Issue 3: The Applicant’s Request to Order the Respondent to facilitate access to video conferencing technology for the Applicant to follow the proceedings of the Court on this matter. 51. The Applicant requests the Court to order the Respondent to make available video conferencing facilities to allow the Applicant to follow proceedings before the Court and provide evidence before the Court. The Applicant argues that the Respondent has video conferencing facilities which have previously been used in the context of proceedings before the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda. 52. The Applicant argues that the physical presence of an accused is a basic and common principle of a fair trial and that while the proceedings before the Court are not criminal in nature, they relate to the Applicant’s criminal process in national courts of the Respondent, which she alleges were conducted unfairly. 53. The Applicant further argues that preventing her from participating via video- link means that would not address the Court directly and that she would be completely cut off from the proceedings and that this would undermine her right to an effective remedy. 54. The Respondent did not submit observations on this issue. 55. The Court notes that the importance of the personal presence of an Applicant as a procedural Applicant’s requirement is materially distinct from the protection of an participatory right. While the presence of an Applicant at proceedings is protected by the right to access to the Court, the participatory right is safeguarded by the right to represent oneself personally or through a legal counsel. In the instant case, the Applicant’s participation in proceedings is through her duly appointed representatives. 56. The Court further notes that pursuant to Rule 27(1), the procedure before the Court shall consist of written, and if necessary, oral proceedings. Further, pursuant fo Rule 45, the Court may call witnesses if it deems that they are likely to assist it in carrying out its task. It is therefore up to the discretion of the Court to determine whether it shall hold oral proceedings and whether at those 11