Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY Lastly, the Court found that it had territorial jurisdiction given that the facts of the matter occurred within the territory of the Respondent State. On the admissibility of the Applications, the Court observed that pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, it must rule on the admissibility of all the Applications brought before it. The Respondent State raised an objection on the grounds that the Applicants failed to file the Application within a reasonable time in accordance with Article 56(6) of the Charter. With regards to this objection, the Court observed that under Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, there are two elements that must be used in assessing the reasonableness of time for filing an Application. First, the Application must be filed within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted. Secondly, and alternatively, an Application must be filed within a reasonable time from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter. In the instant application, the Court observed that the Applicants were not obliged to exhaust local remedies not only because there was none to exhaust but also because some of the alleged violations were continuous. Resultantly, therefore, computation of time could not be based on the exhaustion of local remedies since such exhaustion was irrelevant. As for the second limb, the Court observed that owing to its findings as to the continuous nature of the violations, the Applicants could have filed the Applications at any time for as long as the violations remained unremedied. The Court, therefore, held that the Application fulfilled the requirements on admissibility, and dismissed the Respondent State’s objection. The Court observed that no objection was raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, the Court assessed all admissibility criteria provided for in Rule 50(2) of the Rules to ensure that the Application fulfilled the necessary standards. Accordingly, the Court found that the condition stipulated under Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules was met, as the Applicants were clearly identified by name. 3