2. A declaration that the Applicants' right to a fair trial was violated when their images were shown on television and in newspapers before the identification parade was held. 3. A declaration that the testimony tendered by Prosecution Witness (PW 8) was unlawful as evidence from the identification parade should have been dismissed in its entirety. 4. A declaration that the Respondent State violated Article 7 of the Charter by not providing legal aid at the Court of Appeal. 5. An order that the Respondent State takes immediate steps to remedy the violations throughout the trial especially at the Appeal. 6. A declaration that the extradition process violated international standards of the right to a fair trial by not affording the Applicants the opportunity to appeal the primary Court's Extradition Order. 7. An order for reparations 8. Any other orders or remedies that this Court may deem fit." On behalf of the Respondent State, The Respondent prays the Court to order as follows, in respect of jurisdiction and admissibility of the Application: " I) That the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over this Application. II) That the Applicants have no locus to file the Application before the Court and hence, should be denied access to the Court as per Articles 5 (3) and 34 (6) of the Protocol. III) That the Application be dismissed as it has not met the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40 (5) of the Rules. IV) That the Application be dismissed as it has not met the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40 (6) of the Rules." 24. With regard to the merits, the Respondent requests the Court to rule that " i) the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania has not violated accepted principles of Human Rights and International law; ii) the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania abides to the rule of law during extradition process. 8