Second round of the public hearing over Macedonia's suit against Greece before the Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ) for violating the 1995 bilateral document by objecting to Macedonia's application to join NATO began on Monday, MIA reports from the Hague.

The legal issue before you is maybe discrete, but the stake for my country is very high. This case is not a theoretical one. It currently has an effect on our relations with NATO, as well as the pending EU integration. The Court's decision will have significant consequences on the stability and economic prosperity of my country, said Ambassador to the Netherlands, Nikola Dimitrov, who is Macedonia's co-agent in the ICJ suit.

"We ask for a clear judgment that would restore legal stability and confirm that what was once agreed cannot be used for gaining advantage in the name issue. If the Court decides in our favor, both parties will have the same burden and incentive to resume with the negotiations in order to overcome differences regarding my country's name. The effect of your judgment will be to reestablish the regime achieved through the 1995 accord and observed over the following 13 years", said Dimitrov.

He stressed the importance of the Court's judgment for Macedonia.

"Macedonia's path is one of a small country in the heart of the Balkans, which is trying to do the right things in a difficult surrounding, in order to find its place in the community of nations. The name issue is one of the main challenges on this road. Our name is a result of a long historic process, whereas being born as Macedonians and speaking the Macedonian language, we do not have an alternative in choosing another identity. We have never tried to monopolize the name, we are aware that it can have different meanings to different peoples, nor we oppose the use of this term by the respondent in naming its province", added ambassador Dimitrov.

According to him, the UN Security Council had said the Interim Accord would promote the enhancement of regional stability.

"The council was right. We hope it will continue to do this with the Court's assistance", underlined Dimitrov.

University College London professor Philippe Sands, who started the elaboration of Macedonia's reply to Greece counter-arguments, stressed it was obvious after the first round of the hearing this was a simple process, meaning that the respondent opposed to Macedonia's NATO membership in circumstances when the country would be referred under the interim reference, the consequence being violation of Article 11 from the Interim Accord.

"It is obvious that the case is not easy for the respondent. What we heard is a fairytale based on what happened in 1993, 1995, 2007 and 2008. In order to give color to this fairytale, the respondent ignores the facts, creates false images, misrepresenting third parties and referring to historical facts dating back to the 4th century B.C. that have no relevance in the case", said Sands.

According to him, by raising a spectre of issues for involvement of the ICJ in politics, the Greek side aimed to convince the Court in the newspaper headlines that Greece did not object to Macedonia's NATO accession.

"It is obvious that such headline would be silly", added Sands.

He also challenged the alleged evidence of irredentism, along with the claim that the applicant represented a threat for territorial pretensions towards the respondent.

Professor Sean Murphy from the George Washington University referred to Greece's arguments from the first round of the public hearing, saying they were empty, inconsistent, not credible and misrepresenting, which cannot seriously oppose arguments proving the unyielding position over Macedonia's NATO accession.

"Regardless of the veto characterization, the prevention is possible by one Alliance member. The idea is that NATO does not know the veto to which the respondent insisted last week", stressed Murphy.

He also said Greece systematically campaigned in 2007 and 2008 against Macedonia's NATO accession.

"We ask the Court not to forget these facts, which clearly demonstrate violation of the Interim Accord", added professor Murphy.

Professor Pierre Klein from the Brussels-based Libre University also refuted claims that the Hague suit is related to the name issue and that the Court is not competent to decide on Macedonia's application.

"The Greek representatives have not shown any evidence and arguments in supporting this", said Klein.

He claimed that Greece's defense that it only joined the NATO consensus over Macedonia's invitation was ungrounded, saying Athens prevented this through its highest officials.

"Macedonia considers this case as separate from the name process, which is ignored by the Greek side. The name row was there before this suit and will continue after it. The Court's decision will not have any influence on it and will not mean political interference. Therefore, the Court should declare itself competent and accept Macedonia's claims contained in the application", underlined professor Klein.

The public hearing will be completed with the concluding remarks from Greece on March 30.

The ICJ verdict, which is final and binding for UN member-states and parties in the dispute, is expected within six months or by the year-end.