000509 procedure provided in the Respondent State's Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights, seeking to be allowed to file his appeal without the records of proceedings and the judgments but this was dismissed for lack of merit. 47. The Court thus finds that though local remedies were available, the Applicant, was unable to utilise them due to the Respondent State's omission and failure to provide him with the necessary documents. 48. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent State's objection to the admissibility of the Application for lack of exhaustion of local remedies. B Conditions of admissibility not in contention between the Parties 49. The Court notes that following its finding that local remedies were not available to the Applicant to exhaust, the issue of compliance with Article 56(6) of the Charter as restated in Rule 40(6) of the Rules on the filing of an application within a reasonable time following the exhaustion of local remedies becomes moot. 50. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the compliance with the conditions set out in Article 56, sub-articles (1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of the Charter on, the identity of Applicant, the language used in the Application, compliance with the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the nature of the evidence adduced and the previous settlement of the case, respectively. 51. The Court further notes that nothing on the record indicates that these conditions have not been met and therefore holds that the Application meets the requirements set out under those provisions. Tanzania Judgment") SS 66 - 70; Application No.01 112015. Judgment of 2810912017 , Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania, S 44. S