v suspension of consideration of the cases involving it, including the case instituted by Ungabire Victoire Umuhoza, until it has reviewed its declaration. 19. Even if this request could be considered as a genuine preliminary objection regarding lack of jurisdiction, it would be inadmissible on the grounds of having been submitted out of time. Rule 52 (2) of the Rules of Court indeed provides that “preliminary objections shali be raised at the latest before the date fixed by the Court for the filing of the first set of pleadings to be submitted by the Party who intends to raise the objections”. This timeline however expired over one year ago; indeed, the Respondent State submitted its Response on 23 January 2015 and had not as at that date raised any objection on lack of jurisdiction. 20. In any case, the public hearing of 4 March 2016, which was intended to hear the pleadings of the Parties both on preliminary objections and on the merits of the case, was maintained and, if the Court so desired, could have afforded the Parties the opportunity to also present their oral observations on the question of the possible legal effects on the consideration of the instant case by the Court, of the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its declaration. 21. Having decided not to postpone the public hearing, the Court should have exhibited consistency and heard the pleadings of the Parties on the entirety of the case and possibly also on the question of its jurisdiction. 22. On 4 March 2016, the Respondent State was not represented at the public hearing even though it had expressed the wish to be heard (see paragraph 13 of the Order). The Respondent State therefore chose not to present its arguments on the issues debated at that hearing, and thus took the risk of seeing the Court accept the Applicant’s submissions on the said issues.” 23. The Applicant, for her part, was represented at the hearing, and her Counsels had the opportunity to present their observations on the four procedural matters. However, they were refused the opportunity to express their views on the question of the legal consequences of the Respondent State’s withdrawal of its optional declaration recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court. 24. Indeed, at the hearing, the President of the Court instantly asked the Counsels for the Applicant to limit their pleadings to the presentation of > The non-appearance of the Respondent State at the hearing cannot, on its own, trigger the proceedings in default prescribed by Rule 55 of the Rules of Court.