are met. 42. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicant has been clearly identified by name, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 43. The Court also notes that the Applicant’s claims 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 Court holds, therefore, that the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules is met. 44. The Court observes that 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. 45. Further, the Court also observes that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on legal documents in fulfilment of the requirements in Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 46. In relation to the requirement for filing Applications within a reasonable time, under Rule 50(2)(f), the Court recalls that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the time frame within which Applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. As per the Court’s jurisprudence “[…] the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.”12 47. Specifically, the Court notes that the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the Applicant’s appeal, was rendered on 20 June 2014 while this 12 Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits), supra, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 12