g. Do not deal with cases which have been settled in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 20. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises two objections to the admissibility of the Application. The first objection is based on nonexhaustion of local remedies, and the second, on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. The Court will consider these objections before examining other admissibility requirements, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 21. The Respondent State submits that the Application is inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies, arguing that it was not afforded the opportunity to remedy the alleged violations insofar as those violations were never brought before its domestic courts. 22. It further submits that the Applicant did not exercise the appropriate remedies and therefore could not validly bring the matter before this Court. 23. For his part, the Applicant prays that the objection be dismissed. He contends that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies is not absolute and must be interpreted with flexibility. 24. The Applicant further submits that he appealed the judgment of the Abidjan Court of First Instance but, “for reasons beyond his control”, did not appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Abidjan before the Cour de Cassation. However, the Applicant avers that he was unaware of the existence of this remedy as he was not assisted by counsel and that, in any case, an appeal to the Cour de Cassation “would not be successful under the current legal and judicial system of the State in question”. *** 7