nor made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another international court for adjudication. IX. MERITS 35.The Court observes that the Application was not challenged by the Respondent, as no defense was filed despite being served with the Application and given ample time to respond to same in accordance with Article 35 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, at the last Court hearing on 20 October 2021, the Respondent entered their appearance before the Court, but gave no reasons for failing to file a defense. 36.The Court is guided by Article 35 (1) of the Rules of Court which stipulates the time limit for response to an application. Having not taken advantage of the opportunity for a motion for extension of time to file a defense in line with Article 35(2) of the Rules, the Court is not obliged to wait ad infinitum and will therefore proceed with the determination of the case based on the Applicants’ submissions. 37.The Court speedily cautions that proceeding with the determination of the case will not result in an automatic finding for the Applicants. The Court must still determine whether the Application is well founded. See VISION KAM JAY INVESTMENT LIMITED V PRESIDENT OF THE COMMISSION & ANOR JUDGMENT NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/16 PAGE 13; LIEUTENANT COLONEL SILAS JOCK SANTOI V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA JUDGMENT NO ECW/CCJ/JUG/01/19 PAGE 14. 38. As previously held, the Court has declared it has jurisdiction to preside over the Application in accordance with Article 9(4) of the Protocol (as amended by the Supplementary Protocol) and same is admissible in accordance with 13