30. Furthermore, and in line with its established jurisprudence, the Court emphasises on the one hand that the lack of representation by counsel and on the other, ignorance of the existence of a remedy cannot be grounds for dispensing with the exercise of local remedies.8 The Court also considers that it is not enough to allege that a remedy is ineffective; one must also attempt to exercise it. 31. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies such that the application does not meet the related admissibility requirement. 32. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Respondent State’s objection and holds that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies. B. Other admissibility requirements 33. The Court recalls that the admissibility requirements are cumulative such that if one requirement is not met, the application is inadmissible.9 Having found that local remedies were not exhausted, the Court considers it superfluous to rule on the other admissibility requirements laid down in Article 56(1),(2),(3),(4),(6) and (7) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(a),(b),(c),(d),(f),(g) of the Rules. 34. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Application is inadmissible. VII. COSTS 35. None of the Parties made submissions on costs. 8 Taudier and Others v. Côte d'Ivoire, ibid, §§ 34-35. Aminata Soumaré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 038/2019, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 47; Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 002/2019, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 49; Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v. Republic of Mali (jurisdiction and admissibility) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 237, § 63; Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction and admissibility) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 361, § 48; Marius v. Côte d'Ivoire, supra, § 36; Taudier and Others v. Côte d'Ivoire, supra, § 40. 9 9