44. As regards the evidence on undue prolongation of local remedies as predicted by Dr. V. Umbricht, the Court notes that that entailed an account of a discussion between Dr. V. Umbricht, who was at the time the liquidator of the EAC and President Nyerere, on 7 May 1984 at Msasani. 45. It therefore follows from the foregoing analysis, that the aforesaid evidence contains a number of depositions filed by the Applicants and attached to the Brief dated 27 January 2012, as Annexures 12 and 4.1, respectively, received at the Registry on 30 January 2012, and were subsequently submitted for consideration by the Court during the previous procedure, leading to the Judgment of 28 March 2014. 46. The Court deduces from the aforesaid that the documents in question do not that, that constitute new evidence and must therefore be dismissed. 47. As regards the Newspaper article of 16 March 2011, the Court notes evidence is being brought before it by the Applicant for the first time. The Court notes that the author of that Article reported the directives issued by the 48. then President of the United Republic of Tanzania, H.E. J. KIKWETE, to the Minister of Finance for payment of the former employees of the East African Community and for adoption of appropriate measures to ensure prompt settlement of the case. 49. The Court notes that, although produced Article is of the nature to exert influence for the first time before on its initial decision. it, nothing in that In fact, the undue prolongation of the remedies will be determined on the basis of the remedies actually exercised or attempted before the local courts, rather than in light of statements and reports. 50. Moreover, the Court finds it quite surprising that the Applicants claim to have acquired knowledge of a Newspaper article so vital to their cause only after the Court had rendered its decision of 28 March, 2014, whereas the said article has been in the public domain since 11 March 2011, date of its publication. 16|Page 4 &