Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of the Respondent State, which is a party to the Charter and Protocol. The Court observed that pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, it must rule on the admissibility of all cases brought before it. In respect of this Application, the Respondent State raised an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies. Regarding the Respondent State’s objection that the Applicant failed to exhaust local remedies, the Court found that the Applicant exhausted local remedies since the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ in the Respondent State, had upheld his conviction and sentence, following proceedings in which the Respondent State had the opportunity to address the violations alleged by the Applicant as arising from his trial and appeals. For this reason, the Court dismissed the Respondent State’s objections to the admissibility of the Application. The Court observed that no objection had been raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements, nonetheless, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, it assessed all admissibility criteria provided for in Rule 50(2) of the Rules, which in substance restates the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter, to ensure that the Application fulfilled the necessary standards. Accordingly, the Court held that the Applicant had been clearly identified by name, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. It also held that the allegations by the Applicant sought to protect his rights in line with Article 3(h) of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and thus the Application complied with Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. Furthermore, the Court found that the language used in the Application was not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. The Application was also not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, as it was based on court documents from the domestic courts of the Respondent State, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. With regard to the requirement that the Application be submitted within a reasonable time, the Court noted that the final decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania was delivered on 30 3