declared Urban Mkandawire v. Republic of Malawi inadmissible had the Applicant not withdrawn his parallel complaint before the Commission. 344. The Respondent State contends that in the instant case, the matter has already been settled, or at least brought before various other bodies. It argues that it is also pending before the EACJ and that, should the Applicant State fail to prove that it has discontinued its action before that court, this Application should be declared inadmissible. 345. Finally, the Respondent State submits that Rule 83(2)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission provides, as a condition for the admissibility of inter-State cases, that information be given on “any other procedure of international investigation or international settlement to which the interested State Parties have resorted”. In its opinion, although there may be no corresponding provision in the Rules, the fact that the Applicant State failed to inform the Court of the referral to the EACJ should result in the inadmissibility of the Application. * 346. In its Reply, the Applicant State submits that the objection should be rejected. To this end, it argues that the Respondent State confuses the authority of res judicata with that of lis pendens. 347. Firstly, the Applicant State points out that the ne bis in idem principle concerns cases settled under positive international law and precludes any possibility of re-examining of a case that has given rise to a judicial decision once the issues raised by the claimant have been settled there. 348. It submits that, in Jean Claude Roger Gombert v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, Suy Bi Gohore Emile et al v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire and Dexter Eddie Johnson v. Republic of Ghana, the Court held that the application of this principle requires the convergence of three major conditions, namely, the identity of the parties, identity of the applications or their supplementary or alternative nature or whether the case flows from a request made in the 77