31. The Court also considers it has answered the question raised in paragraph 8(b) of the first set of questions of this Opinion on whether it can “interpret and lay down in terms of treaty law applicable to State Parties, standards for conducting elections during or affected by the Covid-19 crisis.” V. ADMISSIBILITY 32. The Court observes that Article 4(1) of the Protocol, whose provisions are restated in Rule 82(3) of the Rules11, provides that it may provide an advisory opinion “provided that the subject matter of the opinion is not related to a matter being examined by the Commission.” 33. Rule 82(2) of the Rules, provides that “[a]ny request for advisory opinion … shall specify … the context or background giving rise to the request as well as the names and addresses of the representatives of the entities making the request.” 34. It follows from the above that for determination of the admissibility of a Request for Advisory Opinion, the Court must determine if the Author of the Request is properly identified, the Request is not related to a matter pending before the Commission, and the circumstances of the Request have been specified. * 35. According to the Author, the Request is admissible since (i) it is properly identified, (ii) the Request does not relate to any application pending before the Commission, and (iii) the circumstances of the Request have been specified. 11 Formerly Rule 68(3), Rules of Court 2010. 10