In its ruling of 21 June 2013 on this issue, the Court sustained the objection to its jurisdiction rationae temporis on the allegation of the violation of the right to life but overruled the objection to its jurisdiction rationae temporis on the allegation of violation of the rights of the Applicants to have their cause heard by a judge, as well as the allegations of violation of human rights in relation to the obligation to guarantee respect for human rights, the right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law and the right to freedom of expression and protection of journalists (supra, paragraph 32). 51. It emerges from the foregoing considerations, that the Court does have jurisdiction to hear all allegations of human rights violations made by the Applicants save the allegation on violation of the right to life. V. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 52. Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that “The Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application in accordance with articles 50 and 56 of the Charter, and Rule 40 of these Rules’. Article 6(2) of the Protocol for its part provides that “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of article 56 of the Charter”. Rule 40 of the Rules of Court which essentially refers to the provisions of article 56 of the Charter, states that: “Pursuant to the provisions of article 56 of the Charter to which article 6(2) of the Protocol refers, applications to the Court shall comply with the following conditions: 1. disclose the identity of the Applicant notwithstanding the latter's request for DN comply with the Constitutive Act of the Union and the Charter; oO not contain any disparaging or insulting language; F not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media; a anonymity; be filed after exhausting local remedies, procedure is unduly prolonged; 19 if any, unless it is obvious that this @ye wl