manifestly reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 46. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to the admissibility of the Application on the basis that it was not filed within a reasonable time. B. Other conditions of admissibility 47. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the Application’s compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules. It must, however, satisfy itself that the Application fulfils these requirements. 48. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicants have been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 49. The Court also notes that the Applicants’ claims seek to protect their rights guaranteed under the Charter. It also notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as stipulated under Article 3(h), is to promote and protect human and peoples’ rights. The Court, therefore, holds that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter and thus meets the requirements of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 50. The Court further notes that the Application does not contain any disparaging or insulting language regarding the Respondent State, its institutions or the African Union, in compliance with the Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 51. The Court also finds that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, rather, on decisions of the Respondent State’s municipal courts. Thus, the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 14