Til difficulties he was facing in the exercise of his right to visit his client. He indicated in particular that: “The public hearing before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights will be held in three weeks and under such conditions, it is difficult for us to prepare our defence without prior consultation with the client”. 10. By letter dated 26 February 2016, Counsel for the Applicant informed the Registrar of the Court, inter alia, that he has “up to now been deprived of any contact with his client” and that none of the documents which the Registry recently transmitted to him could be brought to the attention of his client; Counsel for the Applicant also informed the Registrar that his client decided to appoint a second Counsel and that “discussion between members of the defence team and, above all, their contact with the client was absolutely necessary to harmonize the defence strategy”. Counsel for the Applicant therefore requested adjournment of the public hearing to a future date. 11. By letter dated 1 March 2016, the Applicant’s second Counsel informed the Registrar that she was yet to obtain a visa to travel to Rwanda and that it would therefore be difficult to meet with her client before the public hearing set down for 4 March 2016, The second Counsel therefore reiterated the request to adjourn the public hearing indicating that both Counsels were ready to discuss “procedural matters” on 4 March but requested adjournment of any discussion on “the merits” of the case to a future opportunity of speaking with their client.’ date, that is, after having had an 12. By letter dated 1 March 2016, the Respondent State, for its part, notified the President of the Court of the withdrawal of the optional declaration it made under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol and, at the same time, requested suspension of the consideration of cases filed against it, including the matter instituted by Ingabire Victoire Uhumoza (see paragraph 10 of the Order). 13. By letter dated 3 March 2016, the Respondent State acknowledged receipt of the letter from the Registrar dated 2 March 2016 notifying the two Parties that the Court had decided to proceed with the public hearing set down for 4 March; the Respondent State also took note of the request for postponement of the public hearing presented by the Applicant, and indicated that it had no objection to the request. The Respondent State further requested to be heard in relation to its request submitted on 1 March 2016° for suspension of 2 “We are willing to discuss procedural matters on 4th March but request that you adjourn any discussion on the substance to a date when we have had an opportunity to speak with Mrs. Ingabire”. ? The Respondent State mentions 2 March 2016 in error.