On the merit 89. It further argued that: a. The alleged lack of communication of Title Deed No. 18 90. That, on this first point, the Applicants base their argument that the title deed No. 18 would not have been communicated to them and that they did not have the opportunity to refute it, according to their statements; 91. According to them, the Court relied on this title to pronounce its decision; 92. This is not the case; 93. That after the State of Niger’s defense, the Applicants had to reply and at no time discussed the issue of ownership by the Republic of Niger; 94. Contrary to their arguments in the application for Revision, the Court ruled that they did not prove their property right and consequently it dismissed it (page 25 of the decision); 95. In any case, since the initiation of proceedings that they initiated in the national courts, the Applicants have never ignored the existence of this title that substantiates ownership, unlike them, who have not proved their ownership, as was pointed out before this Court; 96. It concluded that this plea is inoperative and must be dismissed by the Court. 18