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 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 the African Union or the provisions of the Charter. A. Objections to the admissibility of the Application 34. The Respondent State raises four objections to the admissibility of the Application, namely: on the non-exhaustion of local remedies, on the basis that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time, on the basis that the matter has already been settled and on non-compliance with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Court will therefore examine the said objections before considering other aspects of admissibility if necessary. i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 35. The Respondent State avers that the Applicants have not exhausted local remedies as mandated by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 36. It contends that a case challenging Section 148(5) of the CPA at the domestic courts was filed by Dickson Paul Sanga at the High Court of Tanzania. The Respondent State further contends that the aforementioned case was decided by the High Court in favour of Dickson Paul Sanga but it was reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeal. Dickson Paul Sanga subsequently filed a petition for review of the Court of Appeal case (Dickson 10