litigation, which ought to have been revealed in the initiating Application, or at best, by Counsel to Federal Republic of Nigeria. 12.To this end, the Court would like the Counsels and the parties, to remember that they have an obligation to contribute to the manifestation of the truth, and must assist the Court in the establishment of the facts, and the discovery of the other elements, for the correct examination of each one of them; also, Counsels to the parties have the obligation to cooperate with it, in all good faith and loyalty, in the administration of justice, and in the interest of the parties to the case. They must particularly inform the Court on all proceedings initiated, or which are effectively settled, at the national courts, in cases that are brought before it. 13.The Court recalls that in a similar case, for human rights violations, where the res judicata was relied upon, as the basis for objection to admissibility, it held that such an argument can only hold, if “it is established that the case brought before it (…) is essentially the same as another case which has already been satisfactorily adjudicated upon, by a competent national court” [see § 13 of the Judgment in the Aliyu Tasheku v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, dated 12 June 2012]. 14.The new evidence produced in the instant case, is likely to have a decisive influence on the examination of this case, on its merit, if it is established that the case brought before it by Mrs. Sa’adatu Umar is essentially the same as the one adjudicated upon by the Federal High Court, Abuja. 15.Indeed, in such an eventuality, the Court could, even at this stage of proceedings, decide to declare the instant case inadmissible [see § 19 and 20 of the Judgment in the Aliyu Tasheku v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, dated 12 June 2012.] Consequently, the Court declares the Order made by the Federal High Court, Abuja as new evidence. 5