365. The Court, therefore, finds that the two applications have different subject matter and also seek different remedies. Consequently, the second requirement is not satisfied in the instant case. 366. With regard to the third requirement, namely, the existence of a previous decision on the merits, the Court notes that there has been no decision on the merits as at the time of filing the present Application, which means the case has not been settled in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Constitutive Act of the African union or the provisions of the Charter. 367. Consequently, the Court dismisses this objection on the grounds that the Application concerns a case which has been settled in accordance with either the principles of the United Nations Charter, or the Constitutive Act or the provisions of the Charter and finds that the Application meets the requirements of Article 56(7) of the Charter, restated by Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. c. Other admissibility requirements 368. The Court notes that the Respondent State does not raise any objection to the admissibility of the Application based on the following requirements: indication of the applicant’s identity , the use of disparaging or insulting language, and submission of the Application within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies or after the date specified by the Court as the date on which the time-limit for bringing the case before it began to run. Nonetheless, the Court must satisfy itself that those requirements are met. 369. As regards the identity of the Applicant, the Court notes that the Applicant State has identified itself by its official name and, therefore, the requirement is met. 370. In addition, the Court notes that the Application does not contain any disparaging or insulting language against the Respondent State, its 82