33. It emerges from the Application that the Applicants were clearly identified by name, pursuant to Rule 50 (2) of the Rules. 34. The Court further notes that the Applicants’ prayers are aimed at protecting rights guaranteed under the Charter. It notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as enshrined in Article 3 (h) is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, there is no information in the file which is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Court therefore considers that the Application meets the requirements of Rule 50 (2) of the Rules. 35. The Court further notes that the Application is not written in disparaging or insulting language towards the Respondent State, its institutions or the African Union. It is therefore consistent with Rule 50 (2) of the Rules. 36. The Court also notes that the Application is not based exclusively on information collected through the mass media but through legal documents from domestic courts of the Respondent State. The Court therefore holds that the Application is consistent with Rule 50 of the Rules. 37. With regard to the requirement of prior exhaustion of local remedies under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, the Court notes that on 15 September 2020 the Applicants filed an Application before the Respondent State’s Constitutional Council seeking a declaration that the following provisions of the impugned law are unconstitutional: Articles 50, 122/2, 148; 155 and 236 of Law No.034-2020/AN of 25 August 2020 amending Law No.014-2001 of 3 July 2001 on the Electoral Code. 38. On 16 October 2020, by Decision No. 2020-024/CC, the Constitutional Council dismissed the petition on the following grounds: Pursuant to Article 157, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, a citizen may only seize the Constitutional Council to challenge a law that has already been promulgated through a constitutional challenge brought before a court in a 9