against the decision of the Arbitration Council before the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court for abuse of authority, violation of the law or violation of procedural rules. This article also spelt out the cases where arbitral awards can be annulled. The Law was published in the Official Gazette of the Respondent State on the same date, that is, before the instant Application was filed by the Applicants on 25 September 2017. 63. The Court notes that the Applicants filed their Application before this Court on 25 September 2017, that is, after the new law came into force. It follows that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies. 64. The Court, therefore, finds that the Application does not meet the admissibility requirement under Rule 50(2) of the Rules and Article 56(5) of the Charter. Accordingly, it upholds the Respondent State’s objection and consequently declares the Application inadmissible. B. Other Admissibility requirements 65. Having found that the Application does not meet the requirement of Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, and since the admissibility requirements are cumulative, 12 the Court needs not rule on whether the Application is compatible with other admissibility requirements under Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules.13 is annulled, the Supreme Court shall, within 15 days following the second annulment decision, issue an award with the same powers as an arbitrator, which may not be appealed. 12 Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté v. Republic of Mali (Jurisdiction and admissibility) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 237, § 63; Rutabingwa Chrysanthe v. Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction and admissibility) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 361, § 48; Collectif des anciens travailleurs ALS v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 042/2015, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (Jurisdiction and admissibility), § 39. 13 Ibid. 16