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. 43. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Applications on the basis of non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. The Court will therefore consider the said objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 44. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant had legal remedies available to him within its jurisdiction, which he could have pursued prior to filing his Application. It asserts that the Applicant failed to exhaust local remedies by filing a constitutional petition for enforcement of his basic rights under its Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act [Cap 3 REV 2002] while the said remedy was available. 45. The Respondent State further submits that the Applicant raised new allegations before this Court, which he had the opportunity to raise as grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal, notably, his contention regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the Respondent State asserts that it was premature to bring the Application before this Court. 46. The Applicant on his part avers that Rule 50(2) of the Rules sets forth the conditions of admissibility for submitting applications to the Court, including the requirement that any given application should be filed “after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged”. The Applicant avers that he exhausted all ordinary local 12