B. Other conditions of admissibility 40. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Rules. Nevertheless, it must satisfy itself that these conditions have been met. 41. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicant has been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 42. The Court further notes that the claims made by the Applicant 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. Nothing on file indicates that the application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act. Therefore, the Court holds that the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules is met. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. With regard to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, the Court notes that it requires that Applicants must exhaust local remedies before seizing the Court. 46. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant having been convicted at the District Court of Nzega filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on 9 August 2011. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, which on 10 March 2014, upheld the judgment of the High Court. 11