being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter; and g. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of the African Union, or the provisions of the Charter. 36. The Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application, based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Court will, therefore, consider this objection before examining other conditions for admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 37. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies because its judicial system provides for a mechanism to file a review under Section 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2009, particularly in cases alleging violation of rights such as Article 7(c) of the Charter. In view of this, the Respondent State surmises that the Applicant did not exercise his right to pursue available legal avenues. * 38. In response to this objection, the Applicant asserts that his Application meets the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. He contends that his case was determined in the Magistrates’ Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He avers that the domestic courts should have applied all applicable laws in dealing with matters even where parties failed to refer to them. He emphasises the domestic court’s role to apply all other relevant rules and not only restrict itself to relying on rules cited by parties. 39. With regard to the Respondent State’s assertion that he did not exercise his right to file a review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Applicant submits that he attempted to apply for a review out of time, which has yet to be 11