43. Lastly, the Applicant maintains that the remedy before the Constitutional Court is neither effective nor satisfactory. *** 44. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court, applications must be filed after exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is clear that the proceedings in respect of those remedies are unduly prolonged.10 45. The Court emphasises that the local remedies to be exhausted are judicial remedies, which must be available, that is, they must be capable of being exercised by the Applicant without hindrance, and must be effective and satisfactory in the sense that “it offers prospects of success, is found satisfactory by the complainant or is capable of redressing the complaint”.11 46. The Court notes that the Applicant alleges violation of human rights in connection with the proceedings against SBEE, and those against Mr OUIN OUROU Edouard. The Court observes that as the two cases are not linked, it will examine their admissibility separately. i. The case against SBEE 47. The Court emphasises that it was called upon to rule on two issues: firstly, whether the appeal proceedings brought against the Judgment of 22 September 2017 were unduly prolonged such that the Applicant was not required to await the outcome thereof, and secondly, whether the Applicant was required to seize Respondent State’s Constitutional Court. Sébastien Germain Marie Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application 027/2020, Judgment of 2 December 2021 § 74; Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No 010/2018, Judgment of 25 September 2020, § 41. 11 Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema dit Ablassé, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilbouldo and the Mouvement burkinabè des droits de l'homme et des peuples v. Burkina Faso, Judgment (merits) (28 March 2014), 1 AfCLR 219, § 68; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (5 December 2014), 1 AfCLR 314, §108; idem, Sébastien Germain Marie Ajavon § 73. 10 13