95. Specifically, the Court observes that, according to the file, the condition laid down in Rule 40(1) of the Rules is fulfilled since the Applicants have clearly indicated their identity. 96. The Court finds that the requirement laid down in paragraph 2 of the same Rule is also met, since no request made by the Applicants is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the Union or with the Charter. 97. Neither does the Application contain any disparaging or insulting language with regard to the State concerned, which makes it consistent with the requirement of Rule 40(3) of the Rules. 98. Regarding the condition contained under paragraph 4 of same Rule, the Court notes that the application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. The Applicants base their claims on legal grounds in support of which official documents are adduced, as required under Rule 40(4) of the Rules. 99. Concerning the condition of exhaustion of local remedies, provided in Rule 40(5) of the Rules, the record shows, in reference to Article 113 of the Constitution of the Respondent initiated by State, that no local individuals against a remedies law that exist, has since already no action been can be promulgated. Accordingly, the Court finds that this condition has been met. 100. Pursuant to Rule 40(6) of the Rules, the Court will consider the date of promulgation of the impugned law as the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter. The Court finds that the filing of the Application within a month and a half after the promulgation of the impugned law is reasonable and therefore considers that Rule 40(6) has been fulfilled. 101. Finally, with respect to the requirement laid down in Rule 40(7) of the Rules, the Court needs to satisfy itself that the present Application does not concern a case 21