27. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on failure to exhaust local remedies. The Court will rule on this objection before examining the other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection to admissibility based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 28. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies and therefore seized the Court prematurely. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant, who filed the present Application while his cassation appeal was pending, does not demonstrate that the procedure in respect of the said remedy was unduly prolonged. 29. The Respondent State submits that, by this premature referral to the Court, the Applicant does not give the Respondent State the opportunity to remedy the alleged violation. It further contends that the Applicant should have awaited the outcome of his cassation appeal before seizing this Court. 30. The Respondent State concludes that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies and, consequently, submits that the Application be declared inadmissible. 31. The Applicant did not submit on this point. *** 32. The Court recalls that under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, for an application to be admissible, local remedies must have been exhausted, unless the said remedies are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the procedure relating thereto is unduly prolonged. The requirement of exhaustion of local remedies aims to give States the opportunity to address human rights violations within their jurisdiction before an 10