(11) days after the Court of Appeal rendered its decision on 26 February 2016. The Court considers this period of three (3) months and eleven (11) days within which it was seized after exhaustion of local remedies to be manifestly reasonable. Consequently, the Court holds that the Application was filed within a reasonable time in accordance with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 43. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Application does not concern a case which has already been 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 in accordance with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 44. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility conditions have been fulfilled and that the Application inadmissible. VII. MERITS 45. The Applicant alleges the violation of his rights by the Respondent State as follows: i. The right to not be discriminated against, protected under Article 2 of the Charter owing to the discriminatory assessment of the evidence leading to his conviction; ii. The right to life protected under Article 4 of the Charter owing to the death sentence imposed on him; and iii. The right to dignity protected by Article 5 of the Charter due to the imposition of the death sentence. A. Alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard 46. The Applicant alleges that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses during his trial did not prove that he intended to kill the victim. He avers that 11