19. By a letter of 13 November 2015, IHRF accepted to provide legal assistance to the Applicant. 20.In the same letter, IHRF reported that the Application on the payment of claims was being handled domestically, through an out-of-court settlement between the parties, and requested information regarding the Application on the lead poisoning. 21.By a letter of 3 December 2015, the Registry responded and informed IHRF, with the Applicant in copy, that there was only one Application before the Court, that of 16 February 2015, which had been submitted in replacement of the Application dated 29 December 2014, which the Court requested the Applicant to recast for lack of conformity to the Rules. 22.By a letter dated 7 December 20115, the Applicant informed the Registry that it was not aware of the agreement IHRF referred to in its letter dated 13 November 2015, given that the matter was pending before the domestic courts. 23.By a letter dated 11 December 2015, the Applicant requested the Court to withdraw the said Application on the lead poisoning because the domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 24. By a letter of 4 January 2016, the Registry reminded the Applicant that there was only one Application before the Court, that of 16 February 2015, which the Court had indicated needed to be recast and that the Applicant should do so with the assistance of a Counsel. 25.At its 40th Ordinary Session, held from 29 February to 18 March 2016, the Court instructed the Registry to draw the attention of the Applicant to the need to reformulate the Application so as to comply with the applicable provisions of the Protocol and the Rules, failing which the relevant provisions therein would be invoked. Page 5 of 7