41. The Applicants maintain that the cases at issue were lodged by different parties, that they deal with distinguishable matters, are founded on different arguments and that no decision has been made by another body on the merits of the cases. 42. The Applicants, therefore, contend that since there are no similar applications that have been settled before courts of equivalent jurisdiction, that the Application before the Court does not fall within Article 56(7) of the Charter and is for that reason admissible. *** 43. The Court notes that the Respondent State avers that the applicable admissibility rule in the instant matter is that of res subjudice. However, the Court notes from the record that the ACERWC has already adopted its decision No. 002/2022 in Communication No: 0012/Com/001/2019 in the matter between Legal and Human Rights Centre and Centre for Reproductive Rights (on behalf of Tanzanian girls) against the United Republic of Tanzania, during its 39th Ordinary Session held from 21 March to 1 April 2022. 44. The Court is, therefore, of the view that the issue at hand is no longer a question of res subjudice, but rather whether the matter has been settled in accordance with the principles of one of the instruments invoked in Article 56(7) of the Charter. 45. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(7) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement that they “[d]o not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter”. 13