19. To fortify its objection, the Respondent State relies on Rule 41(3)(e) of the Rules in arguing that annexure of documents proving observer status with the Commission is obligatory. That in fact, Rule 41(9) of the Rules is explicit on the legal ramifications of any attempt to circumvent Rule 41(3)(e) of the Rules, which is that, the Application would be rejected. 20. The Respondent State contends further that, the Applicants did not give any explanation as to why they could not provide any proof of their observer status. 21. The Applicants in their rejoinder averred that the failure to attach documents proving their observer status before the Commission was not fatal to the consideration of their Application. In fact, they argue that they furnished the Court with their respective observer status numbers, that is, no. 244 for the Legal and Human Rights Centre and no. 470 for the Tanganyika Human Rights Defenders Coalition. 22. In addition, the Applicants argue that any omission as regards proof of observer status could be remedied by Article 6(1) of the Protocol which empowers the Court to request the opinion of the Commission on the observer status of NGOs. 23. Furthermore, the Applicants contend that they adduced a letter of observer status before the Commission and requested the Court to admit it as evidence and to thus form part of the record. *** 24. Regarding the observer status of the Applicants before the Commission, the Court notes that the Applicants, on 9 February 2021, filed a letter confirming the observer status of the Legal and Human Rights Centre while the observer status of the Tanzanian Human Rights Defenders Coalition is indicated in the Commission’s website. 7