and “investigative journalism”. It submits that the Court should consider, in the absence of evidence of original investigation or analysis going beyond the use of press information, that any report published by a think-tank or an NGO should falls into this category. 264. The Respondent State argues that a careful examination of the Application and its annexes submitted shows that very few of them are relevant, and that in the instant case, nothing can give them probative value insofar as they are based on news articles and hearsay. 265. The Respondent State, therefore, submits that the Application be declared inadmissible. * 266. The Applicant State did not address this objection in its Response. 267. At the hearing, the Applicant State submitted that the objection be dismissed, and submitted that from the Court's jurisprudence, the ratio legis in Article 56(4) of the Charter seeks to prohibit the exclusive use of news disseminated through the mass media as the sole source of the allegations contained in an application, without prohibiting the possibility of obtaining that information from other sources. 268. Referencing communications 147/95 and 149/96 - Dawda Jawara v. Gambia, it argued that it would be prejudicial if an application were to be rejected because certain aspects of its content were taken from information disseminated through the mass media. 269. The Applicant State further contends that, in any event, it submitted documents whose diverse sources do not allow the conclusion that they emanated from news disseminated through the mass media. * 61