36. In the instant case, it affirms that it could not be held responsible for any human rights violation since the Applicant has failed to avail herself of the available domestic judicial mechanisms to establish and redress the violations she alleges. 37. Accordingly, the Respondent State prays the Court to declare the Application inadmissible. 38. For her part, the Applicant submits that she did not pursue local remedies because, firstly, they were inaccessible due to the threats and intimidation to which the victims’ relatives were subjected and, secondly, because they were ineffective insofar as the Respondent State did not open any investigation into the circumstances that led to her father’s death. She argues that neither victims nor their families can be expected to take responsibility for the exhaustion of local remedies since it is the duty of the State to investigate crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. *** 39. The Court notes that, pursuant to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and Article 56(5) of the Charter, for an application to be admissible, local remedies must have been exhausted if they are available, unless it is clear that the procedure has been unduly prolonged.7 40. The Court emphasises that the local remedies to be exhausted are judicial in nature. They must be available, that is, they must be accessible to the Applicant without impediment, and effective in the sense that they are “found satisfactory by the complainant or are capable of redressing the complaint”.8 7 Ghaby Kodeih and Nabih Kodeih v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 008/2020, Judgment of 23 June 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 49; Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 032/2020, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 38. 8 The beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Aboulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo and Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabé des droits de l’homme et des peuples v. Burkina Faso, Judgment (merits) (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 68; Ibid. Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) §108. 11