000{8 { detailed provisions on human rights which are separate and distinct from the Charter of the United Nations and the other instruments listed in Rule 40(7) of the Rules. 41 . Furthermore, the Applicant avers that none of the issues in the HRC proceedings have been settled by the parties because the Respondent State has chosen to ignore the HRC's Views such that the issues remain entirely unsettled and unresolved. 42. The Respondent State submits that in determining the admissibility of the Application the Court should be guided by the provisions of Article 56(5) of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and Rule 40 of the Rules. *** 43. The Court notes that with regard to the admissibility of the Application, the Respondent State merely notes that in determining admissibility the Court should be guided by the provisions of Article 56(5) of the Charter, Article 6(2) of the Protocol and Rule 40 of the Rules. The Respondent State did not raise any objection to the admissibility of the Application. 44. Nevertheless, the Courtwill, suo motu,and as empowered by Rule 39 of the Rules, examine whether the Application meets the admissibility requirements set out in Rule 40 of the Rules and Article 56 of the Charter. 45. The Court notes that the Application discloses the identity of the Applicant; is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Charter because it invites the Court to determine whether the Respondent State meets its obligations to protect the Applicant's rights enshrined in the Charter; is not written in disparaging or insulting language directed at the Respondent State and its institutions or the African Union; is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media; and was sent after the Applicant exhausted local remedies since the Applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which is the highest appellate court in the Respondent State; and was also filed with this Court within a reasonable time after 13 N \-7&\ @-