79. The Respondent State asserts that it has been wrongfully deprived of its right to rebut the withdrawal and replacement of the initial Application in violation of Article 26 of the Protocol. Therefore, it prays the Court to rule on the merits of the initial Application and find the subsequent Application inadmissible. 80. The Applicants maintain that when they resubmitted their Application, the Respondent State had not yet responded to the initial Application. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the Respondent State had initiated any proceedings at the time the amended Application was filed before the Court. Accordingly, its consent was not required for the subsequent Application to be admitted. Hee 81. The issues to be determined by the Court concern the alleged secrecy of the replacement of the Application and the admissibility of the amended Application. 82. The Court observes that to rule on these issues Rules 35(2) and 36(1) need to be taken into consideration. 83. Rule 35(2) of the Rules stipulates: Unless otherwise decided by the Court, the Registrar shall forward copies of the application where applicable to the: a) State Party against which the application has been filed, in accordance with Rule 34 (6) of these Rules; [...] 84. Rule 36(1) of the Rules provides: “All pleadings received by the Registrar shall be registered and a copy thereof transmitted to the other party.” 85. The Court notes that the Applicants filed an Application on 10 September 2019 which was transmitted to the Respondent State, pursuant to Rule 35(2) and Rule 36(1) of the Rules. It also notes that on 24 September 2019 the Applicants filed an amended Application before the Court. The Applicants requested the Registry to consider the latter as a replacement of the initial one. This amended 18