45. The Court also 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. The application also does not contain any claim or prayer that is incompatible with the said provision of the Act. Therefore, the Court considers that it meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 46. The Application does not contain any abusive or insulting language directed at the State concerned and its institutions and is thus consistent with Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 47. As regards the condition laid down in Rule 50(2)(d) of the same Rule, it has not been established that the arguments of fact and law developed in the application are based exclusively on information disseminated through the mass media. The condition is therefore met. 48. Regarding the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in accordance with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, the Court notes that the appeal lodged by the Applicant was dismissed by the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 16 February 2016. Given that the present application was filed on 29 June 2016, a time of four (4) months and thirteen (13) days had elapsed between the two events. In light of its case-law,16 the Court considers that such time is manifestly reasonable and therefore finds that the requirement set out under Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules is met. 49. Finally, with respect to the requirement laid down in Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules, the Court finds that the present 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, or the provisions of the Charter. The application, therefore, meets this condition. 16 Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), §§ 56-58; and Ajavon v. Benin (judgment), supra, §§ 89-91. 12