subject of proceedings that were allegedly unduly prolonged, in which no grievance was raised against it. 32. It concludes that the Application is incompatible with the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Accordingly, it prays the Court to declare the Application inadmissible in line with its jurisprudence. 33. The Applicant did not submit on this point. *** 34. The Court notes that the Applicant’s requests seek to protect his rights guaranteed by the Charter, in particular his right to a fair trial. 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. Furthermore, the Application does not contain any request that is incompatible with any provision of the said Act. 35. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection and holds that the Application is compatible with the Constitutive Act and therefore satisfies the requirement of Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. B. Objection to admissibility based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 36. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant does not prove that he actually brought proceedings before domestic courts against the persons responsible for the violations he alleges. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant also fails to prove that local remedies are ineffective or unnecessary. 37. Furthermore, as regards the Applicant’s assertion that no action was taken on his petition before the Constitutional Court, the Respondent State pointed out that the Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over disputes 12