0005rs 5. It should be recalled that, in the instant case, the Application was brought before the Coufi on 26 May 2017, whereas the Supreme Courl of Chana, the apex court of the Ghanaian judicial system, delivered its final judgment, dismissing the Applicant's appeal and upholding the death sentence imposed on him on l6 March 201 la. Thus, a period of six years and two months elapsed bctween the date ofdelivery ofthe Judgment of the Supreme Court of Chana and the fiting of the Application before the Court. Are there any objective and subjective justitications fbr such a delayl) 6. justify the Applicant's delay in tiling his Application. [t glanced through. and without the slightest analysis, all the admissibility requirements enumerated in Anicles 56 (from $ I to $ 6) of the (lharter and 40 (from S I to g 6) of the Rulcs. Thc ('ourt dealt rvith the sir grounds ol inadmissibi'lit1 in one lump. noting "that the Application discloses the identity of the Applicant; is compatible with the Constitutive Act ofthe AU and the Charter because it invites the Court to determine whether the Respondent State meets its obligations to protect the Applicant's rights enshrined in the Charter; is not written in disparaging or insulting language directed at the Respondent State and its institutions or the Afiican Union; is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media; and was sent after l he Court did not even try to the Applicant exhausted local remedies since the Applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which is the highest appellate court in the Respondent State; and was also filed with this Court within a reasonable time after the exhaustion oflocal remedies". Accordingly, "the Court [found] that the Application meets the admissibitity requirements under Article 56(1J to 56[6J of the Charter, which are reflected in Rule 40(1) to 40[6)." 7. It is unfortunate that, in dealing with such an important issue, the Court simply states that "[...] and was also filed with this Court within a reasonable time." Thus, the Court turns a blind eye to the time taken by the Applicant to bring his application before it and provides no justification, from this point of view, for the admissibility of the Application. 8. I lowevcr, the Court substantiated its stance, albeit cursorily, with respect to other grounds of admissibility of the Application. Such was the case when it talked oi'the Application being compatible rvith the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Charter because, according to the Court, the Application "invites the Court to detcrmine whether the Respondent State meets its obligations to protect the Applicant's rights enshrined in the Charter". Similarly, as regards the exhaustion of local remedies. the Courl notes that "the Applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which is the highest appellate court in the Respondent State". Yet no 1ustification is given, no matter how brief, with respect to "reasonable time". 9. l-he tact that the Respondent State did not raise any objection to admissibility is no justification fbr such a quick glancc, reduced in just one sentence, through six admissibility requirements that the Court has a duty to analyse . The Court seems to have been in a hurry to dwell only on one requirement, namely the one provided lor in Articlcs 56(7) of the Charter and 40(7) of the llules. a f udgment, Para. 26 1