34 92. They are also relying on Articles 3 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 21(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). 93. In summary, they contend that the judgment of the Tanzanian Court of Appeal, Articles 39, 47, 67 and 77 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania 1977, and the Local Authorities (Election) Act No. 7 of 2002, which collectively require that candidates for Presidential, Parliamentary and Local Government elections must be members of and be sponsored by a Political Party, constitute a violation of Articles 2, 10 and 13 of the Charter and Articles 3 and 25 of the ICCPR. 94. The Respondent, on its part, states that the decision on whether or not to introduce independent candidature in Tanzania is dependent on the social needs of the country, based on its historical reality. The Respondent argues that the issue of independent candidature is political and not legal. This argument is in line with the decision of the Tanzanian Court of Appeal. 95. The Respondent contends further that the restriction on independent candidature is a means for avoiding absolute and uncontrolled liberty “whole and free from restraint which would lead to anarchy”.