104. In their Application dated 23 July 201 3, the Applicants allege that the Respondent has violated their right to own property, right to freedom, right to workS and right to be tried within a reasonable time by the national courts. 105. In their Reply of 31 March 2014 to the Respondent's Response of 26 February 2014, the Applicants further allege as follows: "i. That, the Respondent did not study the application properly in application No. 006 of 2013. Since in the application all Applicants are Kenyans; ii. That, we the Applicants are facing charges in the Resident Magistrates Court in Criminal Case No.2 of 2006, and among the Applicants, only eight (8) are facing this charge; iii. In the High Court in murder session No. 10 of 2006 only seven (7) of the Applicants are facing that charge; iv. That, the Application on No. 006 of 2013 before the Court does not have a Tanzanian Applicant as claimed by the Respondent; v. That, the Applicants were flown from Mozambique aboard an army plane and claims made by the Respondent that they were flown to Tanzania and arrested at Mwafimu Julius Nyerere International Airport are strongly refuted although there is a case pending in the High Court No 16 of 2006 on the same matter; vi. That, we the Applicants, on 24111of April 2006 and 3rd March 2006, had charges of Criminal Cases No. 811 of 2005 and No. 647 of 2005 dropped. This is refuted because the said charges were 5 See paragraph 24 supra. The Applicant did not pursue these three allegations in its subsequent pleadings, be tl in its Reply to the Respondent's Response or during the p ublic hearing; the Court will therefore not examine these allegations In this judgment. 31