prison, where he was incarcerated. 31 Similarly, the Court is of the opinion that this Applicant has not provided compelling arguments and sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his personal situation prevented him from filing the Application in a timelier manner. 73. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the filing of the Application seven (7) years, two (2) months and thirty (30) days after exhaustion of local remedies is not a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 74. The Court recalls that the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the Charter are cumulative, such that if one requirement is not fulfilled then the Application becomes inadmissible.32 In the present case, since the Application has failed to fulfil the requirement under Article 56(6) of the Charter which is restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, the Court needs not assess the admissibility requirement set out in Article 56(7) restated in Rule 50(2)(g). C. Other admissibility requirements 75. Having found that the Application does not satisfy the requirement in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, the Court needs not rule on the Application’s compliance with the admissibility requirements set out in Article 56(1), (2), (3), (4), and (7) of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules, as these requirements are cumulative.33 76. In view of the foregoing, the Court declares the Application inadmissible. 31 Rajabu Yusuph v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2017, Ruling of 24 March 2021 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 69. 32 Dexter Eddie Johnson v. Republic of Ghana (jurisdiction and admissibility) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 99, § 57. 33 Jean Claude Roger Gombert v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (jurisdiction and admissibility) (22 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 270, § 61; Dexter Eddie Johnson v. Republic of Ghana, ACtHPR, Application No. 016/2017, Ruling of 28 March 2019 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 57. 21