00031?'".. other laws which they perceive to be implicated in the discrimination that they allegedly suffered. lt was not open to the Appticants to offhandedly dismiss the remedies available within the Respondent State without attempting to activate them. 52. ln the circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicants failed to exhaust local remedies as stipulated under Article 56(5) of the Charter and as restated in Rule a0(5) of the Rules. 53.The Court recalls that admissibility requirements under the Charter and the Rules are cumulative such that where an Application fails to fulfilone of the requirements then it cannot be considered.5 ln the circumstances, therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the other admissibility requirements in so far as they relate to the allegation by all the Applicants that their rights were violated as a result of the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy. 54.|n light of the above, the Court finds that the Application, in so far as it relates to all the Applicants and their allegation of a violation of their rights due to the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy, is inadmissible for failure to fulfil the requirement under Article 56(5) of the Charter which is restated in Rule 40(5) of the Rules. 55. The above notwithstanding, the Court recalls that the First Applicant and the Seventh Applicant made an additional altegation which is distinct from the allegations made by all the Applicants jointly and this pertains to the legality of their sentence for armed robbery. ln this connection the Court notes, firstly, that the legality of their sentence for robbery implicates their right to fair trial. h"'YN 5 Application No. 016/2017. Ruling of 28 March 2019, (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), Dexter Johnson v Ghana 5 57. 17 .(/1 \-h,^-E t,.,t +rl /4D <----