40. Consequently, the Court finds that the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies is well-founded and holds that the Application does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. B. Other conditions of admissibility 41. Having concluded that the present Application does not satisfy the requirement of Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court, and having regard to the cumulative nature of the conditions of admissibility,12 the Court considers that it is superfluous to rule on the objection to admissibility based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time, and on the other conditions of admissibility. 42. Consequently, the Court declares the Application inadmissible. VII. ON THE REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES 43. The Court recalls that in his Application on the merits, the Applicant requested for provisional measures. The Court decided to consider the request together with the merits. 44. Having found that the Application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies, the Court holds that the request for provisional measures is moot. VIII. COSTS 45. The Parties did not submit any observations on costs. *** 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 (jurisdiction and admissibility) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 73, § 39. 13