African Movement and others) v. Eritrea and Ethiopia, as it was already pending before the Ethiopian and Eritrean Complaints Commission. 211. The Respondent State adds that the ECOWAS Court of Justice has adopted a similar position, notably in El Haji Mame Abdou Gaye v. La République du Sénégal and The Registered Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights & Accountability (SERAP) v. Federal Republic of Nigeria and another, as it does not receive any applications alleging human rights violations if the same case is already before another international court. 212. As to the failure to produce relevant documents, the Respondent State contends that the current Application was not supported by relevant factual documents and that the Applicant State thus failed to inform the Court of the proceedings pending before the EACJ and the ongoing investigations into the situation in the East of the DRC by the International Criminal Court, referred to it in April 2004 and in May 2023. 213. The Respondent State argues that this requirement enables the Court to be cognisant of all relevant facts likely to have an impact on any decision to be taken in the present case. 214. The Respondent State submits that the acts and omissions of the Applicant State reveal a strategy aimed at misleading the Court as to the relevant elements and obscuring the true nature of a political ploy devised to cause political embarrassment to the Respondent State rather than to achieve a judicial settlement of an alleged dispute. In its view, the Applicant State is seeking to pass off a political ploy as a legal dispute by using the Court to settle political scores. 215. It argues that the Application displays the Applicant State’s indifference to the Court’s authority and its procedural requirements, by seeking to gain an unjust and illegitimate political advantage. 50