001088 representative(s). Rule 40(1) further requires that the application shall disclose the identity of the Applicant. 48.In the instant Application, the Court notes from the record that the Application contains the identity of the author, that the facts are well elaborated, and the issues raised therein are fairly precise. In addition, the Application was signed and in his Reply, the asserted Applicant that he has clearly specified exhausted the alleged all local remedies human by rights violations, attaching copies and of the judgments of the local courts. 49. The Court accordingly requirements of form and holds that offers the instant Application sufficient details for the fulfils the Respondent basic State to understand the content of the Applicant's grievances and for the Court to consider the matter. 50. The Court thus dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on the form and content of the Application. ii. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 51.The Respondent State submits that given that legal remedies exist to address the grievances raised by the Applicant but were not exercised, the latter failed to comply with the conditions of admissibility relating to exhaustion of local remedies stipulated under Rule 40(5) of the Rules. 52. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant provided no explanation as to whether local remedies were not exhausted for reasons beyond his control or whether the said local remedies are merely ineffective, insufficient and impractical. 53. The Respondent State also avers that between 2013 and 2014, the Applicant filed before the High Court at Bukoba, three criminal 14 applications for habeas corpus