49. The Respondent argues that the Application therefore does not fall within the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Protocol and Rule 26 of the Rules, and concludes that this Court should declare itself incompetent in terms of its ratione materiae jurisdiction. 8- Objection to the admissibility of the Application due to noncompliance with Rule 40 of the Rules of Court 50. According to the Respondent, the Application should be declared inadmissible because it is at variance with conditions of admissibility under Rule 40 of the Rules, read together with Article 56 of the African Charter . 1.) The identity of the Applic ants- Article 56(1) of the Charter 51 . The Respondent raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application on the grounds that the real identity of the Applicants is not known , contrary to Article 56(1) of the Charter . 52. The Respondent submits that the Application before this Court is brought under the name of Karata Ernest and Others v. Tanzania, but the same was signed by other persons , not including Karata Ernest himself. The Respondent argues that the Application is based on Suit No. 95/2003 , bearing the title Karata Ernest and Others v. Attorney General, which was pending before the High Court o Tanzania. The Applicants allege that Mr Karata had inf~med this 16 )fsy~ ~d ~' (1':: , ~ (jJ ~7 \f=O.