* 329. At the hearing, the Applicant State reiterated the content of its submissions. It also argued that in the present case, it is not bound by the obligation arising from Articles 28 and 29 of the Great Lakes Pact since it did not relate to this Court, but rather to the “general mechanisms of justice” established by the AU. 330. It further submitted that the procedure provided for in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter is optional and that referral to the Court without prior compliance with that procedure does not contravene the Charter. * 331. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant State’s argument should not convince the Court. It argues that Communication DRC v. Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi must be seen as a different situation, insofar as three different States were involved, making it impossible to exhaust all local remedies. It argues that in this Application, on the other hand, it is a sole Respondent State and its courts are accessible to the Applicant State and to the persons whose rights have allegedly been violated. 332. The Respondent State also submits, on the question of admissibility, that the Court has often diverged from the Commission’s view, in particular by holding in African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Republic of Kenya, that while it is true that the admissibility criteria applied by the Commission and this Court are similar in substance, it is the case that the admissibility procedures with respect to an Application filed before the Commission and this Court are distinct and shall not be conflated. 333. It concludes that the position adopted by the Commission in Communication 227/99 – DRC v Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi is not decisive and that the Court cannot be guided by it. 74