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 African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 31. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises two objections. The first objection is based on non-exhaustion of local remedies while the second one is on the ground that the Application was not filed within reasonable time. The Court will first consider these objections (A) before examining other admissibility requirements (B), if necessary. A. Objections to the admissibility of the Application 32. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises two objections on admissibility; the first is based on non-exhaustion of local remedies (i), and the second one, on the failure to file the Application within reasonable time (ii). i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 33. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant raised a number of claims before this Court which, although raised as grounds of appeal before the High Court, were not pursued as grounds of appeal before the Court of Appeal. The said claims are: the Court did not inquire as to why the victim did not report the crime to the police earlier, the victim’s age was not proven by any document, the Court of Appeal should have considered that the sworn statement had to be corroborated by the testimony of the Applicant who claimed to be its author, and finally, the provisions of the Tanzanian Evidence Act (Cap 6 RE 2002), in particular, Section 127(7), which allows for conviction based on the testimony of the victim only if the Court is satisfied that the statement is true. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant had a remedy available to bring the said specific allegations before the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014, but chose not to do so. 9