292. The Respondent State submits that it has an indisputably effective judicial system, whereby any victim of alleged human rights violations, whether an individual or a legal entity, can be able to appeal against such violations, in accordance with international human rights standards. According to the Respondent State, this reality has been confirmed by countries reputed to be the most fervent defenders of human rights, following the example of Norway, in Norwegian Prosecuting Authority v. Bandora, and Canada, in Mugesera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, as well as by international courts, such as the ECHR in the case of Ahorugeze v. Sweden and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the matter of Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi. 293. According to the Respondent State, having decided to act on behalf of the alleged victims, the Applicant State had to prove that it had taken concrete steps to comply with the rule of exhaustion of local remedies before its courts, which it did not do in the instant case. * 294. In its Reply, the Applicant State submits that the objection should be dismissed. It argues that the diplomatic protection procedure is inapplicable in human rights cases dealt with by regional courts with special jurisdiction in the matter. 295. It adds that, in international law, diplomatic protection is part of the issue of the treatment of foreigners on the territory of a State of which they are not nationals. It notes that in the instant case, the Respondent State does not contest that the facts of the case took place on Congolese territory, which substantially deprives the situation of any possibility of considering, even theoretically, the issue of diplomatic protection. It follows that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies does not apply in the instant case. 66