Applicant’s address on his application cannot constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the application…” 43. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent’s objection and holds that the Application is admissible. b) Incompetence of the Court to review a national law 44. The Respondent raised a Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the Court to examine Order N° 7580 / MINSTSP of 20 July 2011 being a legislation of a State. This objection will be addressed at this stage as it does not require the examination of the impugned Order as to its compliance with international standards which is a merit consideration. 45. The Applicants in their response contend that the Respondent has the obligation to repeal Order No 7580/MINSTSP of 20 July, which is a manifestly illegal administrative Act which furthermore violates the fundamental rights of the Senegalese people since any request for meeting is systematically denied. They argue that the Application is well founded and urges that the Court of Justice find that the Republic of Senegal retains in its legal order an administrative Act which infringes on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by national and international texts. ***** 46. States, by virtue of their sovereign nature are independent of any interference which impugns actions or decisions taken in that capacity. This informed the position taken by the Court in a plethora of cases that 15