3(h) thereof is the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. Furthermore, nothing on file indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. It follows that the Application fulfils the requirement set out in Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 62. 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. 63. The Court notes that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on legal documents, in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 64. In relation to filing the Application within a reasonable time, the Court notes that the Applicants filed this Application before the Court on 8 March 2016, after the Court of Appeal had dismissed their appeal for lack of merit on 2 March 2012, that is, four (4) years and six (6) days, after the dismissal. The issue, therefore, is whether the period between the exhaustion of local remedies and the filing of the present Application constitutes a reasonable time within the meaning of Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. In line with its jurisprudence,23 the Court considers that this time frame for filing an application before it is reasonable in the circumstances and therefore in compliance with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 65. Furthermore, the Application does not concern a case which has already been settled by the Parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 23 Bernard Balele v. United Republic of Tanzania, (judgment) (30 September 2021) 5 AfCLR 338; Hamis Shaban alias Hamis Ustadh v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 842, §§ 59-60; Mussa Zanzibar v. United Republic of Tanzania (26 February 2021) (judgment) 5 AfCLR 39, § 44. 19