on preliminary objections handed down by the ICJ in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gambia v. Myanmar) and Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation). 47. By way of illustration, the Applicant State references parties’ statements and documents exchanged in multilateral forums, especially on the sidelines of the United Nation’s 77th Ordinary Session, on 20 September 2022; at the African Union (AU), through various communiqués from the Peace and Security Council (PSC), the East African Community (EAC), under the Nairobi and Luanda processes, as well as in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), through communiqués issued by summits of the organization's heads of state. 48. Referencing the ICJ's judgment on preliminary objections in the East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia), the Applicant State underscores that an examination of the parties’ conduct after the filing of an application could help determine the existence of a dispute between them. In this regard, it argues that in the instant case, the official statements of the Parties, including that of its Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Parties' Permanent Representatives to the United Nations and their Heads of State, confirm the existence of a dispute. 49. Citing the Judgment on Preliminary Objections of the ICJ in Allegations of Genocide Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), the Applicant State further notes that “the Respondent State was aware or could not have been unaware that its views were being expressly opposed by the Applicant State” insofar as other States and credible international organizations have denounced and condemned the allegations of human rights violations cited in the Application. 13