- .. ~ .. - ~ .·.· :·-.- . . ·~ with the examination of jurisdiction first, and then deal with admissibility later, as the majority judgment does. It, however, needs to be mentioned that there has never been unanimity in this Court that that should necessarily always be the case; there has always been a view that it would not necessarily be wrong, in a given case, to examine admissibility first. 2. The above debate cannot be resolved in favour of starting with jurisdiction, by, as the majority judgment seeks to do, importing into Rule 39(1) a word which is not in there, namely, the word "first". Apparently, the importation is made to strengthen the case for starting with jurisdiction first as opposed to admissibility. The relevant paragraph of the majority judgment, being paragraph 30, reads: "Rule 39(1) of the Rules . . . provides that the Court must first conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction" (own underlining). Yet, with respect, the Rule does not say that; it reads: "The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application ... ". The word "first" appears nowhere in the Rule, let alone specifically prescribing that one should start with jurisdiction first. Whatever reason may be behind importing that word into the Rule, it remains factually incorrect to say, as the majority judgment does, that the Rule contains that particular word, when it does not; accordingly, we disagree with that statement. It may well be that starting with jurisdiction may be justified on