001090 A. Conditions of admissibility in contention between the Parties 40. The Respondent State raises two objections to the admissibility of the Application, namely, failure to exhaust local remedies, and the time frame for seizure of the Court. As indicated in paragraph 29 above, the Court will also consider here the objection concerning the form and content of the Application. i. Objection based on the form and content of the Application 41.According to the Respondent State, the Application is in fact a letter from Georgia J. Penessis to the Court, asking for directions as to how to pursue her complaints. 42. Still according to the Respondent State, this Application has not been properly filed before the Court in as much as “it is not in conformity with Rule 33(1) and (4) of the Rules”.3 It is argued that the Application contains neither a summary of the facts of the case nor the evidence that the author intends to adduce; nor does it specify the alleged violation, proof of exhaustion have been of local remedies unduly prolonged. The Respondent or whether such remedies State notes further that, the petition does not mention the prayers or injunctions requested, and this is simply because it was not intended to be an Application. 43. The Respondent State submits that the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked by a letter requesting from the Court the procedure to be followed, particularly in so far as the letter contains no undertaking to pursue the case before the Court. The Respondent State argues that the Application must therefore be declared incomplete and, accordingly, dismissed. 3 The reference to Rule 33 by the Respondent State is mistaken; the applicable Rule should be Rule 34 of the Rules, which provides for the form and content of an application. 12