37. Consequently, the Court finds that the Application does not contain any disparaging or insulting language, within the meaning of article 56(3) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 38. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection to admissibility based on the use of disparaging or insulting language and holds that the Application complies with the requirement under Article 56(3) of the Charter. ii. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 39. The Respondent State submits that exhaustion of local remedies is an important requirement under Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 50 of the Rules.11 40. According to the Respondent State, the purpose of the rule that local remedies must be exhausted is to limit arbitrary and unjustified referrals to the Court and to avoid overloading its cause list. 41. The Respondent State submits that the Applicants did not exhaust the local remedies available to them, insofar as they did not appeal against Judgment No. 258 of 5 May 2016 delivered by the Administrative Division of the Supreme Court of Mali. 42. It, therefore, prays the Court to declare the Application inadmissible for failure to meet the condition laid down in Article 56 of the Charter and the Rules. *** 43. In their response, the Applicants submit that the Court must be seized only after all local remedies have been exhausted, which means that an application against a State can only be brought before the Court if that 11 Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 2020. 11