43. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants are lay. It also emerges from the records that at the time of filing the Application, the Applicants were incarcerated and therefore limited in movement as well as to flow of information, which the Court has previously held as legitimate justification for delays in lodging applications.16 44. The Court considers that the above stated circumstances constitute valid justification for the time it took the Applicants to file this Application subsequent to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court, therefore, finds that such time is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 45. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to the admissibility of the Application based on the alleged failure to file the same within reasonable time. B. Other admissibility requirements 46. The Court notes that, from the records, the fact that the Application complies with the requirements in Article 56 sub-articles (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) of the Charter, which are reiterated in sub-rules 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Rules, is not in contention between the Parties. Nevertheless, the Court must ascertain that these requirements have been fulfilled. 47. In particular, the Court notes that the requirement laid down in Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules is met since the Applicants’ identity is known. 48. The Court also notes that the claims made by the Applicants seek to protect their rights guaranteed under 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 the promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights. The Application also does not contain any claim or prayer that is 16 Iguna v. Tanzania, supra, § 37; Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, § 73; Jonas v. Tanzania, supra, § 54. 13