41. In response, the Applicant contends that neither the Charter, the Protocol nor the Rules of Court specifies the maximum number of applications an Applicant is entitled to submit to the Court. He further avers that submitting several applications does not, per se, constitute an abuse warranting dismissal on grounds of admissibility, insofar as the applications filed neither contain the same facts nor relate to the same subject-matter. He concludes that the objection should be dismissed. *** 42. The Court notes that an application is said to be abusive, inter alia, if it is manifestly frivolous or if an applicant has filed it in bad faith contrary to general principles of law and to judicial practice. In that regard, it should be noted that the mere fact that an applicant files several applications against a particular Respondent State does not necessarily indicate a lack of good faith on the part of the applicant.9 43. The Court further notes that even if it is established that an application was filed for purposes of political propaganda, it does not necessarily render the application abusive. In any event, the Court further notes, an application can be deemed abusive only after comprehensive examination on the merits.10 44. Consequently, the Court finds that whether or not the Applicant is abusing the right to institute proceedings can only be determined at the stage of the merits. ii. Objection based on the absence of a link between the main Application and the supplementary Application 45. The Respondent State avers that a supplementary application is admissible only if it is sufficiently connected to the main application. In this regard, it 9 XYZ v. Republic of Benin, supra, § 44; Sébastien Germain Marie Aïkoué Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (merits and reparations) (Judgment of 4 December 2020) 4 AfCLR 133, § 64. 10 XYZ v. Republic of Benin, supra, § 45. 12