005064 one harmonious judgement for all the persons connected with the 26th April, 2006 CAN 2008 Stadia Agreements and other related matters to know their positions and bring everything to closure.” 67. It should also be noted that the Respondent State did not provide proof of decisions showing that the High Court has considered claims of violations of human rights committed by the Supreme Court, as is alleged in the instant case. 68. The Court is therefore of the view that pursuing such a claim at the High Court would not have been capable of addressing the Applicant's grievances and would have therefore been an ineffective remedy. The Court finds that although local remedies were available they would not have been effective to address the Applicant's grievances. 69. Regarding the claim that the execution proceedings relating to the judgment debt of Ghana Cedis Fifty-One Million, Two Hundred and Ejighty-Three, Four Hundred and Eighty and Fifty-Nine Pesewas (GHC 51, 283, 480.59) was pending before domestic courts when this Application was filed, the Court notes that, the basis of the Applicant’s claim before it is the decision of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court which was delivered on 29 July 2014. The execution proceedings are immaterial to the Court's determination of whether or not the Applicant exhausted local remedies. 10. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent State’s objection that the Applicant failed to exhaust local remedies has no merit and is dismissed. ii. Objection on the ground that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time ‘1 _The Respondent State contends that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies and is therefore not compliant with Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules.