ii. Objection alleging that the Application is based on news disseminated by the mass media 260. The Respondent State submits that the purpose of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules is to ensure that the proceedings are not conducted on the basis of unverified and/or frivolous allegations. In this regard, it cites the Court’s decision in the matter of Bernard Mornah v. Republic of Benin and Others. 261. The Respondent State submits that it may appear, prima facie, that the Application is not based exclusively on press articles, given that its annexes do not contain only news disseminated by this means of communication. However, according to the Respondent State, it is for the Court itself to determine the subject-matter of the dispute, not by limiting itself to the arguments of the parties, but by making its own objective assessment, as the ICJ did in the judgment on preliminary objections in the matter of Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile). 262. The Respondent State considers in this respect that the exhibits submitted by the Applicant State are merely a façade. In its view, the expression “mass media” should not be interpreted as referring only to press articles stricto sensu, but as a term which also includes any information, from governmental or international sources, which is based primarily on press articles or which is intended for dissemination by the same means of communication. To this effect, it refers to Dawda K. Diawara v. Republic of Gambia. In its view, to make a distinction between a press article and its source would be tantamount to disregarding several exhibits, including press releases emanating from the Respondent State, in application of the rule of nemo judex in causa sua. 263. According to the Respondent State, the term “means of communication” also includes any information emanating from think-tanks or NGOs, whose communication methods are media-oriented - which influences the “information” they claim to transmit in their reports. It points out that in a recent case, the ECHR emphasised the distinction between “press articles” 60