63 127. The Court therefore dismisses the State’s preliminary objection asserting failure to claim the violation of Article 26 at the proper procedural opportunity. * * * THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Litis pendencia Pleadings of the State 128. In its brief of preliminary objections, the State asked the Court to accept the preliminary objection claiming litis pendencia on the grounds that two cases are pending, one in the domestic courts and another in an international court, involving the same subjects, object and cause of action. 129. In its final oral submissions the State withdrew this preliminary objection, and confirmed its withdrawal of this preliminary objection in its final written submissions. Pleadings of the Commission 130. The Commission asked the Court to dismiss this preliminary objection brought by the State and explained the grounds for its request. Upon learning that the State had withdrawn this preliminary objection, the Commission asked the Court to consent to the withdrawal. Pleadings of the representatives 131. For their part, the representatives asked the Court to dismiss the State’s preliminary objection alleging litis pendencia, and explained the grounds for their request. Once the State withdrew that preliminary objection, the representatives made no further reference to it. Considerations of the Court 132. Inasmuch as the State withdrew its preliminary objection of litis pendencia, this Court considers it withdrawn and will now move on to the merits of the case. VII FACTS PROVEN 133. Having examined the documents, the statements of the witnesses, the opinions of the experts and the pleadings of the Commission, of the representatives and of the State during the course of the present proceeding, this Court deems the following facts proven: