1 I. I I I I 26. By a letter of 21 March 2016, the Registry requested the Applicant, with its Legal Representative in copy, to approach the latter in order to recast the Application, so as to conform to the provisions of Rules 34 (1), (2) and (4) of the Rules of the Court, failing which the relevant provisions therein would be invoked. 27. By a letter of 4 May 2016, the Registry drew the attention of the Applicant, with its Legal R_ epresentative in copy, to the fact that it had not reformulated the Application, indicating that it should do so within 15 days, failing which the relevant provisions of the Rules of the Court would be invoked . 28. The Applicant did not submit the reformulated Application within the above referred time. For these reasons, i. The Court notes that its decision to register th~ Application hinged on the premise that the deficiencies identified on the same would be rectified. To that end, the Court provided legal assistance to the Applicant through IHRF. 11. Tile Court notes that, even after having been provided with legal assistance, the Applicant has not reformulated the Application, notwithstanding successive extensions of time for it to do so. iii. The Court notes further that the various communications addressed to the Applicant and their Counsel were duly served at the designated addresses. iv. The Court concludes tha~ the non-reformulation of the Application, in order for it to conform to the provisions of Article 34 (1 ), (2) and (4) of the Rules, points to a lack of interest on the part of the Applicant and their Counsel in pursuing the matter before the Court. Page 6 of 7