the ICJ's judgment on preliminary objections in the matter of Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia). 67. Similarly, according to the Respondent State, the conduct of the Parties following the filing of the Application would be an important indicator only if the existence of a dispute has been pre-established. In this regard, it emphasizes that there is no evidence in the Applicant State’s written submissions that any alleged violations of rights or obligations were expressly condemned by it. 68. Finally, the Respondent State contends that the claim that States and international organizations have called upon it to withdraw its troops from the DRC is unfounded. 69. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. It added that the existence of a dispute was a requirement in inter-State cases, including those relating to international human rights law, as it emerges from numerous treaties on the subject. 70. The Respondent State contends that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the ICJ, it must be proved that the claims of one party are contested by the other. In its view, it must be shown that, in the present case, it was aware or could not have been oblivious to the Applicant State’s claims. It also submits that, even if evidence of a dispute can be deduced from statements made by State authorities, the Court must pay particular attention to this. 71. The Respondent State concludes by submitting that there is no dispute between the Parties warranting referral to this Court. *** 72. The Court observes that, in this case, the issue for determination is whether the terms “cases” and “disputes” referred to in Article 3 of the Protocol 18