United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 41. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application on the ground of non-exhaustion of local remedies and on the basis that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court will consider these objections individually before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 42. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants have not fulfilled the condition of Rule 40(5) of the Rules11 on exhaustion of local remedies. It is the Respondent State’s averment that by not applying for legal aid during their trial or appeals before the High Court and before the Court of appeal, the Applicants failed to exhaust local remedies in respect of the alleged violation of their right to defence as a result of its alleged failure to provide them with legal aid. 43. The Respondent State further avers that the First Applicant failed to exhaust local remedies by not filing an application for review under Rule 66(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The Respondent State submits that while the Second Applicant filed an application for review before the Court of Appeal, he did not raise the issue of legal aid but rather focused on issues of evidence and the sentence imposed. It is the Respondent State’s contention that the issue of legal aid is therefore being raised for the first time before this Court while it could have been addressed within the national judicial system. 44. The Applicants on their part aver that the Application has fulfilled the condition of Rule 40(5) of the Rules.12 The Applicants submit that local remedies were fully exhausted when the Court of Appeal, being the highest 11 12 Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 11