to consider all the admissibility requirements, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, to satisfy itself that the Application is admissible before proceeding. 36. 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. 37. The Court also notes that the claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights guaranteed under the Charter. Furthermore, 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. Additionally, the Application does not contain any claim or prayer that is incompatible with a provision of the said Act. Therefore, the Court considers that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter and holds that it meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 38. 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. 39. The Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, as it is founded on court documents from the domestic courts of the Respondent State, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 40. The Court observes that the Application has been submitted to the Court after exhausting local remedies. The Court notes that the Applicant appealed up to the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, 15 and the appeal was determined when that Court rendered its judgment on 18 October 2016, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 15 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 63; Deogratius Nicolaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application 017/2016, Judgment of 13 February 2024 (merits and reparations), § 46. 11