334. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. It also asserted that the Court could only hear the instant case if the parties have previously attempted to settle the case through nonjudicial avenues, in particular, through negotiation, conciliation or any other political mechanism, which are conditions laid down in the treaties invoked by the DRC in support of its Application. 335. In this respect, the Respondent State cites Articles 28 and 29 of the Great Lakes Pact, which provide for the settlement, through non-judicial avenues, of any dispute between States Parties, in particular, through negotiation, investigation, conciliation or any other political mechanism within the framework of the Great Lakes follow-up mechanism. On the other hand, it cites Articles 47 et seq. of the Charter, which provide for prior amicable settlement in the event of a dispute. 336. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant State makes no mention in its Application of any attempt at conciliation or negotiation, nor did it take any such steps after preliminary objections had been filed. *** 337. The Court observes, as it has already indicated in paragraph 308 of this Ruling, that the local remedies to be exhausted are internal judicial remedies, which precludes all regional or international remedies. It follows that the argument that regional and international remedies were not exhausted in this instant application cannot be sustained. 338. Accordingly, this limb of the objection based on non-exhaustion of available regional and international remedies is dismissed. 339. In view of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection based on nonexhaustion of local remedies. 75