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 seized 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, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 35. In the present Application, the Court notes that the Respondent State raises two objections to the admissibility of the Application. The Court will now consider these objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objections to the admissibility of the Application 36. The first objection of the Respondent State relates to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and the second relates to whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time. i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 37. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant had legal remedies available to him prior to filing the Application before this Court but did not utilise them. The Respondent State asserts that the Applicant could have filed for an Application to review the Court of Appeal’s decision under Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The Respondent State also claims that the Applicant had the remedy of filing a Constitutional Petition for enforcement of his basic rights under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. 38. The Respondent State submits that it was premature of the Applicant to have instituted this matter before this Court as there were still local remedies available to him. Therefore, the Respondent States contends that 12