A. The effect of the adoption of Order N° 2020-306 of 4 March 2020 on the Application 115. The Respondent State contends that the Application has become without merit since the law questioned by the Applicants has been modified by Order N° 2020306 of 4 March 2020 and the relevant provisions on which the Applicants base their allegations have been abrogated. 116. The Respondent State also notes that the change of the law was not made out of necessity because the older law failed to establish a balanced composition of the electoral body. Instead, the Respondent State argues that the change of the law was carried out in line with its international human rights commitments to raise the standards of its electoral body. 117. Nonetheless, the Respondent State maintains that the Court cannot base itself on the arguments pertaining to the law of 2019 because all the provisions on which the Court would rely in handing down its judgment are no longer in force. Accordingly, the Respondent State prays the Court to finds the Application without merit. 118. The Applicants contest the objection by the Respondent State and assert that the Order N° 2020-306 of 4 March 2020 does not modify in any way the arguments brought before this Court regarding the violations alleged in their Application. 119. The Applicants first contend that they refer in the Application to the same law. Law N° 2019-708 of 5 August 2019 on the recomposition of the IEC has now simply been modified by the Order N° 2020-306 of4 March 2020, but essentially remains the same law. For the Applicants, these modifications do not repeal the law itself which governs the composition of the electoral body and which is impugned in their Application, the impugned law has only been modified in part, therefore the Application can in no way be found to be without merit. 25