18. The Applicant also alleges that the lack of judicial independence in Rwandan courts made it impracticable and ineffective for them to exhaust local remedies. 19. They argue that imprisonment does not take away one’s right to access a court and that the Respondent’s Response to the Application does not submit anything against the other five Applicants, save for the two, which it alleges to be convicts. 20. The Applicants also claim that the application does not involve any insulting language, rather just bare facts and criticisms that anger the Respondents. APPLICANTS’ PRAYERS IN THE REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICATION i. The Applicants request for the Court to order the Respondents to submit the judgments as per the Court’s disclosure rules and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights ii. The Court to declare that it has jurisdiction in terms of the Court’s Protocol and the rules of procedure to hear the communication iii. The Court to declare the communication duly admissible. iv. The Court to simultaneously order the Respondent’s Government to abandon plans to hold a referendum on 17 or 18 December 2015 to amend article 101 of the Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda in light of the Article 23(5) of the African Charter on Elections, Democracy and Governance prohibition in this regard. v. The Court to declare that even if, but without conceding, that Mr. Kayumba Nyamwasa and Mr. Safari Stanley for the reasons alleged in the Response have no right to seek a remedy before the Court, the other applicants in the communication have that right and by the Respondent not referring to them anywhere in the Response to the Application, seemingly admits that that the case is admissible in respect to these other Applicants. 5