Vil 26. I find it regrettable that the Court did not allow the Counsels for the Applicant to present their observations on this issue, on grounds which I consider as purely that of formality (see paragraphs 24 and 25 above). By so doing, the Court deprived the public hearing to which it had invited the Patiies, of every purpose; it did not also draw any legal consequences from the Respondent State’s non-appearance at that public hearing, contenting itself with simply expressing “regret” on this issue (see paragraph 17 of this Order),"' 27. In the Order, the Court “orders that the Parties file written submissions on the effect of the Respondent's withdrawal of its Declaration made under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol” within fifteen (15) days of receipt of this Order (paragraph 20); it also decided that “its ruling on the effects of the Respondent’s withdrawal of its Declaration under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol shall be handed down at a date to be duly notified to the Parties” (paragraph 21). 28. Having decided to consult the Parties, the Court should have been more precise in its demand and should have ordered the latter to address it on the “legal effects” of the Respondent’s withdrawal of its declaration “on the instant case”. The question of the legal effects of the said withdrawal on the ongoing procedure is the only relevant one in the instant case; it should be distinguished from the more general question of the legal validity of the said withdrawal and its effects for the future. 29. By ordering the two measures mentioned in paragraph 27 above, the Court somehow decided to enter into debates on the request made by the Respondent in its letter of 1 March 2016 (suspension of the consideration of cases filed against it) and, de facto, decided to accord to that request a treatment similar to that meant for a preliminary objection. The Court indeed asked the Parties to present written observations on the effects of the Respondent’s withdrawal of its declaration, implicitly suspending the procedure on the merits of the case, thereby using its prerogatives under paragraphs 3 and 5 of Rule 52 of its Rules. ' The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for its part, held the view that the nonappearance of the Respondent State at a public hearing tantamounts to a violation of its international obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights, see paragraph 13 of its Order on Provisional Measures dated 29 August 1998, in the matter of James and Others v Republic (http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/james_se_06_ing.pdf). of Trindad,