The defendant gathered documents. 5. ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT The Defendant State, that of Senegal, in its defense, claimed that the application should not be admissible since the applicant did not indicate his domicile at the Court of Justice and that the applicant's lawyers did not accept to receive notifications by fax or any other technical means of communication, thus failing to comply with the requirements in the Articles 33 (2) and (3) and 28 (3) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court. That also in the petition notified on the defendant, the applicant did not attach the document "Legitimation" which the lawyer of the applicant must submit, as required by Article 28 in fine of the Regulation. That it is such document that allows the Court to know the lawyer or agent responsible for representing the applicant and, on the other hand, to have the real guarantees as to the existence, identity and authenticity of the names, surnames and qualities of the persons; That the Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure requires the lawyer to prove that he is entitled to practice before a court of a State Member or any other State party of the Treaty. The Defendant concluded that failure to regularize these formalities means that the application is declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 33 (6) of the Rules of the Court. AS TO THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT FURTHER ALLEGED: That due to a crisis in the border between the two countries, which began in February 2016, and resulted in the suspension of road traffic for several weeks, the situation was only normalized with the reopening of the border between Senegal and The Gambia on 24 May 2016. That the defendant's lorries did not cross the Senegalese border was not due to the closure of the border, but due to the breaking load, which is a measure imposed on the Gambian and foreign carriers wishing to transit their goods through the Senegalese 7