whether the right to a fair trial, including the right to be tried by an impartial court or tribunal, was upheld by the lower court.15 45. The Court, therefore, finds that local remedies have been exhausted and dismisses the Respondent State’s objection in relation to non-exhaustion of local remedies. B. Other conditions of admissibility 46. The Court observes that no objection has been raised with respect to the other admissibility requirements. Nonetheless, in line with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, it must satisfy itself that the Application is admissible before proceeding. 47. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicant has been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 48. The Court also notes that the claims made by the Applicant seek to protect his rights guaranteed by the Charter. It further notes that one of the objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union as stipulated under Article 3(h), is to promote and protect human and peoples’ rights. The Application also does not contain any claim or prayer that is incompatible with a provision of the Act. The Court, therefore, holds that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter and thus meets the requirements of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. 49. The Court finds that the language used in the Application is not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 50. The Court further finds that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media as it is founded on court documents from 15 Ally Rajabu and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 539, § 42. 12