Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY not comply with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. In its decision, the Court found that the Application was based on some media reports but also on other documents such as affidavits. Therefore, the Court dismissed the objection and found that the Application complied with the provision of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. Second, the Respondent State argued that the Applicants filed their case before the Court, prematurely as they had not exhausted local remedies. The Court in its decision found that the Applicants had not exhausted local remedies as they had only made unsubstantiated general statements on there being a climate of fear in the country which impeded them from exhausting local remedies. Nevertheless, the Court found that the allegation relating to the lack of remedies to challenge the result of presidential elections was admissible as there was no remedy to challenge result of presidential elections in the national courts of the Respondent State. Lastly, the Respondent State contended that the allegation relating to the lack of remedies to challenge the result of presidential elections was inadmissible because it had already been settled by the Court in its decision on the matter of Jebra Kambole v Tanzania. In its decision, the Court held that for a matter to be settled there must be a convergence of three conditions: the identity of the parties; (ii) the identity of the applications or their supplementary, consecutive or alternative nature or whether the case flows from a request made in the initial case and (iii) the existence of a first decision on the merits. In this regard, the Court found that the identity of the parties was not the same as the Kambole case had been filed by an individual in the public’s interest while the present case had been filed by individuals allegedly affected by the conduct of the elections. Therefore, the Court found that the alleged violation herein had not been settled. With regard to the allegation on the lack of remedy to challenge the result of presidential elections in the national courts of the Respondent State which the Court found to be admissible, the Court had to ensure that the other conditions of admissibility had been fulfilled before determining its merit. In this regard, the Court