A) Admissibility requirements that are not in contention between the Parties 42. The requirements regarding the identity of Applicants, the language used in the Application, the nature of the evidence and the non bis in idem principle (Sub Rules 1, 3, 4 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court) are not in contention between the Parties. 43. The Court also notes, for its part, that nothing in the records submitted to it by the Parties suggests that any of the above requirements has not been met in the instant case. 44. Consequently, the Court holds that the requirements under consideration in this regard have been fully met in the instant case. B) Objection based on incompatibility of the Application with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter 45. In its Response, the Respondent State is of the view that, in order for the requirement of compatibility of the Application with the Constitutive Act of the African Union as set forth in Article 56(2) of the Charter and Rule 40(2) of the Rules of Court to be met, the Application must invoke the provisions of the Charter that have allegedly been violated as well as the principles enshrined in the OAU Charter [now the Constitutive Act of the African Union] The Respondent State reiterates that instead of invoking the Articles of the Protocol on which the jurisdiction of the Court is grounded , the Applicant invoked only the provisions of the Protocol that address access to the Court by individuals and NGOs. Moreover, according to the Respondent State, the Application does not cite any provision of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity and is content with invoking the Tanzanian Criminal Procedure Act, concentrating on the technicalities of the criminal matter which concerns it. The Respondent State in conclusion submits that the requirement of compatibility of the Application with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter has not been met and that the Application should be dismissed in its entirety. 17