o0o112 appeal had already lapsed as at the time the proceedings before the administrative and political authorities were concluded. 31.On the first allegation, the Court notes that, without any supporting evidence, the Applicant simply argues that the proceedings before the Respondent State’s jurisdictions were futile because the soldiers of the Presidential Guard were involved. This Court has held that “general statements ... are not enough. More substantiation is required.”” The Court therefore dismisses this allegation. 32.On the second allegation, the Court notes that the Applicant has not submitted his appeal before the domestic courts within reasonable time because, claims, he was attempting political bodies. However, to seek resolution before the administrative as he and nothing prevented the Applicant from pursuing non- judicial avenues at the same time as he pursued judicial remedies. He ought to have exercised the requisite remedies so as to exhaust the local remedies. 33.In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant has not exhausted the remedies available in the Respondent State, and that none of the grounds adduced for not doing so, falls within the exceptions provided under Rule 40(5) of the Rules. 34.Having found that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and considering that the conditions for admissibility are cumulative, the Court will not proceed to examine the last condition of admissibility set out in Rule 40 of the Rules.® 35.Based on the foregoing, the Court declares the application inadmissible. Vil. Costs 36.The Court notes that Rule 30 of its Rules provides that: “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own cost.” ? Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), § 140. 8 Application No. 022/2015. Judgment of 11/5/2018 Chrysanthe v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 48. (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), Rutabingwa