disclose this information was indicative of bad faith on the part of the Applicant State. 232. With regard to the Applicant State’s argument that Rule 41(3)(c) of the Rules is optional, the Respondent State avers that the verb “shall” therein indicates a requirement and that the phrase “where appropriate” should be understood sensu generis. It argues that the fact that parallel proceedings existed or were imminent was relevant information that should have been disclosed to the Court. 233. Similarly, the Respondent State contends that the Applicant State was under an obligation to provide the Court with information and/or documents concerning the ongoing investigations before the International Criminal Court, to which it referred the case in April 2023. *** 234. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. In the alternative, it requested a stay of proceedings pending the decision in the case before the EACJ. 235. It argued that such a practice is standard in international litigation, referencing in particular the judgment of the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Simone Ehivet and Michel Gbagbo v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, andCommunication 233/99-234/99 – Interights (on behalf of Pan African Movement and Citizens for Peace in Eritrea) v. Ethiopia and Interights (on behalf of Pan African Movement and Inter African Group) v. Eritrea. *** 236. The Court recalls that it has held that an application constitutes abuse of process if it is manifestly frivolous or if it can be established that an applicant has lodged it in bad faith, contrary to the general principles of law and the established procedures of judicial practice. In this respect, an applicant filing 54