c) Are not written in disparaging or insulting language directed against the State concerned and its institutions or the African Union; d) Are not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media; e) Are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged; f) Are submitted within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seised with the matter; and g) Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 35. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises two (2) objections to the admissibility of the Application. The first relates to the failure to exhaust local remedies and the second relates to whether the Application was filed within reasonable time. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 36. The Respondent State argues that, contrary to Rule 40(5) of the Rules of the Court,12 the Application was instituted prematurely. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant neither pursued the remedy of filing a constitutional petition before the High Court pursuant to Article 13(6) of the Constitution of Tanzania (1977) nor applied for the review of the Court of Appeal decision to redress the alleged violation of his right to be heard. 37. In the Reply, the Applicant contends that he exhausted local remedies before filing the Application. In his view, instituting a constitutional petition would be untenable considering that a single judge assigned to adjudicate 12 Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of the Court, 1 September 2020. 11