000$68 for armed robbery, the other five were convicted and sentenced for murder. All these Applicants, with the exception of one of them (second Applicant), are serving their respective sentences at Dar es Salaam Central Prison.a. 4. lt is important to emphasize that none of the seven Applicants has invoked a single grievance of his own, that is, a grievance separate from the one invoked by all the others. ln addition to the unity of the Applicants, the application is also characterized by the unity of its subject-matter and the unity of the grievances invoked. 5. First of all, in examining the admissibility of the application, as requested by Article 6(2) of the Protocol and Rule 39(1) of its Rules, the Court considers the examination of the objections to admissibility raised by the Respondent State, including the recurring objection to the non-exhaustion of local remedies. 6. The Respondent State's main submission is that"[t]he Applicants could have filed a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, challenging the alleged violations of their rights, especially in relation to the alleged discrimination by virtue of the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy"s. lt should be noted that, in its submission, the Respondent State did not distinguish between the Applicants. He treated the application as a whole and sought to dismiss it as a block on the grounds of inadmissibility. 7. ln response to this objection of the Respondent State, the Court contends that" in resolving the admissibility of this Application the Court considers it apposite to make a distinction among the Applicants before pronouncing itself on this issue 8. "6. ln this paragraph, the Court's reasoning moves from form to substance. lndeed, the Court is not interested in the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies and decides to make a distinction between the applicants on the basis of their claims before deciding on admissibility. For the Court, while the seven applicants" primarily alleginga violation of their rights to equality and non-discrimination by reason of the 4 idem. Paragraph 41 of the judgment. 6 Paragraph 48 of the judgment (emphasis added) 5 2