46. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the application does not meet the admissibility requirements set out in Article 56(5) of the Charter. It therefore upholds the Respondent State’s objection. B. Other conditions of admissibility 47. The Court recalls that the admissibility requirements of an application are cumulative so that if one of them is not fulfilled, the entire application is inadmissible.9 48. In the instant case, as the application does not meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter, there is no need to consider the other admissibility requirements. 49. Accordingly, the Court declares the application inadmissible. VII. REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES 50. The Court notes that on 26 August 2019, the Applicant filed a request for “provisional measures to put an end to continuous irreparable harm ensuing from the acts of torture and rape in breach of Article 27 of the Protocol”. 51. Having already declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies, the Court considers that the request for provisional measures is moot. 9 Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 002/2019, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 49; 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 (jurisdiction and admissibility) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 73, § 39. 12