TLS and Others v Tanzania (merits) (2013) 1 AfCLR 34 43 (d) Any other remedy and/or relief that the Honourable Court will deem fit to grant; and (e) The Respondent to pay the Applicants’ costs.” 77. The 2nd Applicant prays the following remedies: “(a) That the Court make a finding that the United Republic of Tanzania has violated and continues to violate his rights, (b) That the United Republic of Tanzania ought to provide appropriate compensation to him for the continuous violation of his rights that forced him to endure long and costly judicial proceedings. (c) That he reserves the right to substantiate the legal analysis for claiming compensation and reparations.” C. Nature of the Applicants’ case 78. The 1st and 2nd Applicants have substantially the same case. They challenge the validity of the amendments, referred to earlier, to the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the effect of which is, briefly stated, to bar independent candidates to stand for the Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government elections; the amendments require that candidates have to belong to or be sponsored by a registered political party. The Applicants contend that the prohibition of independent candidature violates an aspirant’s rights to participate in public affairs in their country, which rights are protected under various international human rights instruments. D. Respondent’s preliminary objections 79. The Respondent raises certain preliminary objections on both admissibility and jurisdiction. 80. The preliminary objections on admissibility: 80.1 Lack of exhaustion of local remedies Article 6(2) of the Protocol, read together with Article 56(5) of the Charter, requires that for an Application to this Court to be admissible, an Applicant must have exhausted local remedies. Article 6(2) of the Protocol reads: “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter.” In its turn, Article 56(5) of the Charter requires that Applications shall be considered if they “are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. The Respondent contends that the Applicants have not done so. This is because, according to the Respondent, the judgment of the Court of Appeal stated that the issue relating to the prohibition of independent candidates had to be settled by Parliament. Respondent also argues that the Government has prepared and tabled the Constitutional Review Bill dated 11 March 2011, with a view to setting up a mechanism for the constitutional review process. At the time of the Applications the bill was awaiting its second and third reading, before being enacted into law. Respondent argued that the Appellate judgment of 17 June 2010, did not substantively deal with the issue of independent candidates; the matter was left to Parliament and this avenue has not yet been exploited. Respondent adds that Parliament