c. Are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or the African Union; d. Are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media; e. Are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged; f. Are submitted within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter; and g. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 38. The Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Court will consider this objection before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 39. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant has not exhausted the remedies available within its legal system. It claims that if the Applicant was aggrieved with the conduct of the assessors on how they put questions to him and in relation to the allegations of cross-examination, he ought to have raised it in his appeal before the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State submits that when the Applicant filed his criminal appeal, he did not include that allegation among the grounds for appeal. The Respondent State contends, therefore, that the Applicant cannot raise this ground for determination by this Court as it is not an Appellate Court. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant cannot blame the Court of Appeal for pronouncing judgment on the defective proceedings of the High Court while he himself did not ask the Court of Appeal to consider such an allegation. 10