proceedings insofar as the criminal proceedings against an applicant have been determined by the highest appellate court.18 56. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal before the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, was determined when that Court rendered its judgment on 12 March 2013. Thereafter, the Applicant’s application for review was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 19 March 2015. The Court holds, therefore, that the Respondent State had the opportunity to address the violations alleged by the Applicant arising from her trial in the various courts. Consequently, the Application has complied with the requirement under Rule 50 (2) (e) of the Rules. 57. The Court also holds that the Application does not raise any matter or issues previously settled by the parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union as required under Rule 50 (2) (g) of the Rules. 58. As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application fulfils all the requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules and accordingly finds the Application admissible. VII. MERITS 59. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State has violated her right to life, right to dignity and right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Charter, respectively. She further alleges that by failing to give effect to these rights, the Respondent State also violated Article 1 of the Charter. 18 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 76. 17