44. The Court, therefore, finds that the Applicant has exhausted local remedies since the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ in the Respondent State, had upheld his conviction and sentence, following proceedings which allegedly violated his rights. 45. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. B. Other conditions of admissibility 46. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that the Application is admissible before proceeding. 47. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicant has been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 48. The Court also notes that the claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights guaranteed under the Charter. Furthermore, one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, as stated in Article 3(h) thereof, is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Additionally, the Application does not contain any claim or prayer that is incompatible with a provision of the said Act. Therefore, the Court considers that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter and holds that it meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 49. The language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 13