claims. In this regard, the Court has held that “general assertions are not sufficient. More concrete evidence is needed.”16 49. The Court therefore considers that the Applicant’s arguments justifying the failure to exhaust local remedies do not hold and that she should have initiated the remedies before domestic courts before filing the Application before it. The Court therefore finds that the Applicant did not exhaust the available local remedies. 50. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Application does not meet the requirement of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. ii. Other admissibility requirements 51. Having found that the Application does not meet the requirement of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and, in view of the cumulative nature of admissibility requirements, 17 the Court does not need to rule on the admissibility requirements set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) (a)(b)(c)(d)(f) and (g) of the Rules.18 52. Accordingly, the Court finds the Application inadmissible. VII. COSTS 53. Each Party prays that the other be ordered to bear the costs. 16 Fidèle Mulindahabi v. Republic of Rwanda, Judgment (jurisdiction and admissibility) (4 July 2019), 3 AfCLR 367, §15; Kennedy Gihana & Others v. Republic of Rwanda, (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 655, §120; Alex Thomas v. Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 140. 17 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; Collectif des anciens travailleurs ALS v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 042/2015, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 39. 18 ibid. 14