40. The Court observes that the Applicant has indicated his identity, and holds that the condition set out in Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules is met. 41. The Court 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. The Court, therefore, finds that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter, and thus holds that it meets the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 42. The Court further notes that the Application does not contain any disparaging or insulting language with regard to the Respondent State, its institutions and the African Union, which makes it consistent with the requirement of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 43. With respect to the requirement set out under Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules, the Court notes that the Application is not exclusively based on news disseminated through the mass media. The Applicant mainly relies on correspondences between him and the Respondent State as well as some documents from the proceedings before national courts, and thus the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 44. With regard to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies provided for under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, the Applicant submits that the procedure in the national courts was unduly prolonged. He also alleges that a case was instituted against him and is on-going but did not give details on this case. 45. According to the Applicant, his PI status in the Respondent State made it impossible for him to exhaust local remedies. The Applicant cites the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Gabriel Shumba v. Zimbabwe and argues that local remedies were unavailable, insufficient and ineffective for him, as he was barred from the 11