o0u3t3.ffii 48.|n resolving the admissibility of this Application the court considers it apposite to make a distinction among the Applicants before pronouncing itself on this issue. on the one hand, all the Applicants are, primarily, alleging a violation of their rights to equality and non-discrimination by reason of the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy and, on the other hand, the First Applicant and the seventh Applicant, in addition to the claims made by everyone else, are also challenging the legality of their sentences for armed robbery. The court will proceed to deal with these allegations seriatim. 49.1n relation to the alleged violation of the Applicants rights by reason of the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy, the court notes that the Applicants do not dispute that the avenue offered by the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act was available to them whereby they could have challenged, before the High court, the alteged violation of their rights. lnstead, the Applicants contend that "it is so useress and senseless to refile an application to the high court of the respondent state" since "the tribunal/court is not independent, fair and just in adjudicating justice to the parties particularly to which refers to judicial system ...". 50.The court recalls that in Diakite coupte v Republic of Matiit held that "exhausting local remedies is an exigency of international law and not a matter of choice; that it lies with the Applicant to take all such steps as are necessary to exhaust or at least endeavour to exhaust local remedies; and that it is not enough for the Applicant to question the effectiveness of the state's local remedies on account of isolated incidents."a 51.|n this Application, the court finds that all the Appticants could have approached the High court to challenge the legality of the exercise of the presidential prerogative of mercy, the prisons Act, the parole Act a a Application No. 009/2016. Judgment of Z6tOSt2O17 (Jurisdiction and Ad missibility), Diakite Couple v Republic of Mali g 53. fuk "7t 16 ,1 ,4 i-/ .t