41. The Court therefore holds that the Application does not meet the requirement under Rule 50(2)(e). 42. In light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the other arguments advanced by the Respondent State in support of its objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies, namely, referral to the Constitutional Court, filing a liability suit with the courts and the request for parole, pardon or amnesty. B. Other admissibility requirements 43. Having found that the Application does not comply with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, and given the cumulative nature of the admissibility requirements,11 the Court considers that it is superfluous to rule on the admissibility requirements under Article 56(1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules.12 44. Accordingly, the Court declares the Application inadmissible. VII. COSTS 45. Both Parties pray that costs be borne by the other Party. *** 46. The Court notes that under Rule 32(2) of the Rules, “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs, if any”. 11 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 v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 042/2015, Judgment of 28 March 2019 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 39. Goh Taudier and Others v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, ACtHPR, Consolidated Applications Nos. 17/2019, 018/2019 and 019/2019, Judgment (jurisdiction and admissibility), 4 June 2024. 12 Ibid. 10