32. The Court notes that, as the Respondent State was in default, no objection to admissibility was raised. Nonetheless, pursuant to Rule 50(1) of its Rules, the Court must ensure that the requirements of the above provisions are met. 33. The Court notes that the Applicants submits that their Application complies with the admissibility requirements under Rule 50(2)(a) to (g) of the Rules. 34. The Court observes that the record shows that the Applicants have been clearly identified by name, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 35. The Court also notes that the Applicants’ requests seek to protect their rights as guaranteed by the Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, as stated in Article 3(h) thereof, is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Accordingly, the Court considers that the Application meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 36. The Court further notes that the language used in the Application is neither disparaging nor insulting with regard to the Respondent State, its institutions or the African Union, which makes the Application compatible with Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 37. The Court also observes that the Application is not based exclusively on news broadcast through the mass media, but on judicial decisions issued by the Respondent State’s domestic courts. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules.5 38. As regards the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, the Court recalls its constant jurisprudence that that the remedies to be exhausted in 5 Kouassi Kouamé and Sylla v. Côte d’Ivoire, supra, § 55. 10