21. The Respondent State submits that the Complainants have failed to exhaust available local remedies. According to them, there were multiple domestic remedies open to the Complainants following the decision of the Kenyan Court of Appeal. They could, the State maintains, file an Application for Review before the same court if they were not satisfied with the Court’s decision. To support this position, the Respondent State cites the case of Mahinda-v-Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd1 and Musiara-v- Ntimama2 wherein the Kenyan Court of Appeal declared itself competent to re-open an appeal that it had already determined in order to among other things, avoid real injustice in exceptional circumstances. 22. The Respondent State further argues that other than making an Application for Review in the Court of Appeal, the Victim could apply for enforcement of her rights under Section 84 (1) of the Kenyan Constitution to the High Court of Kenya which has original jurisdiction to enforce the aforementioned Section of the Constitution. 23. The Respondent State also contends that the Complainants failed to exhaust available quasi-judicial remedies by not bringing their case before the Public Complaints Standing Committee or the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights; an independent human rights institution established by an Act of Parliament in accordance with the Paris Principles with a wide jurisdiction to hear matters such as the one brought by the Complainants before the African Commission. 24. The Respondent State finally submits that as per the principles of public international law, the interpretation of laws by national courts is binding 1 2 (2005) 2 EA 102 (CAK) (2005) 1 EA 317 (CAK) 5