according to which the condition set out in Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules in their respective paragraph 5 on exhaustion of local remedies “reinforces and maintains the primacy of the domestic system in the protection of human rights vis-a-vis the Court". As such, the Commission aims at providing States the opportunity of addressing the human rights violations committed in their territories before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the States’ responsibility in such violations. 4. It is however apparent from the judgment under reference in this Separate Opinion that the Court appropriated the theory of “bundle of rights" to dispose of certain requirements of the obligation to exhaust local remedies. 5. Yet, the tenets of this theory show that it was created and used in matters of property rights, because often among economists, such rights were the same as private property rights. The demonstration that flows from the theory has, above all, caused common ownership to evolve by highlighting the dismemberments of property, and hence its application in matters of the rights of indigenous peoples. 6. It emerges from the Respondent State’s objections that the latter criticizes the Applicants for having failed to present certain claims before the domestic court prior to bringing the same to this Court for the first time, thereby disregarding the 7. requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. allegations that the thirty (30) years unconstitutional and inappropriate, and assistance. sentence that they In Court response to these allegations, the This is also true for their imposed on them were not afforded upheld its jurisprudence was legal on constitutionality petition?, held that the local remedies concerned only ordinary remedies, and that in the present case, the Applicants had exhausted the said remedies. 8. The Court further stated that legal assistance is a fundamental right of the Applicants prosecuted for a crime and liable to be sentenced to a heavy penalty and, therefore, that the Court of Appeal should have discussed the issue even though the Applicant had not raised it®. ? Paragraph 35 of the Judgment 3 Paragraph 37 of the Judgment