39. The Court notes, on this score, that the Newspaper article of 16 March 2011, the letter of 11 May 2012, the Tanzania Legal and Human Rights Centre 2010, 2011 and 2012 Reports and, lastly the statement of Dr. V. Umbritch, as pieces of evidence deserve attention. 40. As regards the letter of 11 May 2012, the Court notes that, that letter was produced by the Applicants in the initial procedure in response to the Registry’s letter dated 30 April 2012, requesting them “to produce evidence that the Application has met the conditions set forth in Rule 34 of the Rules of Court”. The Court notes that in the said letter of 30 April 2012, the Applicants wanted to show, in their own words, “how our Application meets the requirements under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court’. They also explained “the evidence of exhaustion of local remedies including judgments and all possible annexures to assist efficiency of handling the case”. 41. The Court deduces from the aforesaid that the evidence constitute new evidence, given the fact that the same in question does not had been amply analysed by the Court in its Ruling of 28 March 2014, especially in paragraphs 27 and 28 thereof. 42. As regards the Newspaper Legal and Human Umbritch, the article of 16 March 2011, the Reports of the Tanzania Rights Centre of 2010, 2011 and 2012, and the statement of Dr. V. Court notes that the Applicants have produced these pieces of evidence as new proof of undue prolongation of local remedies. 43. The Court finds that the evidence relating to the Tanzania Centre Reports of 2010, 2011 and 2012 Legal and Human dwelt on the question of payment Rights of the pensions of a group of ex-employees of the EAC. The Reports also dwelt on the slow pace of the procedure, the politicisation of the matter and the human rights violations observed, especially the rights of older women. 15|Page e-