b. The remedy before the Constitutional Court 58. The Court emphasises that it has consistently held that remedy before the Constitutional Court of the Respondent State is an available, effective and satisfactory remedy.14 59. The Court therefore considers that despite the fact that the Applicant could have brought a case before the Constitutional Court for violation of human rights, nothing in the record demonstrates that the facts and violations alleged by the Applicant were brought before the said Court. 60. Consequently, the Court upholds the Respondent State's objection to the admissibility of the Application, and holds that local remedies were not exhausted with regard to the alleged violations in the case against SBEE. ii. The case against Mr Edouard A. OUIN-OUROU 61. The Court recalls the Applicant’s allegation that Mr Edouard A. OUINOUROU, an official of the Respondent State, owed him the sum of Ten Million (10,000,000) CFA Francs. For its part, the Respondent State asserts that the Applicant did not initiate any proceedings in this case. 62. The Court notes that the Applicant does not show that he pursued judicial remedies in connection with the present case, nor does he give any reasons why he did not do so. 63. The Court therefore finds that the allegations of human rights violation in the present case are inadmissible. Landry Angelo Adelakoun et al v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 012/2021, Judgment of 4 December 2023, § 36; Laurent Metongnon et al v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 031/2018, Judgment of 24 March 2022, § 63; Conaïde Togla Latondji Akouedenoudje v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 024/2020, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), § 39. 14 16