61 . The Respondent consequently calls on the Court to declare the Application inadmissible both with respect to alleged violations relating to the claim for compensation as well as that of Police brutality. IV- POSITION OF THE APPLICANTS WITH REGARD TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT Arguments against objections raised under Article 56 of the Charter and Rule40 of the Rules 1.) Identity of the Applicants 62 . The Applicants on their part submit in their Reply to the Respondent's Response that "the Applicants in the present Application are not claiming to represent all the ex-EAC employees ... The Applicants in the present Application are not claiming any mandate from Karata Ernest and his colleagues. So it is not understood why Karata Ernest and his colleagues are pulling out and dissociating themselves from the present Application. The proper case from which they could pull out would be Civil Case No. 93/2003. But this case was extinguished by the Deed of Settlement. For this reason to rename Application No. 001/2012 as Frank David Omary and Others v. The overnment of the United Republic of Tanzania is quite proper". 20