32. The Respondent State does not raise any objection to the admissibility of the Application and only calls upon the Court to declare it inadmissible. The Court will, therefore, consider whether the Application has met all admissibility requirements as restated earlier. 33. From the records on file, the Court notes that the Applicant has clearly been identified by name, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 34. The Court notes that the claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights guaranteed under 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 on file indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Application therefore fulfils the requirement set out in Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 35. The language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 36. The Court further notes that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on legal documents, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 37. The requirement under Rule 50(2)(e) that local remedies should be exhausted has also been met since the Court of Appeal, which is the highest judicial body of the Respondent State examined the matter and, on 27 October 2009, dismissed the Applicant’s appeal in its entirety for lack of merit. 38. With regard to the condition of filing an application within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies, the Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not specify any time frame within which an application must be filed before this Court. Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, which in substance 10