-----------------------------~-------- A) Conditions that are not in contention 29. The Court notes that the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules are not in contention between the Parties. 30. The Court further notes that nothing in the records submitted to it by the Parties suggests that any of the said conditions would not be fulfilled in the instant case. 31. Consequently, it finds that the afore-mentioned conditions have been met in the instant case. B) The objection to admissibility on the ground of failure to exhaust the local remedies 32. The Respondent submits that it was premature on the part of the Applicants to have brought the instant case before this Court given that there were still local remedies available to them. 33.According to the Respondent, the Applicants, by virtue of Article 62 of Law No. 01-080 of 20 August 2001 on the Code of Criminal Procedure of Mali, could have instituted civil action before the investigating judge. It maintains that this procedure does not even require, as a precondition, discontinuation of a case by the State Attorney. 34. The Respondent maintains allegations, there has been that, contrary to the Applicants' no inaction on the part of the Public Prosecutor's Office or an attempt by the Police to stifle the complaint; that the Applicants had it in their imagination that Mr. Oumar Mare apprehended two weeks after the burglary and interrogated on another robbery committed in the home of their neighbour, was the author of the robbery of which they are victims, whereas the two cases are distinct and h ve no proven link be ,. een them.