Arusha, Tanzania Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY The Court also found that the language used in the Application was not disparaging or insulting to the Respondent State or its institutions, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. The Application was also not based exclusively on news disseminated through mass media, as it was based on court documents from the domestic courts of the Respondent State, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. Further, the Court noted that the Applicants’ claims sought to protect their rights guaranteed under the Charter. It further noted that nothing in the Application was incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Court, therefore, found that the Application met the requirements of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. The Court also found that the case had not been previously settled between the parties before another international tribunal and was thus in compliance with Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. In relation to the exhaustion of local remedies, the Court recalled that the objective of the rule on exhaustion of local remedies under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules is to provide States with the opportunity to resolve cases of alleged human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State’s responsibility, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The Court further recalled that the requirement for the exhaustion of local remedies is that an Applicant must have, at least in substance, presented the claims before the Court in the domestic courts. In the instant Application, the Court noted that the Applicants made five allegations against the electoral laws of the Respondent State. The Court assessed each of the allegations individually to determine whether the domestic remedies were exhausted. Firstly, the Court considered the allegations relating to the composition of the Electoral Commission, which the Applicants alleged violated article 74(1) of the Respondent State’s Constitution, Articles 1, 3, 13(1) of the Charter, Article 21 of the UDHR and Article 25 of the ICCPR. The Applicants submitted that they could not approach the High Court under the Basic Rights and Duties enforcement Act, given that the constitutional provisions they sought to challenge are outside of Chapter III of Part One of the Respondent State’s Constitution. 4