submissions between the parties, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court. 21. In that regard, even the Applicant refrained from making a firm request for a oneyear period of notice. In the Submissions dated 15 April 2016, one of her lawyers indeed refers to a reasonable period of notice [paragraph 29] and after indicating that periods of notice in international practice have been set at one year, six months or even three months [paragraph 32], he opines that Rwanda’s withdrawal should not have an immediate effect but should at least enter into force only after a certain number of months [paragraph 33]. On this point, he concludes by requesting that Rwanda’s withdrawal takes effect only after “a cooling off period” [paragraph 53]. This goes to show that, even in the view of the Applicant, there should be no automatic and mechanical application of the one year notice provided for by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 22. In conclusion, it seems to us that, in a judgment in which it was certainly going to make case-law, the Court did not sufficiently grasp the different facets of the legal issues raised and all the implications of its position, not only with regard to the applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to unilateral acts derived from treaties, but also with regard to the issue of the notice period in the event of withdrawal. PASS Juge Gérard NYUNGEKO Robert ENO sh Greffier — i Juge Augustino S.L. RAMADHANI e ye J > Febuary 20'F 7 i [ ff ) “ LOM Gy A Aw