Application was then registered by the Registry under the same reference of the initial Application. 86. The Court also takes note that the amended Application and its registration was duly transmitted to the Respondent State on 25 September 2019, in accordance with Rule 35(2) Respondent and Rule 36(1) of the State filed its Response on Rules, almost 1 October a week 2019 before the to the request for provisional measures contained in the initial Application. 87. The Court further notes that on 15 October 2019 the Respondent State filed its response to the request for provisional measures contained in the amended Application. 88. Therefore, the Court finds the Respondent State’s allegation that the replacement was done secretly, as baseless. 89. Furthermore, the Court notes that in its communication about the amended Application, it extended the time lines for the Respondent State to file both its Response to the request for provisional measures within fifteen (15) days and its Response on the merits within sixty (60) days of receipt of the notification transmitting the amended Application. Accordingly, the Respondent State was not deprived of the time needed to respond to the amended Application. Therefore, the Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the Respondent State by the replacement of the Application. 90. For these reasons, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to the admissibility of this Application based on this ground. 19