000394 25. The Respondent State also states that the Applicants seized the State Prosecutor, whereas the competent authority in such matters is the Labour Court which deals with all issues relating to disputes between employers and employees. 26.The Respondent State reiterates that the Office of the Prosecutor General lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Respondent State further alleges that the complainants in the said criminal matter are different from the group of former workers that are before this Court. 27. ln their Application, the Applicants aver that they sought administrative and political solutions to the matter which yielded no resulls, and that accordingly, on 1 February 2012,lhey filed a complaint before the Prosecutor of Commune lll Court of First lnstance, Bamako District. They allege that "[P]recisely a little over a year after the complaint, on 17 May 2013, they addressed a letter to the Attorney General at the Bamako Court of Appeal, giving an overview of the case and enclosing the various correspondence and measures realized ... ". 28.The Applicants argue that even though local remedies are available in the Respondent State to dealwith the situation, the said remedies'... were in practice inaccessible, inefficient and insufficient". Citing the jurisprudence of other courts, they argue that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies can be valid only if the remedies are effective, and the requisite timeframes are not unduly prolonged.3 29.1n their Reply, the Applicants refute the Respondent State's argument that they ought to have filed a civil suit before the investigating judge, contending that the 3Askoyv.Turkey,ApplicationNo.2lgSTl93.ECHR(1812/1996),citedinDonnaSulivan, Pr€sentationde la rdgle sur l'apuisement des voies de recours internes en vertu du Protocole facultatil a b CEDAW (Overview of the Rule Requiing the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies under the Optional Protocol to CEDAW, (2008) 4. See also ZT v. Nomay, Application No. 2238/2003, Comm. against T rture (2006), $ 8.1; Rosendo Radilla Pacheco v. Application No. 777101, lnter-American Commission Human Rights (12t10t200s), s.20 e- I \t-.2 V[.r^-{