the latter is a convict of serious crimes including threatening state security,
sectarianism, setting up an armed criminal gang and deserting the military, and
that after he was sentenced to 24 years in prison, he fled and escaped justice.
The Respondent alleges that both have International Warrants issued against
them. The Respondent contends further that since the two Applicants are
convicts of serious crimes, the Respondent does not suppose that the same
would be granted locus standi before the Court pursuant to the Declaration it
made in terms of Article 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and
Peoples’ Rights.
9. The Respondent also contends that the Application is defective as it does not
have a main relief to be determined after the ruling on interim measures.
10. The Respondent contends that the Application is inadmissible as it does not
satisfy the conditions of admissibility pursuant to Article 56 of the African Charter
on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
11. The Respondent contends that the Application is incompatible with the
Constitutive Act of the African Union.
12. The Respondent maintains that the Applicants have not exhausted local
remedies and that the notion of the dependency of the Rwandan judiciary is a
political ploy to harm and disrepute the image of the Rwandan judiciary.
RESPONDENT’S PRAYERS
13. The Respondent prays that the Court:
i. Declare that the Application is frivolous, vexatious, tendentious, politically
motivated, an abuse of the process of the Court and an attempt to compromise the
integrity of the Honourable Court
ii. Dismiss the Application without the necessity of summoning the respondents to the
hearing in accordance with Rule 38 of the Rules of procedure
3