position that the characterization of an armed conflict and State responsibility are two very different questions. This is so since the degree and nature of a State's involvement in an armed conflict taking place on the territory of another State are the conditions required for that conflict to be characterized as international. However, those conditions could very well, without logical contradiction, be different from those required for that State to be held responsible for a particular act committed during the conflict in question.21 161. The Court notes that, “armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State”.22 In the first instance, the armed conflict is international in nature, while in the second instance,23 it is non-international. 162. The Court recalls that the period mentioned in the Application is the period spanning November 2021 and 11 August 2023 and that the locality concerned is the province of North Kivu, in the eastern part of the DRC. 163. To determine the existence of an armed conflict in North Kivu, it is proper for the Court to verify two conditions24 first, whether M23 is an organized armed group and, secondly, whether the clashes have reached the minimum intensity required. 164. The Court notes that it is not disputed that M23 is an armed group operating on the territory of the Respondent State. It is equally uncontroverted that, during the period covering the facts that are the subject of the present Application, the M23 was in open conflict with the FARDC, the regular/national army of the Applicant State. The Court further notes that 21 ICJ, Implementation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgement dated 26 February 2007, Compendium 2007, § 405. 22 The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, ICTY, 2 October 1995, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, §70 23 Article 2 Common to the Geneva Conventions 24 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Ramushi Haradinak, Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, Judgement of the Trial Chamber of 3 April 2008, § 63. 39