A. 72. Preliminary issue on the replacement of one Application with another The Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on Article 26(1) of the Protocol which provides “[t]he Court shall hear submissions by all parties.” 73. The Respondent State notes that on 10 September 2019 the Applicants filed before the Court an initial Application together with a request for provisional measures. 74, The Respondent State also avers that the Applicants filed a subsequent application before the Court on 24 September 2019 whereby it requested the Registry to consider the latter as a replacement of the initial one. This subsequent Application was registered under the same reference number as the initial Application. 75. According to the Respondent State, the initial Application created a legal relationship between the parties before the Court. As a result, this relationship creates rights and obligations for the parties and for the Court. 76. The Respondent State claims that the withdrawal of the initial Application is not based on any known procedural rule as it is neither a withdrawal of the proceedings nor a discontinuance within the meaning of Rule 58 of the Rules. 77. The Respondent State maintains that it had neither been notified of the Court's decision to acknowledge the Applicants’ intention not to proceed with the case nor of the Court’s decision to strike out the initial Application from the cause list. 78. In addition, the Respondent State claims that the unilateral and secret withdrawal of an Application and its subsequent replacement by another Application, cannot be admissible because these actions are not compatible with the Respondent State’s rights to fair proceedings. 17