicant State has gained and is seeking to gain an unfair and illegitimate advantage since, with the pleadings before the EACJ, it is able to pre-empt the strategy of the latter Court. It adds that, the likelihood of the Applicant obtaining a favourable ruling is higher. It argues further that in the event of conflicting rulings, the authority and legitimacy of both courts would be undermined. 209. The Respondent State requests the Court to draw inspiration from the approach adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal established under Article 287 Article 1 of Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom) which, in the face of a similar situation of parallel proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union, ruled that it would be inappropriate [...] to continue to hear the parties on the merits of the case without having resolved the issues raised [...] and that it would not be helpful for the parties to resolve the matter in such a way as to arrive at two conflicting rulings on the same matter. 210. The Respondent State further buttressed its arguments by citing Communication Mpaka-Nusu André Alphonse v. Zaire, which was ruled inadmissible by the Commission, as it had already been dealt with by the Human Rights Committee. Similarly, it was pointed out, the Commission suspended sine die its examination of Interights (on behalf of the Pan- 49