A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 39. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies, insofar as the allegations raised in the Application have not been adjudicated at the national level. It asserts that the case concerning SBEE remains pending before domestic courts and that it cannot be faulted for its undue prolongation, while the case concerning OUIN OUROU Edouard has not been subjected to any proceedings. 40. The Respondent State further submits that, in addition to the ordinary courts, the Applicant could have seized its Constitutional Court since it has jurisdiction to hear allegations of human rights violations. * 41. The Applicant submits that this objection should be dismissed, arguing that the Cotonou Court of First Instance considered the SBEE case and handed down a judgment on 22 December 2017. Furthermore, that on 28 December 2017, he filed an appeal against the said judgment before the Cotonou Court of Appeal. However, as the copy of the judgment was not made available, the said court was unable to dispose of the appeal. The Applicant also asserts that he took all necessary steps to obtain the copy of the judgment but did not receive it until 22 October 2020, that is, three years after the judgment was handed down. 42. He insists that the undue delay was attributable to the Cotonou Court of First Instance and therefore to the Respondent State. In this regard, he points out that, in line with the jurisprudence of this Court, there is no need to exhaust local remedies where ‘the prolongation of the proceedings before the national courts was largely caused by the actions of the Respondent Sate, including its numerous absences during the judicial proceedings and failure to defend its case in a timely manner.” 12