B. Other admissibility requirements 46. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the Application’s compliance with the requirements set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules. Nonetheless, it must satisfy itself that these requirements are met. 47. 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. 48. The Court notes that the Applicants’ claims seek to protect his rights guaranteed under the Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, as stated in Article 3(h) thereof is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, nothing on file indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Therefore, the Court holds that the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules is met. 49. The language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 50. The Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on legal documents in fulfilment with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 51. In relation to the requirement for filing Applications within a reasonable time, under Rule 50(2)(f), the Court recalls that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the time frame within which Applications must be filed after exhaustion of local remedies. As per the Court’s jurisprudence “… the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific 14