ended at the level of the court of Kayes with judgment No. 015 of 24 January 2013. The said workers did not appeal that decision. The Respondent State submits that, the fact that the Applicants waived the judicial remedy of appeal and subsequent challenge at the Cassation Court, cannot be blamed on it acting through its public services. The Respondent State thus contends that the Application is not admissible and should be dismissed. 45. The Respondent State further submits that the case filed on 25 March 2014 by FENAME seeking confirmation of Arbitration Award No. 001/CA of 7 January 2013 issued by the Arbitration Council and contested by L.T.A. Mali S.A., on which the Labour Court of Bamako ruled in its Judgment No. 154 of 2 June 2014, did not reach the highest court in terms of civil proceedings. It submits that this is because the Applicants, who lost the case, did not pursue the remedies available to them under the Code of Civil Procedure of Mali. The Respondent State avers that it was in their interest to pursue their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Mali to obtain satisfaction. It avers that having failed to pursue the remedy before the Supreme Court, the Applicants cannot hold the Respondent State accountable for violating their right to justice. 46. The Respondent state further explains that the group of L.T.A. Mali S.A. workers comprising Mamadou DABO and twenty-five (25) others filed a suit before the Bamako Commune II district Civil Court on 1 November 2016 seeking payment of their claims. The said suit was decided by Judgment No. 45 of 5 April 2017 by which the said court declined jurisdiction and the Applicants did not pursue their case any further. 47. The Respondent state avers that on 9 February 2018, the Applicants appealed the Labour Court’s Judgment No. 09 of 22 January 2018 before the Bamako Appeal Court, that is, after filing their Application before this Court on 21 August 2017. The Application is therefore inadmissible for failure to exhaust local remedies. 11