whether to prepare and file his Application.28 Moreover, it emerges from the Court’s jurisprudence that in circumstances where the time-limit in question is relatively short, it must be deemed to be manifestly reasonable.29 79. In view of the circumstances of the case, the Court holds that the period of one (1) year and ten (10) months taken by the Applicant to seize the Court is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 80. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this point. 81. The Court also recalls that the admissibility requirements of an application are cumulative, so that if one of them is not met, the entire application is inadmissible.30 82. The Court considers that, having found that local remedies were not exhausted in connection with the dismissal proceedings, the Central Commissioner of the City of Cotonou, the Director General of National Police and the Minister of the Interior, as well as the proceedings relating to the attempted murder of his father, there is no need for it to rule on the other admissibility requirements in respect of those proceedings, with the exception of the proceedings against the lawyers. 28 Igola Iguna v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 020/2017 Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and reparations), § 35; and Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections), supra, § 122. 29 Jackson Godwin v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 037/2016, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (merits and reparations), § 48; Niyonzima Augustine v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 058/2016, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), §§ 56 to 58. 30 Aminata Soumaré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 038/2019, Judgment of 5 September 2023 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 47; Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 002/2019, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 49; 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. 22