body within the Respondent State’s legal system, the Court found that the Applicant had exhausted domestic remedies. Recalling its jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that the remedy of review of the Court of Appeal’s decision as provided for within the Respondent State was an extraordinary remedy that the Applicant need not have exhausted as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and as restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. Resultantly, the Court dismissed the Respondent State’s objection to the admissibility of the Application based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. While observing that no objection had been raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements, the Court nonetheless, assessed all the admissibility criteria provided for in Rule 50(2) of the Rules. The Court found that the Applicant had been identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. It also held that the allegations by the Applicant sought to protect his rights were in line with Article 3(h) of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and thus the Application complied with Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. Furthermore, the Court found that the language used in the Application was not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. The Application was, also not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. Resultantly, the Court declared the Application admissible. Turning to the merits of the case, the Court then considered whether the Respondent State had violated Articles 2, 3, 7 (1) (a), 7(1) (d) and 5 of the Charter, respectively as alleged by the Applicant. On the first allegation that the Applicants right to non-discrimination, equality before the law and equal protection of the law as provided for under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter was violated, the Court recalled its jurisprudence that the burden of proof for a human rights violation rests with the person making the allegations, unless the Court decides otherwise. In the instant Application, the Court observed 4