000314 ?ii , . applied for review of their original cases though they lodged appeals at the Court Appeal which were dismissed 43.The Applicants assert that convicts serving rong term ."n,ir""a.*r,o exhaust all local remedies in their original cases have no other available domestic remedy and that the onry opportunity to address their grievances is found under Article 45 of the constitution Respondent state which refers to the prerogative of the of mercy by the President of the Respondent State. 44.The Applicants also submit that it is useless forthem to utilise the avenue provided by the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, since the Respondent state's courts are not independent, fair and just in adjudicating matters that involve the judicial system itself. 45.|n their Reply, the Applicants further submit that all of them except the second Applicant appeared to the court of Appear against their convictions but their appeals were dismissed. They further contend that there is no other judicial avenue, in the Respondent state, for pursuing a remedy after the Court of Appeal. 46. The court notes that the crux of the Respondent state,s objection is that the Applicants should have first filed a constitutional petition challenging, among other things, the constitutionality of the prisons Act and the parole Act. 47 .rhe court also notes that the gravamen of the Applicants, case revolves around the manner in which Respondent state has impremented the presidential prerogative of mercy. All the other violations alleged by the Applicants have, in one way or the other, been linked to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy 15 i I L)/. t\ I