15. As regards the statement of the point(s) of the operative part in respect of which interpretation is sought, the Court notes, as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment, that the Applicant seeks interpretation of the inadmissibility decision in the operative part of the impugned judgment, which is in line with the requirement laid down in Rule 77(2) of the Rules. The Court, therefore, considers that the second requirement is met. 16. Finally, as regards the third requirement, the Court underscores that a request for interpretation must seek to ensure a better enforcement of the Court’s judgment. 17. The Court notes, in the present case, that the judgment of 22 September 2022, the interpretation of which is sought, is a decision dismissing the Application for failure to exhaust local remedies. The Court considers that the operative part of the judgment is clear and that there is no difficulty in understanding it. It, therefore, follows that the third requirement has not been met. 18. The Court recalls that the admissibility requirements are cumulative. Thus, if one requirement is not met, the Application for interpretation is inadmissible. 19. The Court, therefore, finds that the Application for interpretation is inadmissible. V. COSTS 20. The Parties did not make any submission on costs. *** 6