37. In the present Application, the Respondent State raises two objections to admissibility; one, based on non-exhaustion of local remedies, and the other based on the failure to specify the provisions allegedly violated. The Court will consider these objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 38. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants indicate, without providing proof, that all the local remedies under the law of procedure of Mali, were exhausted after the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court rendered Judgment No. 38 of 15 November 2016, dismissing their cassation appeal. 39. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants voluntarily refrained from exercising the internal legal remedies provided for by Article 173 of Law No. 2016-046 of 23 September 2016 on the organic law pertaining to the organization, the operating rules of the Supreme Court and the procedure followed before it, which provides that: “judgments rendered by the Judicial Section of the Supreme Court are subject only to the following procedures: a. An action for rectification may be exercised against decisions tainted by a material error likely to have had an influence on the judgment of the case; b. An appeal for interpretation may be exercised against obscure or ambiguous decisions; c. A request for rectification judgment may be exercised when the impugned judgment is tainted by an error not attributable to the interested party and which affected the solution proffered for the case by the Court”. 40. The Applicants, for their part, argue that local remedies were exhausted insofar as the Supreme Court, which is the highest court with jurisdiction in this case, rendered its decision. 10