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. Not raise any matter or issues previously settled by the parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union.” 40. The Court notes that the Respondent State objects to the admissibility of the Application based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies as well as on the ground that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court will, therefore, consider the said objections before examining other admissibility requirements, if necessary. A. Objection based on failure to exhaust local remedies 41. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant has not fulfilled the admissibility requirement provided under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, as he did not exhaust all local remedies before filing the Application before the Court. 42. The Respondent State asserts that the Applicant’s allegations of torture lack substantiation and were not raised during domestic proceedings. This, it argues, denied the domestic courts the chance to address the allegation. The Respondent State avers that if the Applicant had raised these allegations earlier, it would have had an opportunity to take corrective actions. 43. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant failed to utilize the review procedure available at the Court of Appeal. It explains that under its domestic laws, where an appeal to the Court of Appeal has failed as in the present case, an accused could seek other judicial remedies including revision and review at the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State maintains that the remedies that can be obtained through the judicial review procedure 10