276. The Court, therefore, finds that the Application is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. 277. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. iii. Objection alleging non-exhaustion of local remedies 278. The Respondent State argues that Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules reflects the traditional requirement of exhausting local remedies in international law. 279. In the instant Application, thit alleges that the Applicant State exhausted neither the local remedies available under the rules of diplomatic protection(a), nor the existing international and regional remedies (b). The Court will examine each of the two limbs of the objection. a. On the alleged non-exhaustion of local remedies available under the rules of diplomatic protection 280. Referencing the ECHR’s judgment in Ukraine v. Russia (Crimea), the Respondent State submits that there is a distinction between “genuine” inter-State cases and cases in which “the Applicant State does no more than denounce a violation or violations allegedly suffered by individuals whose place, as it where, is taken by the State”. 281. The Respondent State argues that the present Application falls into the second category since it relates to “diplomatic protection, where the rights allegedly violated are those of peoples and individuals, and even though none of these persons have been sufficiently identified, which deprives it of its right to examine their grievances on the merits”. 282. The Respondent State maintains that it is incumbent on the Applicant State, acting on behalf of alleged individual victims, to exhaust or attempt to exhaust local remedies or to demonstrate that it is impossible for it to do so. It argues, in line with the Commission’s position in Communication Legal 63