37. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Applicants exhausted local remedies as required under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. B. Other conditions of admissibility 38. The Court notes that there is no contention as between the Parties, regarding the Application’s compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules. It, however, must satisfy itself that the Application fulfils these requirements. 39. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicants are clearly identified by name thereby fulfilling Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 40. The Court also notes that the Applicants’ claims seek to protect their rights guaranteed under the Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, as stated in Article 3(h) thereof, is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, nothing on record indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Court, therefore, finds that the requirements of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules are met. 41. The Court further notes that the language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting toward the Respondent State, its institutions, or the African Union in compliance with Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 42. The Court also observes that the Application is not exclusively based on news disseminated through mass media; rather, it is based on judicial decisions from the domestic courts of the Respondent State. The Court finds, therefore, that the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 43. In relation to the requirement of filing applications within a reasonable timeframe, under Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, the Court recalls that neither 11