Applicants could then approach the Federal Supreme Court, which has a power of cassation over any final decision by the Regional or Federal Courts containing basic error of law. 66. The Complainant in response to the Respondent State‟s submission on exhaustion of local remedies argues that the remedies which the Respondent State argues that they should have pursued fail to meet the standard for an effective remedy in international and regional human rights law. The Complainant argues that international and regional human rights law requires that for a domestic remedy to be exhausted, it must be available, effective and sufficient. This means that the particular remedy must not only be available in theory but also in practice and must have a reasonable prospect of success18. 67. The Complainant submits that the Applicants case would not have been considered by the superior Regional or Federal Courts because it is clear on settled legal opinion in the case of Ato Bekele Welde Michael & 25 Ors v The State that the Supreme Court‟s Cassation Bench and the Cassation Bench of the Federal Supreme Court can only use their cassation powers to consider cases in which there have been an error on points of law made by lower Courts, that the procedures in those Courts would not address the substance of their matter and thus the violations they have suffered. Therefore the filing of an appeal would not have achieved anything more and would simply have unduly prolonged an already protracted process. 68. The African Commission is of the view that the Complainant‟s argument that approaching the Regional Supreme Court would not have achieved any success because based on settled legal opinion in Ato Bekele Welde Michael & 25 Ors v 18 Collins v Jamaica Communication UN Human Rights Committee, No. 356/1989, para 7.1. 21