VIII 30. The Court which under Article 3 (2) of the Protocol is empowered to decide on its own jurisdiction (“competence-competence” principle), thus seems to have lost control of the procedure in favour of one of the Parties which, despite everything, did not appear at the public hearing. This also deprives the public hearing of 4 March 2016 of its very objective, the holding of which had been decided for the purpose of hearing the Parties both on the preliminary objections and merits of the case. 31. Duly represented at the hearing, the Applicant found herself doubly penalized. The Court did not allow her Counsels to address the question of the legal effects of the Respondent’s withdrawal of the optional declaration (jurisdiction of the Court) and did not also make any ruling on their request regarding the four procedural matters raised at the hearing’? and, in particular, the issues relating to the organization of the hearing by video conference and the transmission of certain documents by the Respondent State, requests wich had already been the subject of an exchange of correspondence between the Parties and the Court,’* As indicated by the Court in paragraph 19 of its Order, the Applicant had however “requested the Court to procedural matters stated in paragraph 15 above”. issue Orders on the 32. For its part, the Respondent State obtained from the Court a suspension of the consideration of the admissibility of the Application and the merits of the case, without making an appearance at the hearing or presenting any form of pleadings whatsoever. Having solicited written observations from the Applicant on the four procedural matters raised above, the Court decided to defer its decision on the aforesaid matters, apparently with intent to safeguard the adversarial principle in favour of the Respondent State; the only apparent reason ” See in this regard the interpretation of this principle by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its judgement in the matter brought by Ivcher Bronstein against the Republic of Peru, a State which had withdrawn its declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court during an ongoing procedure, Ivcher Bronstein Case, Jurisdiction, Judgement cf 24 September 1999, Series C, No, 54 (1999), paragraphs 32 et seq. (http://www.corteidh,or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_54 ing.pdf). ? See the Report of the Public English), 11 pages. 2016, Hearing of 4 March Verbatim Records (Original ‘4 As regards the transmission of a number of documents by the Respondent State, see for example the letter dated 7 October 2015 addressed to the latter by the Registrar of the Court (Ref: AFCHPR/Reg./APPL.003/2014/014), the reminder note dated 14 December 2015 (Ref: AFCHPR/Reg./APPL.003/2014/017) and the Respondent State’s letter in reply dated 17 December 2015, forwarded under cover of a Note Verbale of the same date (No. 2564.09.01/CAB/PS/LA/I5) received at the Registry on 23 December 2015,