58. In the light of the foregoing, the Court upholds the Respondent State’s objection and holds that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies as required by Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. B. Other admissibility requirements 59. Having found that the present Application does not satisfy the requirements of Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, and having regard to the cumulative nature of the admissibility requirements, the Court considers it superfluous to rule on the other admissibility requirements. 60. Accordingly, it declares the Application inadmissible. VII. ON THE REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES 61. In their request for provisional measures, the Applicants pray the Court to: i. Order the Respondent State to release the Applicants immediately; ii. Order the Respondent State to process without delay the requests for release submitted by the Applicants’ defence to its judicial authorities; *** 62. The Court notes that Article 27(2) of the Protocol provides: “In cases of extreme gravity or urgency and where it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such interim measures as it deems appropriate”. 63. The Court recalls that it has found the present Application inadmissible in paragraph 56 of this judgment, and further notes that the Applicants’ trial is ongoing in domestic courts. In addition, the refusal of the competent 16