000{tb implemented then the matter has not been settled in line with Article 56(7) of the Charter. 55. The Court wishes to reiterate the fact that the rationale behind the rule in Article 56(7) of the Charter is to prevent States from being asked to account more than once in respect of the same alleged violations of human rights. ln the words of the African Commission: "This is called the non bis in idem rule (also known as the Principle or Prohibition of Double Jeopardy, deriving from criminal law) and ensures that, in this context, no state may be sued or condemned [more than once] for the same alleged violation of human rights. ln effect, this principle is tied up with the recognition of the fundamental res judicata status of judgments issued by international and regionaltribunals and/or institutions such as the African Commission. (Res judicata is the principle that a final judgment of a competent courU tribunal is conclusive upon the parties in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.)"16 56. ln conclusion, the Court finds that the present Application does not fulfil the admissibility requirement under Article 56(7) of the Charter, which is also reflected in Rule 4O(7) ol the Rules. 57. The Court recalls that the conditions of admissibility under Article 56 of the Charter are cumulative and as such, when one of them is not met, then the entire Application cannot be considered.lT ln the instant case, since the Application does not meet the requirement set forth in Article 56(7) of the Charter the Court, therefore, finds the Application inadmissible. t6 ACHPR Communication 260102 Bakwei Land Claims v Cameroon, g 52. 17See, ACHPR, Communication 277120Q3, Spilg and others v. Botswana, S 96 and ACHPR, Communication 334106 Egyptian lnitiative for Personal Rights and lnterights v Egypt, $ 80. -? 17