-good$s principles of the respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity and political assassination, acts of terrorism and subversive activities". 48.The Court notes that even though, according to the Respondent State the First and Fifth Applicants were alleged to have been convicted of crimes which touch on some of the principles in Article 4(o) of the Constitutive Act as aforementioned, the Court is not called upon to decide on the legality or otherwise of such convictions. The Court considers that the provision in Article 56(2) of the Charter addresses the nature of an application and not the applicant's status. The prayer for reinstatement of passports does not require the Court to make a decision that would undermine the principles laid down in Article 4 of the Constitutive Act or any part thereof. On the contrary, this would be in accordance with the Court's obligation to protect the rights allegedly violated as it required to do in accordance with Article 3 (h) of the Constitutive Act.3 49. Consequently, the Court finds that the Application is not contrary to the Constitutive Act and the objection is therefore dismissed. iii. 50. Objection relating to the use of disparaging and insulting language The Respondent State argues that the Application is full of disparaging and insulting language directed at the Rwandan Judiciary and it should be declared inadmissible for failure to meet the requirements of Article 56(3) of the Charter and Rule 40(3) of the Rules. 3 Article 3(h) of the Constitutive Act provides that a key objective of the Union shall be "to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the Charter and other relevant human rights instruments"; See also Application No. 030i2015. Ruling of 0410712019 (Jurisdiction and missibility) Ramadhani lssa Malengo v United Republic of Tanzania, SS 31 - 32. 72 )r-r="