cr~ ~ACHPR ·~ (.)1J African Comm1ss1on on Hurnan Rights our Human and Peoples' Rights co 11 ect1ve • Respons1·b·1 · _ 11ty effective , because they offer a prospect of success; and sufficient, because it is cnnn~ capable of fully redressing the alleged violations.33 58 . The Complainant argues that he exhausted all available local remedies because he utilised the legal system up to the apex court, that is, the Constitutional Court. 59 . On the other hand, the Respondent State submits that while the Complainant filed a case in the Constitutional Court, the matter was dismissed on a technicality. Thus , the Complainant still had the opportunity to file an application on the normal roll from the High Court and appeal , if the outcome was undesirable , up to the Constitutional Court. 60 . The Respondent State further submits that according to the domestic legal system of the Republic of South Africa , it is trite law that when a case is struck off the roll , it is unappealable per the Thembane Cleaning Services judgment referenced above.34 Therefore, the procedure to approach the Constitutional Court of South Africa was misplaced and premature. 61 . In this Communication , the Commission concurs with the Respondent State's assertions and notes that after the urgent application was struck off the roll , the Complainant did not take the necessary steps to file the application on the normal court roll and allow the necessary court processes to unfold. This would have allowed for the matter to be adjudicated on the merits, which, if dismissed, could have been appealed against at the Supreme Court of Appeal. However, the Complainant did not do so . 33 As above, para. 32. 34 Paragraphs 40 and 41 of these submissions.