Court points out that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is assessed as at the date on which the Application is lodged with it.16 Consequently, an applicant cannot rely on circumstances arising after that date as a valid justification for dispensing with the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. 38. In this regard, the Court notes that one Conaïde Akouedjenoudje seized the Constitutional Court on 16 August 2019, which court rendered its decision on 18 June 2020. As this decision, invoked by the Applicant in support of his arguments came after the filing of the present Application on 6 August 2019, the Applicant cannot rely on it to justify his failure to exhaust local remedies in the present case. Accordingly, the Court also dismisses this contention. 39. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Applicant’s arguments lack merit, and that he should have exhausted local remedies before seizing it. 40. Accordingly, the Court upholds the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies and considers that the Application fails to comply with the requirement of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. B. Other admissibility requirements 41. Having found that the Application does not satisfy Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, and since the admissibility requirements are cumulative,17 the Court does not need to rule on the other admissibility requirements.18 42. Consequently, the Court holds that the Application is inadmissible. 16 Sébastien Germain Marie Aikoue v. Republic of Benin (jurisdiction and admissibility) (2 December 2021) 5 AfCLR 623, § 79. 17 Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabaté Republic of Mali (jurisdiction and admissibility) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 237, § 63; Rutabingwa Chrysanthe Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction and admissibility) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 361, § 48; Collectif des anciens travailleurs ALS Republic of Mali, AfCHPR, Application No 042/2015, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 39. 18 Ibid. 12