security for which the Constitutive Act provides an elaborate settlement mechanism. 197. The Respondent State argues that, since, as at the time of the filing of the Application, the Court of Justice of the African Union provided for by Article 18 of the Constitutive Act was not operational, the Applicant State should have referred the matter to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU Assembly) as required by Article 26 of the Constitutive Act. * 198. In Reply, the Applicant State argues that the objection should be dismissed and submits that the non-judicial remedies relied on by the Respondent State are neither a preliminary condition for referral to this Court nor a condition for the admissibility of applications before it. 199. The Applicant State contends that, even if that were the case, the Respondent State recognises that this Court is different from Court of Justice of the African Union envisaged in Article 18 of the Constitutive Act. It, therefore, submits that the argument concerning preliminary procedure for referral to the Court is untenable, since the Court cannot apply a procedure specific to another court. 200. At the hearing, the Applicant State reiterated the content of its submissions. * 201. In its Response, the Respondent State reiterates its argument concerning the applicability of the procedure under Article 26 of the Constitutive Act, as the issues raised in the Application relate to the said Act. 202. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. *** 47