49. The Respondent argues that the Application therefore does not fall within the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules, and concludes that this Court should declare itself due non- incompetent in terms of its ratione materiae jurisdiction. B- Objection to the admissibility of the Application to compliance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Court 50. According declared to the inadmissible Respondent, because the Application it is at variance with should be conditions of admissibility under Rule 40 of the Rules, read together with Article 56 of the African Charter. 1.) The identity of the Applicants — Article 56(1) of the Charter 51, The Respondent raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application on the grounds that the real identity of the Applicants is not known, contrary to Article 56(1) of the Charter. 52. The Respondent submits that the Application before this Court is brought under the name but the same was signed of Karata Ernest and Others v. Tanzania, by other persons, not including Karata Ernest himself. The Respondent argues that the Application is based on Suit No. 95/2003, Attorney Tanzania. & General, The bearing the title Karata which Applicants was allege pending that Ernest and Others v. before Mr Karata the had High Court informed Age ~ of this Ac