international human rights body is seized to determine the liability of the State in this regard.10 33. The Court notes that the Applicant brought his Application before this Court notwithstanding that the Cassation Court had yet to rule on his appeal. 34. Given that the cassation remedy in the Respondent State is an available and effective remedy, the Court notes that the Applicant had not exhausted local remedies at the time he filed his Application. 35. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Application does not meet the requirement under Article 56(5) of the Charter as restated under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. B. Other conditions of admissibility 36. Having found that the Application does not meet the requirement under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, and in view of the cumulative nature of the conditions of admissibility,11 the Court does not have to rule on the conditions of admissibility listed in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Article 56 of the Charter restated under Rule 50(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(f) and (g) of the Rules.12 37. Accordingly, the Court declares the Application inadmissible. VII. COSTS 38. Each Party requests that the other be made to bear the costs. 10 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93- 94; Kouassi Kouame Patrice and Baba Cylla v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, AfCHPR, Application No. 015/2021, Judgment 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 49. 11 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 of former ALS workers v. Republic of Mali, AfCHPR, Application No. 042/2015, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 39. 12 Ibid 11