000339 i) Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 38.The Respondent State contends that the Applicants have appealed before its High Court and Court of Appeal and both courts upheld their conviction and the request for review of their conviction at the Court of Appeal was struck out for being filed out of the time. The Respondent State submits that the time to apply for review before the Court of Appeal is an ordinary procedure and may be extended for a good cause and the Applicants, rather than filing the Application before this Court, could have sought and may still seek an extension of time and file their request for review. Accordingly, the Respondent State argues that the Application fails to meet the admissibility requirement specified under Rule 40 (5) of the Rules on a exhaustion of local remedies. 39. On their part, the Applicants contend that the violations of their rights were occasioned by the highest court of the Respondent State through its judgments; thus, the domestic procedures on their application are completed. They add that the records of the Court of Appeal on applications for review show that it does not often grant leave for review. The Applicants therefore submit that they have no other alternative avenues to seek the correction of the wrong done by the Respondent State, and hence, they have exhausted all local remedies. *** o 40.The Court notes that any application filed before it shall meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and this requirement may only be dispensed with if the said remedies are unavailable, ineffective, insufficient, or the domestic procedures to pursue them are unduly prolonged.6 ln its established jurisprudence, the Court has consistently stressed that in order for this admissibility requirement Application. No 004/2013. Judgment,05l1212014, Lohe lssa Konat6 v. Burkina Faso, (hereinafterreferred to as Loh6 lssa Konatd v. Burkina Faso Judgment) $ 77; See also Peter Chacha v Tanzania Ruling, $ 40. 6 13 s