16. On the merits of the First Applicant’s Application, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that it did not violate Articles 2, 3(1), 3(2), 7(1)(a) and 7(2) of the Charter. The Respondent State also prays the Court to dismiss the Application for lack of merit, and that the costs be borne by the First Applicant. * 17. The Second Applicant prays the Court to “restore justice where it was overlooked and quash both conviction and sentence meted on me and set me free from the prison custody.” He further prays that “the Court be pleased to grant any other order or legal remedy that the court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances of my complaints.” * 18. In its Response to the Second Applicant’s Application, with respect to jurisdiction and admissibility, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that: i. The Honourable African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate the Application. ii. That, the Application does not meet the admissibility requirements stipulated under Rule 40(5) and 40(6) of the Rules of Court. iii. The Application be declared inadmissible and duly dismissed. iv. The costs of this Application be borne by the Applicants. 19. On the merits of the Second Applicant’s Application, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that: i. The Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s rights provided for under Articles 2 and 3(1), (2) and 7(1)(c) of the Charter. ii. The Respondent did not violate any of the Applicant’s rights provided for under Article 10(2) of the Protocol to the Charter. iii. The Application be dismissed for lack of merit. iv. The costs of this Application be borne by the Applicant. 6