children, who were born of the couple, which ipso facto establishes an interest to act for Plaintiff/Applicant. As it were, the view of the Court tallies with those of other international courts of competent jurisdiction. In a case of « Unknown Persons v. United Kingdom» (judgment of 22 April 1997), the European Court of Human Rights declared that « to determine whether a union is to be examined as a « family life », it could be revealed useful to take into consideration a number of indices, such as knowing if the partners live together, and for how long, whether they have children of their own, which is proof for their living together (mutual living). » In Judgment dated 27 October 1994, in the case of « Kroon & others v. Netherlands », the Court reiterated that « it is a general rule that a cohabitation can constitute a condition of « family life » but exceptionally, other factors can also serve to demonstrate that a relation presents sufficient indices to create « family links » de facto, such is the situation in the instant case, since four children were born from the relation between Mrs. Kroon and Mr. Zenouk. » (See also « Keegan v. Irland », judgment of 26 May 1994; « Velikova v. Bulgaria », judgment of 18 May 1999, and « Gas & Dubois v. France », judgment of 31 August 2010.) From all the above considerations, it then follows that there is need to reject, as ill – founded, the objection raised as to admissibility of the initiating Application, on the grounds of lack of interest of Plaintiff/Applicant to act. b) On the voluntary intervention The Court notes that the Defendant State did not object to admissibility of the Application for voluntary intervention. Also, it was established that, on the strength of their birth certificates filed as proof during the procedure the 9