alleged human rights violations, evidence adduced and remedies sought. It submits that, additionally, just like this Court, the EACJ has jurisdiction to hear human rights violations. It references the EACJ’s decision in James Katabazi and 21 Others v. Secretary General of the East African Community and Another. 227. On the objection that the abuse of process can only be dealt with on the merits of the case, the Respondent State submits that the abuse of process, particularly the existence of parallel proceedings, is a fundamental preliminary procedural question which should be resolved before any examination of the merits. It submits that the interests of justice would not be served if the Court were to examine the merits before ruling the application inadmissible and that, in any event, the case of XYZ v. Republic of Benin is different from the instant case. 228. The Respondent State further argues that the fact that none of the parallel proceedings has been determined reinforces the argument that the Application before this Court is an abuse of process and increases the risk of conflicting rulings. 229. The Respondent State urges the Court to be mindful of its own communiqué following the second tripartite judicial dialogue between it, the EACJ and the Economic Community of West African States Court of Justice, in which the three courts affirmed their commitment to judicial dialogue. 230. As for the Applicant’s failure to disclose material facts, the Respondent State submits that the two applications were lodged within the space of a month. It argues that the Applicant State could not conceivably have been oblivious to the fact that it intended to refer a similar case to the EACJ. 231. In the alternative, the Respondent State argues, that even if the Applicant State had been unaware that it would be making a referral to the EACJ, it should have informed the Court of this important fact as soon as the application was lodged or shortly thereafter. It argues further that failure to 53