unequivocally, therefore, that although local remedies were exhausted, it has not been shown that all the issues involved were resolved. The condition of identity of the applications is therefore not met. 116. As far as the condition of existence of a decision on the merits is concerned, this Court notes that although both Parties agree on the existence of decisions in cases before the domestic courts of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France, the fact remains that it has not been established that these proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Charter and other relevant instruments referred to in Article 56(7) of the Charter. As such, this Court finds that the condition of a decision on the merits is not met. 117. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the present Application has not been settled within the meaning of Article 56(7) of the Charter and, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. C. Other admissibility requirements 118. The Court notes that the requirement laid down in Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules is met insofar as the Applicants have clearly indicated their identity. 119. It further notes that the Applicants’ requests seek to protect their rights enshrined in the Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as stated in Article 3(h) thereof is to promote and protect human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Application is incompatible with any provision of the Constitutive Act. The Court, therefore, considers that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Application meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 120. The Court further notes that the Application does not contain any disparaging or insulting language with regard to the Respondent State or its 30