000916 42. The Applicant also avers that, in any event, applying to the Minister of Home Affairs should be considered an extraordinary remedy, which he had attempted to exhaust nonetheless. 43' The Court considers that, as it has held in the matter of Loh6 lssa Konatl v. Burkina Faso, the requirement set out in Article 56(5) of the Charter is to exhaust remedies that exist but also are available.l ln the same case, this court has further held that "a remedy can be considered to be available or accessible when it may be used by the Applicant without impediment".2 As such, remedies to be exhausted within the meaning of Articte s6(5) of the charter and Rute 40(5) of the Rules must be available not only in law but also be made available to the applicant.3 Where a remedy exists but is not accessible to the applicant, the said remedy will be considered as exhausted.a 44. ln the instant matter, the Parties concur that the appropriate remedy was to file a request with the Minister of Home Affairs for a waiver of the Notice of prohibited lmmigrant. However, as this Court has held in the case of Alex Thomas v. tJnited Republic of ranzania, an applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary and judicial remedies within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the Charter.s The request to the Minister of Home Affairs does not qualify as such a remedy. 45. The Court considers that, in the circumstances of this case, the actual remedy was to appeal against the judgment rendered by the High court on 2 January I See Application No. 004/2013. Judgment of 05t1212014 (Merits), Loh6 /ssa Konat' v. Burona Faso (hereinafter referred to as'Lohd /ssa Konat$ v. Burkina Faso (Merits)), g 77. 2 Loh6 lssa Konatd v. Burkina Faso (Merits), g 96. 3 see Application No. 002/201 3. Judgment of 03/06/2016, Afican commission on Human and Peoples' Rig hts (Sait Al-lslam Gaddafi) v. Libya (Merits), g 69 4S ee Application No. 006/2016. Judgment of 07/1212018 (Merits ), Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania, g 41. See also Geneyldye Mbiankeu v. Cameroon (hereinafter referred to as "Genevieve Mbiankeu v. Cameroon") Communication 3g9/10 (ACHPR 2015), 48,72,82 Articte 19 S v. Eritrea Communication 275t03 (2007) AHRLR 73 (ACHPR 2007), S 48: Anuak Justice Councit v Ethiopia Communication 299/05 (2006) AHRLR 97 (ACHpR 2006); and Dawda Jawara v. Gambia Commun ication 147195-149/96 (2000) RADH 107 (2000), S 31 s See Ap plication No. 005/2013. Judgment of 20111t201s (Merits), Alex Thomas v. united Republic of Tanzani a (hereinafter referred to as "Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merils )), S 64 See also, Application No. 007 /2013. Judgment of 03/06/2016 (Merits), Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzan (hereinafter referred to as " Abubakari v. Tanzania (Merits)'), s64 t2 { (, $.*-q .. L. k; e.