APDH v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668 D. 677 Territorial jurisdiction 67. The Court notes that the facts on which the alleged violations are based occurred on the territory of the Respondent State. It therefore holds that it has territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. 68. It therefore follows from all the foregoing considerations that the Court has the jurisdiction to hear the instant case. VI. Admissibility of the Application 69. According to the aforementioned Rule 39 of the Rules, “the Court shall conduct preliminary examination of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application in accordance with Article 50 and 56 of the Charter, and Rule 40 of these Rules”. 70. According to Article 6(2) of the Protocol, “the Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter”. 71. Rule 40 of the Rules which, in substance, replicates the contents of Article 56 of the Charter provides as follows: “Pursuant to the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter to which Article 6(2) of the Protocol refers, Applications to the Court shall comply with the following conditions. 1. Disclose the identity of the Applicant notwithstanding the latter’s request for anonymity; 2. Comply with the Constitutive Act of the Union and the Charter; 3. Not contain any disparaging or insulting language; 4. Not be based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media; 5. Be filed after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged; 6. Be filed within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with a matter; and 7. Not raise any matter or issues previously settled by the parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union”. 72. Whereas some of the above conditions are not in contention between the parties, the Respondent State raised objections relating to the language used in the Application and exhaustion of local remedies. A. Admissibility conditions which are not in contention between the Parties 73. The conditions regarding the identity of the Applicant, the Application’s compatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Charter, the nature of the evidence, the time limit for seizure of the Court and the principle according to which an Application must not concern cases previously settled by the Parties (sub rules 1, 2, 4, 6 and