Accordingly, the Court declares that, in so far as the terms of Article 52 of the Statute are applicable to the evidence produced by one of the Parties to the case, the consent of the other Party, which is required under that Article, may be regarded as having been obtained.
The point having thus been raised, and having regard also to certain reservations made on behalf of Norway respecting fresh documents used in the Danish oral reply, the Court [p26] reserved the right to refuse the fresh documents produced on either side in the oral reply and rejoinder and to give the Danish Agent an opportunity of presenting observations on the fresh documents produced in the rejoinder. Steglich-Petersen was in fact permitted to comment on the documents in question and thereupon withdrew his Government's objection to this admission.
Gilbert Gidel, as Counsel and Advocate, on behalf of Norway.
 At the conclusion of the respective statements, the Parties Agents presented the submissions of the Governments represented by them as follows : M.
[p25]  The Norwegian Government repeats in its Rejoinder the submissions made in its Counter-Case.
 In the course of a series of public sittings held between November 21st, 1932, and February 7th, 1933, the Court heard the statements, replies, rejoinders and observations presented by: MM.