51. With regard to the remedy of a plea of unconstitutionality of the law in question, if it does exist, it is clear that the Complainant cannot use it. Not being a land owner in the rural real estate domain, the Complainant is indeed hardly likely to be a party to an eventual suit linked to the implementation of the law being challenged. 52. As a legal entity, the Complainant is well placed to question a legal provision of a State Party to the African Charter which is said to violate the said Charter without prejudice to the facility reserved to third parties to institute proceedings against the provision in question before the national courts. th 53. Now, under the terms of Article 19 of the Law No. 2001-303 of the 5 June 2004 determining the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Council the proceedings for a plea of unconstitutionality take place during a hearing. Therefore it logically follows that the recourse to a plea of unconstitutionality is not available to the Complainant. 54. The African Commission accepts that remedies against the law in question exist locally but also notes that the Complainant cannot use them as it does have the qualification/possibility to do so. Whereas the African Commission feels that the assessment of the capacity to use and exhaust local remedies is done in relation to the Complainant and to him alone. 55. In this context it is important to recall the jurisprudence of the African Commission pertaining to the condition of exhaustion of local remedies. In effect, the African Commission considers that local remedies should be available (for the Complainant), effective and sufficient. Thus, the African Commission considers that a local remedy is available if the plaintiff can institute a lawsuit without any obstacle; the remedy is effective if it offers the plaintiff a prospect of success and if this remedy is 3 sufficient and capable of rectifying the alleged violation . 56. Since in this particular case it appears clearly that the Complainant does not have the qualification/possibility to use the available local remedies, the African Commission considers that it is as if there is no local remedy available for the Complainant. For these reasons, the African Commission declares the communication admissible. Merits 57. The Respondent Party, in its arguments on the merits, challenges the MIDH’s assertion that the law on rural land ownership is one of the major reasons for the civil war which is tearing Côte d’Ivoire apart. 58. The Respondent Party considers this assertion as serious and inaccurate. Serious because it insinuates that it is the foreigners, the only ones concerned by Article 26 of the Law being questioned, who have taken up arms against the State of Côte d’Ivoire. Inaccurate because this is not the cause being invoked by those who have taken up arms, and that besides,“112 persons are concerned by the effects of Article 26 out of which 40 are companies and 112 [sic] are physical persons”. The Respondent Party notes that the communications from the Complainant are only stories of the undertaking, preparation and justification of violence. 59. After its preliminary observations on what it calls the “real reasons” of the Complainant, the Respondent Party was particularly anxious to send a copy of the Official Gazette of the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire containing the promulgation decree signed by the President of the Republic, of the th new Law No. 2004-412 of the 14 August 2004 amending Article 26 of the Law No. 98-750 of rd 23 December 1998 relating to rural land ownership to the African Commission. 60. On the basis of this new Law No. 2004-412 which modifies the provisions of Article 26 of the former Law No. 98-750 on which the Complainant has based its communication, the Ivorian Government requests the African Commission to declare the communication 262/2002 of the MIDH as groundless and to close this case by applying the principle of topicality which requires that all administrative or legal bodies assess the facts of the case in the condition in which they are on the day of ruling. 61. The Complainant considers it needless to submit fresh arguments since on the one hand the admissibility of the communication has not been questioned, and on the other, because the Law No. nd 98-750 of 2 December 1998, identified as being in violation of the provisions of Articles 2 and 14 of