municipal courts of the Respondent State. Thus, the Court holds that Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 54. The Court further stresses that the Applicant exhausted local remedies since, the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the Respondent State, delivered its judgment on 29 April 2010, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal in its entirety. 55. Concerning the admissibility requirement specified in Article 56 (7) of the Charter, the Court notes that 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. The Court, therefore, finds that the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 56. The Court, therefore, finds that all the admissibility requirements have been met and that this Application is admissible. VII. MERITS 57. The Court recalls that the Applicant alleges the violation of Articles 3 and 7 of the Charter in relation to the following allegations: i. His conviction was based on evidence that was not credible; ii. The assessment of the evidence leading to his conviction was unfair. A. Allegation that the conviction was based on unreliable evidence 58. The Applicant alleges that his conviction was based on the visual identification evidence of a single witness (PW1) which he considered to be unreliable and that both the Resident Magistrate’s Court and the Court of Appeal “did not eliminate all the possibility of mistaken identification.”