61. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged incompatibility of Articles 125 and 127 of the Law of 12 July 2010 with the human rights instruments invoked by the Applicants, the Court considers that there were no local remedies to be exhausted, so that the question of reasonable time does not arise.23 The Court is also of the considered view that the alleged violations in this respect are ongoing, insofar as they result from a law published on 12 July 2010, which is still in force. As a result, the Applicants are entitled to seize the Court at any time, as long as no measures have been taken to remedy the alleged violations.24 62. Finally, the Court notes that in accordance with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules, the instant Application does not concern a matter already 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 Charter. 63. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Application meets all admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court and, accordingly, declares it admissible. VII. MERITS 64. The Applicants allege violations by the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Internal Security of (A) the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, and the right to non-discrimination; (B) the right of access to the public services of their country; (C) the right to be promoted to a higher rank; and (D) the right to education. 23 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 466, § 50; Yusuph Said v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 011/2019, Judgment of 30 September 2021 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 42. 24 Kambole v. Tanzania, ibid, § 53. 16