39. The Registry having accepted their failure to notify the Applicant and the omission being a procedural lapse that does not go to the substance of the case, the Court dismisses the Respondent’s objection on this ground and declares the application admissible and so holds. 40. The second objection of the Respondent is premised on Article 28(2) of the Rules of Court, which require a lawyer acting on behalf of a party to lodge at the Registry, an authorisation to practice before a court of a Member State. The Applicant’s lawyer is cited as resident in Paris and in the absence of such certification, the Respondent argues that the application is defective and should be declared inadmissible by the Court. Indeed such authorisation was not annexed to the originating application, however upon the objection raised, the Applicant filed a document in support. 41. In his reply, the Applicant annexed a document issued by the Paris Bar authorising his lawyer to practice abroad and in particular with the law firm of SCP MBAYE DIEND & ASSOCIATES in Dakar Senegal. Attached was also an agreement between the said law firm and the lawyer on the use of their office facilities. 42. In a rejoinder, the Respondent raised further objection to the effect that even though the said lawyer is authorised to practice abroad, an authorisation from the Bar of Senegal is vital. *** 43. The Court takes judicial notice of the long practice of reciprocity of rights of practice by lawyers, between France and Republic of Senegal premised on Article 15