brought against them are still pending before the Respondent's Courts and they have not been provided with legal aid to pursue the pending cases. iv. Jurisdiction ratione loci 67. With respect to jurisdiction ratione loci. which has also not been challenged, the Court is of the view that since the alleged violation occurred within the territory of the Respondent, the Court has jurisdiction. 68. Having established that it has jurisdiction to examine the Application, the Court will now proceed to consider the Respondent's preliminary objections on the admissibility of this Application. VIII. Admissibility of the Application 69. In its Response to the Application, the Respondent avers that, "in the alternative but without prejudice to ... " its preliminary objections on the jurisdiction of the Court, it was objecting to the admissibility of the Application on four (4) grounds, namely: i. That the Application is incompatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) or with the present Charter as per Rule 40(2) of the Rules of the Court, ii. That the Applicants failed to exhaust local remedies as per Rule 40 (5) of the Rules; iii. That the Application was not submitted within a reasonable time from the time local remedies were exhausted as per Rule 40 (6) of the Rules; and iv. That the Application does not comply with Rule 34(1) of the Rules as it is not signed by the Applicant or his/her representatives. 21