The Court's Assessment 73. With regard to the objection by the Respondent that the matter is pending before the Commission, the Court notes that the Applicant in the present matter is the Commission, which seised the Court in conformity with Article 5(1) of the Protocol. 74. Having seised the Court, the Commission decided not to examine the matter itself. The seisure of the Court by the Commission signifies in effect that the matter is no longer pending before the Commission, and there is therefore no parallel procedure before the Commission on the one hand and the Court on the other. 75. The Respondent's objection to the admissibility on the grounds that this matter is pending before the Commission is thus dismissed. ii. Objection with respect to the failure to undertake preliminary examination of its Admissibility Respondent's Objection 76. The Respondent submits that the Court has failed to conduct a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the Application by virtue of Articles 50 and 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules, and that adverse orders should not have been issued against it without being given an opportunity to be heard . Applicant's Submission 77. The Applicant submits that the Application meets all the admissibility requirements provided under Article 56 of the Charter, as it was filed before the Court pursuant to Article 5(1) (a) of the Protocol against a State Party both to the Protocol and the Charter, for alleged violations that occurred within the Respondent's territory. The Applicant furthe r states that Article 50 of the Charter does not apply to this Application since it relates to admissibility procedures for "Communications from States", whereas the instant Application is not such an Application. The Applicant maintains that the Respondent has been accorded an opportunity to be heard at the 21