70. The Respondent argues in this regard that " ... the general maxim is that for an Application to be considered admissible , all the conditions for admissibility should be met. The Respondent submits that as the conditions of admissibility prescribed in Rule 40 (2), (5) and (6) have not been met, compounded with non-compliance with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of Court, this Application before the honourable Court should be deemed inadmissible and dismissed with costs." I. Objection on compliance with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules of Court 71. Although this is not an admissibility requirement in terms of Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Court Rules, the Respondent cited this as one of the grounds to declare the Application inadmissible. Indeed, according to the Respondent, the Application does not comply with Rule 34 (1) of the Rules because the Application was not signed by the Applicants or their representatives as required by the Rule. The Respondent submits that not signing an Application renders it invalid for want of ownership and verification , stressing that the fact that this basic requirement was not met, renders the Application null and void and incurably defective, thus the Application is not admissible before the Court. 72. In their Reply, the Applicants submit that " .. . the Respondent did not study our Application well because we believe that the Court would not have received our Application if it was not signed ... ". They add that " ...the Application before the Court was made In prison and was and is a necessary step of signing any document being sent from prison so as to show that the maker was not forced to do so as he is restrained ". 73. The Court finds the Respondent's objection immaterial and irrelevant, in light of the fact that the main Application is supported by the attachments which are signed and referred to in the Application. The cover letter from the Central Prison forwarding the Application is duly signed by the Officer-in Charge of the Prison. The attachments to the Application depicting the Evidence of inordinate delay of local remedies and the n ~ ~ J+i L. ~ 1Y ~ b ~ ~ ?~ ~-'0'