296. The Applicant State cites the United Nations International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, which states that “[t]he individual has rights under international law but remedies are few. Diplomatic protection exercised by a State at the inter-State level remains an important remedy for the protection of persons whose human rights have been violated abroad”. 297. The Applicant State also indicated that the Commission did not consider Communication 227/99 - DRC v. Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda brought before it from the point of view of diplomatic protection, given the nature of human rights litigation. 298. According to the Applicant State, a state can only exercise diplomatic protection when it has established a direct link of nationality with the individual benefiting from such protection. However, in regional human rights protection systems, it is not necessary to prove the nationality of the individual whose rights are being defended. 299. In the same vein, the Applicant State adds that diplomatic protection has always been considered as a procedure that the State exercises for itself, which justifies its right to bring or not to bring an action, its status as a litigant and that of indirect victim. It is also submitted that in the African human rights protection system, however, the status of victim, even indirectly, is not required of an applicant, as the Court recalled in its judgment of 4 December 2020 in the matter of Sébastien Germain Marie Aïkoué Ajavon v. Republic of Benin. 300. At the hearing, the Applicant State reiterated the content of its submissions. It argued, moreover, that it does not seek to exercise diplomatic protection in the present proceedings. It added that, in any event, the nature and gravity of the alleged violations makes the rule of exhaustion of local remedies inapplicable. 67