36. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection relating to the nonexhaustion of local remedies. B. Other conditions of admissibility 37. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the Application’s compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules. Nevertheless, in accordance with Rule 50(1), it must satisfy itself that these conditions have been met. 38. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicant has been identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 39. The Court also notes that the Applicant’s 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. Consequently, the court considers that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act. It therefore holds that the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules is met. 40. The Court further finds that the language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State and its institutions or to the African Union, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 41. The Court also observes that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on record of the proceedings of the domestic courts in fulfilment with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 42. Regarding, the requirement that an application should be filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies, the Court notes that the Application was filed on 8 June 2016, that is, three (3) months and eleven 10