Commission, when the Commission served the original complaint before it on the Respondent and the latter filed submissions on admissibility thereof. The Court's Assessment 78.The Court observes that even though the rules of admissibility applied by the Commission and this Court are substantially similar, the admissibility procedures with respect to an Application filed before the Commission and this court are distinct and shall not be conflated . Accordingly , the Court is of the view that admissibility and other procedures relating to a complaint before the Commission are not necessarily relevant in determining the admissibility of an Application before this Court . 79.1n any event, as is the case with its jurisdiction, the Court can decide on the admissibility of an Application before it, only after having heard from the parties. 80.The Respondent's objection is therefore dismissed. B. Objections on Admissibility based on the Requirements of the Charter and the Rules 81 . Under this head, the Respondent raised two objections, namely, the failure to identify the Applicant and failure to exhaust local remedies. 82. 1n determining the admissibility of an application, the Court is guided by Article 6(2) of the Protocol, which provides that, the Court shall take into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter. The provisions of this Article are restated in Rule 40 of the Rules as follows: "Pursuant to the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter to which Article 6(2) of the Protocol refers, applications to the Court shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Disclose the identity of the Applicant notwithstanding the latter's request for anonymity; 2 . Comply with the Constitutive Act of the Union and the Charter; 3. Not contain any disparaging or insulting language;