notify the State party concerned of the dispute and to specify its nature and scope. 182. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant State did not at any time attempt to resolve the matters raised in the Application by the non-judicial means available under Articles 28 and 29 of the Great Lakes Pact, that is, through “negotiation, good offices, investigation, mediation, conciliation” or any other political means available to the parties within the framework of the Great Lakes Pact. 183. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the Application is inadmissible for failure to comply with the preliminary requirements of referral to the Court. * 184. In its Reply, the Applicant State argues that the objection should be dismissed, reiterating that the instant case is not a dispute in the traditional sense of the term, but a particular type of human rights litigation. 185. It argues that referral to the Court is not subject to any preliminary requirement of negotiation or mediation, and that the preliminary conditions required by Article 28 of the Great Lakes Pact would only have been necessary if the Application had been filed within the framework of the mechanisms for settling “disputes” set up by the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, which is not the case presently. 186. The Applicant State further submits that Article 29 of the Great Lakes Pact is not relevant either, since it is applicable only if Article 28, to which the Respondent State refers, is itself applicable, that is, “when recourse to the instruments referred to in Article 28(2), (3) and (4) proves unsuccessful”. * 44