,r ~~\ ACHPR l~i )J 1 n Com mission on "'· x-:, Africa Human and Peoples' Rinhts Human Rig hts our Coll ect ive Respon sibility 33. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Communication complies with Article 56(7) of the Charter as there was never settlement of issues by parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or any legal instrument of the African Union. 18 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT ON ADMISSIBILITY 34. The Respondent State submits that the Communication is inadmissible, and they primarily focus on the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56(5). 35. The Respondent State observes that the Complainant's position that simply litigating to the Constitutional Court is sufficient as it is the apeX'-<::ourt, they submit that the Complainant still had available domestic remedies that she ought to have exhausted prior to approaching the Commission. 19 36. It is submitted by the Respondent State that the order of the Limpopo High Court to strike off the Complainant's case for lack of urgency was not final as the matter was not adjudicated on the Merits. 20 37. To these ends, the Respondent State propounds that the Complpinant could have set down the matter again on the normal roll in accordance with the rules of procedure prevailing in the Respondent State·21 38. The Respondent State avers that the Complainant also has a remedy at her disposal at the Labor Court, in which by urgent or normal roll she may seek an order against the Limpopo Health Department to cease the deductions under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, No. 75 of 1997. 22 It is submitted in this regard that there is precedent in the Labour Court of the Respondent State reiterating its jurisdiction over salary deduction disputes under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. 23 39. It is also the submission of the Respondent State that the Complainant may still approach the Bargaining Council and lodge an Unfair Labour Practice Oispute· 24 40.According to the Respondent State, this was the position of Judge Snyman in para 51 of the Labour Court's judgment against the Complainant's Application. 25 41 . In light of the foregoing, the Respondent State submits that the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies and the Respondent State's legal order is b1~, Qt-I !1f!4~:lQCI to • H M-4,v provide redress to the Complainant, should those fail then . " : gaay- 4-f>M) international remedies. 26 /' /§ I :; \ l2 ,/~ . g JI : 'l'J \;.:= ./ ~\ w :,J a C) ' I 18 Complainant's Observations, para 23 • ' ;_ i AU-UA §,~' 19 Respondent State's Reply on Admissibility and Merits, para 20-23 (Hereinafter referr d t&aj e "0Q:' Respondent State's Reply) <;, >It"l•·R,cA1N~ 0 1c, R"""" • 041 ~\) 20 Respondent Sta te's Reply, para 25-26 • ' ·-...l'vlf ET oES \> . / 21 Respondent State's Reply, para 27-30 ......____ _ 22 Respondent State's Reply, para 35 23 Respondent State's Reply, para 36-38 24 Respondent State's Reply, para 39 25 Respondent State's Reply, para 39 26 Respondent State's Reply, para 17-23 SI Page T he African Commi ssion on Hum an an d Peopl es' Rights 31 Bijilo Ann ex Layout. Kombo North Di strict, West Coast Region Gambia Phone : (220) 230 436 1 Fax: (220) 44 1 05 04 Em ail : f!Ji-bg_lJjul@africa-union.org httos :/ar.hor. au.int/0 0 a 1 •