&[tD3t? 33.The Court notes that this objection only relates to the First Applicant in this Application. The Court recalls that the Applicants in Application No. 0O5nU5 were Thobias Mang'ara Mango and Shukrani Masegenya Mango. lt is clear, therefore, that the First Applicant in the present matter was indeed party to earlier litigation before the Court. The Court recalls that Application No.005/2015 was filed on 11 February 2015 and judgment was delivered on 11 May 2018. As earlier pointed out, the Applicants filed the present Application on 17 April 2015. Clearly, therefore, as at the time the present Application was being filed, the Applicant had a separate but subsisting claim pending before the Court. 34.The Court also notes, however, that in Application No. 005/2015 the Applicants raised a range of alleged violations of their rights pertaining to the manner in which they were detained, tried and convicted by the judicial authorities of the Respondent State.3 Admittedly, as part of the claims, in Application No. 005/2015, the First Applicant also argued that he was condemned to serve a sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment for armed robbery when this was not the applicable sentence at the time the offence was committed, which is also exactly the same claim that he is jointly raising with the Seventh Applicant in this mafter. 35.The Court observes that although the Respondent State raises this issue as an objection to the Court's material jurisdiction, it is an allegation contesting the admissibility of the First Applicant's claim on the basis that it violates the rules on res judicafa as captured under Article 56(7) of the Charter. The Court will, therefore, consider this objection, if need be, when it is dealing with the admissibility of the matter. 3 Application No. 005/201 5. Judgment oI 1110512018 (Merits), Thobias Mang'ara Mango and Another v United Republic of Tanzania $S11-12 (lfr- I 12