iii. Declare that criminal convicts still eluding justice cannot have locus standi before
the Honourable Court
iv. Declare that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and deal with the Application on
grounds that it is defective and bad in law.
v. Declare the Application inadmissible on grounds that it falls short of admissibility
conditions established by the Charter and Rules.
vi. Award cost to Respondents.
vii. Make such an order as it deems fit
APPLICANT’S REPLY TO THE RESPONSE
14. That the Applicants aver that the Court can still proceed with the case despite the
lack of locus standi by some of the Applicants.
15. The Applicants state that the Court has the mandate to issue interim measures in
terms of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court and that this Application raises a matter of
extreme urgency such as their situation at hand.
16. The Applicants claim that the application is admissible under provisions of Article
34(6) of the Court’s Protocol and that it is also compatible with the Constitutive
Act of the African Union through Article 23 of the African Charter on Elections,
Democracy and Governance, which Rwanda is a party to.
17. The Applicants claim that local remedies were exhausted with the judgment of
the Green Party case by the Supreme Court of Rwanda. The Applicants claim
further that it is well settled practice in human rights litigation that local remedies
may be exhausted by a party other than one pursuing international remedy under
the same matter.
4