B. Other admissibility requirements 44. The Court notes that the requirements in sub-rules 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Rules, are not in contention between the Parties. Nevertheless, it must still ascertain that these requirements have been fulfilled. 45. From the records, the Court notes that the Applicant is clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 46. The Court notes that the claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights guaranteed under the Charter. It further, notes that that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as stated in Article 3(h) is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights among the objectives of the AU. Therefore, the Court considers that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Charter, and thus, fulfils the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 47. The Court further notes that the language used in the Application is neither disparaging nor insulting with regard to the Respondent State, its institutions or the African Union, in compliance with the Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 48. The Court observes that the Application is also not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, rather, it is based on judicial decisions from the domestic courts of the Respondent State. Thus, the Court holds that the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 49. With regard to the requirement to file the Application within a reasonable time, Court recalls its jurisprudence that: “…the reasonableness of the time frame for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case…”. 18 Furthermore, the Court has previously considered relatively short periods of 18 Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise IIboudo v. Republic of Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See also Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 13