Applicant claims, albeit without substantiation, that he was pursuing the review procedure at the Court of Appeal. 62. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that a delay of two (2) years, six (6) months, and twenty-eight (28) days is reasonable within the meaning of Rule 50(2)(5) of the Rules. Accordingly, it dismisses the Respondent State’s objection in this regard. C. Other admissibility requirements 63. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding compliance with the requirements set out in Rule 50(2) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules. Yet, it must satisfy itself that these conditions have been met before proceeding with the determination of the merits of the Application. 64. The record shows that the Applicants have been clearly identified by name, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 65. The Court also notes that the Applicants’ claims seek to protect their rights guaranteed under the Charter in conformity with one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, as stated in Article 3(h) thereof, which is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, the Applications do not contain any claim or prayer that is incompatible with a provision of the said Act. Therefore, the Court considers that the Applications are compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter and holds that they meet the requirements of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 66. The language used in the Applications is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 18