3. On 1 February 2023, the Applicant filed supplementary pleadings in support of the Application, which was notified to the Respondent State on 3 April 2023 for its Response within 30 days of receipt. 4. The Respondent State did not file its Response despite several reminders to that effect. 5. II. Pleadings were closed on 29 May 2023 and the Parties were duly notified. ON THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 6. The Applicant submits that in the Ruling of 22 September 2022, whose interpretation is sought, the Court upheld the objection based on nonexhaustion of local remedies and declared the Application inadmissible on the grounds set out in paragraphs 531, 602, 623 and 634 of the said Ruling. 7. In this respect, he submits that his Application raises the following eight (8) issues: i) Does the Court require him to wait until the Court of Cassation issues a decision contrary to the compliance decisions DCC 18130 of 21 June 2018 and DCC 12-153 of 4 August 2012 rendered by the Constitutional Court in respect of Articles 12 and 19 § 2 of 1 It notes that in order to justify the submission of the present Application before the Court without awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court, the Applicant advances two arguments, namely, that the procedure in respect of the cassation appeal before the Supreme Court was ineffective and unduly prolonged. 2 The Court notes, finally, that during the cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court, the parties not only receive copies of exhibits and pleadings for the purpose of making their submissions, but they are also heard by the Judicial Chamber, which may take some time. In addition, when the case is ready, the Judge-Rapporteur writes his report and draft judgment, and then sends the docket to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which must in turn produce a report. The Court notes, moreover, that it is not disputed that the case is very complex with regard to the nature of the offences prosecuted, in particular, the misappropriation of public funds, abetment of abuse of office and usurpation of title. 3 In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant’s arguments are unfounded and that he should therefore have awaited the outcome of his appeal in cassation before filing the Application before the Court. The Court therefore finds that the Applicant filed the Application prematurely. 4 Accordingly, the Court finds that the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies is well founded and that the Application does not meet the requirement of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 2