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 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. 35. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application, based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Court will therefore examine the said objection before considering other conditions of admissibility if necessary. A. Objection to admissibility on ground of failure to exhaust local remedies 36. The Respondent State contends that as decided by this Court in Urban Mkandawire v. Malawi and Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania, the Applicant has not met the admissibility requirement provided under Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court, since the Applicant did not exhaust all local remedies prior to filing this Application before this Court. Further, citing the jurisprudence of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Article 19 v. Eritrea, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant never made an attempt to exhaust local remedies before the domestic courts, which is also contrary to Article 56(5) of the Charter. 37. The Respondent State also avers that the Applicant did not raise the allegation that his conviction was based on circumstantial evidence before 11