19 AEGEAN SEA (JUDGMENT) Registrar, at the direction of the Court, informed the Turkish Ambassador to the Netherlands that his Government had the right to address to the Court in writing any observations that it might have on the Greek request. It was in these circumstances that, by its letter of 25 August 1976, the Turkish Government transmitted to the Court the document entitled "Observations of the Government of Turkey on the request by the Government of Greece for provisional measures of protection dated The Hague, 10 August 1976". In those observations the Turkish Government specifically referred to the right conferred upon it by Article 39, paragraph 3, of the General Act to invoke Greece's reservation (b) on the basis of reciprocity, and then stated: "In conformity with this provision, Turkey opposes reservation (b)." In the view of the Court, that forma1 statement, made in response to a communication from the Court, must be considered as constituting an "enforcement" of the reservation within the meaning of, and in conformity with, Article 39, paragraph 3, of the Act. 44. The Turkish Government, it is true, was not represented at the public hearings on Greece's request for the indication of provisional measures, and did not afterwards file a preliminary objection or take any steps in the proceedings. But there is no provision in the Rules of Court which excludes the submission of written observations on a request for provisional measures; nor is there any provision which excludes the raising of questions of jurisdiction in written observations submitted in proceedings on the indication of provisional measures. On the contrary, in view of the urgency of a request for provisional measures, written communications not submitted through an agent but either directly or through the Ambassador in The Hague have invariably been admitted by the Court; while one of the very purposes of such communications has cornmonly been to raise questions as to the competence of the Court with respect to the particular case (Anglo-Zranian Oil Co., Z. C.J. Reports 1951, p. 9 1; Fisheries Jurisdiction, I. C.J. Reports 1972, pp. 14 and 32; Nuclear Tests, 1.C.J. Reports 1973, pp. 100 and 136-137; Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, 1.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 329). 45. In the present case, the Turkish Government's observations were immediately communicated to the Greek Agent, and they were referred to by counsel for Greece during the hearings concerning the request for interim measures. Indeed, counsel for Greece then expressly recognized that by reason of the title given to the document the Turkish Government had placed itself "within the context of Article 66, paragraph 8, of the Rules of Court", adding: "Thus, not only has an opportunity of presenting observations been given to Turkey, but Turkey has in fact, in the letter which it has sent to the Court and in the document, availed itself of that opportunity of presenting observations."