(g) of the Rules. It, however, must satisfy itself that the Application fulfils these requirements. 42. From the record, the Court notes that the Applicant is clearly identified by name thereby fulfilling Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 43. The Court also notes that the Applicant’s claims seek to protect his 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. Furthermore, nothing on file indicates that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Court, therefore, holds that the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules is met. 44. The Court further notes that the language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting toward the Respondent State, its institutions, or the African Union in compliance with rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 45. The Court also observes that the Application is not exclusively based on news disseminated through mass media; rather, it is based on judicial decisions from the domestic Courts of the Respondent State. The Court finds, therefore, that the Application complies with rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 46. In relation to the requirement for filing applications within a reasonable timeframe, under Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, the Court recalls that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the time frame within which applications must be filed after the exhaustion of local remedies. As per the Court’s jurisprudence, “…the reasonableness of the timeframe for seizure depends on the specific circumstances of the case and should be determined on a case-to-case basis.13 13 Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (merits), supra, § 92. 12