83. The Court further notes that both the alleged violations which resulted from the non-payment of their compensation benefits and the alleged police brutality took place after the ratification of the Protocol (7 February 2006) and the making of the declaration under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol (9 March 2010) by the Respondent. 84. On these grounds, the Court concludes that it has the ratione temporis jurisdiction to hear the matter. B. Admissibility of the Application 85. The Court recalls that every Application has to meet the requirements under Article 56 of the Charter, read jointly with Article 6(2) of the Protocol. “fApplications] considered relating if...", and Article to 56 human then goes of and on the Charter peoples’ to provides rights enumerate that ...shall be seven (7) requirements that must be fulfilled for an Application to be admissible. Article 6(2) of the Protocol on its part provides that “The Court shall rule on the admissibility of cases taking into account the provisions of Article 56 of the Charter’. 86. The Respondent Article 56 have not been this juncture that the claims that six of the requirements met by the Applicants. seven requirements under It must be stated at under Article 56 are cumulative, thus, if one, of them is not met, the Application cannot be admissible. =e ome re . : wa i se A Q Le ta7 @