12. Firstly, it should be noted that the Court raised this issue proprio motu without the Respondent State raising a preliminary objection in that respect. On the contrary, before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, according to the latter, the Respondent State had earlier declared that “it does not dispute that the complainant exhausted all available local remedies and that as a matter of fact his claims before Malawi Courts were duly entertained,,,"5, The Commission itself concluded the consideration of the issue of exhaustion of local remedies in this matter, in the following terms: from the Respondent Complainant State, by of local remedies the exhaustion regarding is no contention there “Thus, 56(5) has In this regard, Article the been duly complied with”. 13. Without doubt, the Court has the power and even the duty, under Rule 39 of its Rules, Respondent to consider State the admissibility did not raise any of an preliminary application objection even if the to that effect. But when the Respondent State itself -which is supposed to have a good knowledge of the remedies available in its judicial system and which has an interest in challenging the admissibility of the application- admits that the local remedies had been exhausted, after examining the when the Commission circumtances arrives surrounding the at the same matter, the have very convincing reasons to go against this common conclusion Court must position, and decide that local remedies had not been exhausted. 14. In the judgment of the Court, such convincing reasons are missing. Here is an Applicant who seized with the same matter the High Court on three occasions (once sitting as a constitutional Court), the Supreme Court of Appeal on three occasions, as well as the Industrial Relations Court, and the conclusion is that he has not exhausted local remedies because he could have N bp 8 Communication Commission, oa 357/ 2008 — Urban Mkandawire v. Republic of Malawi, Decision of the paragraph 102, » G @ a