The Applicants contend that they were time-barred from appealing to the Court of Cassation due to lack of awareness of this local remedy. They further submit that apart from being unaware of the existence of such a remedy, they were also not aware of their right to be assisted by counsel who could have initiated such a procedure on their behalf before the domestic courts. 27. The Applicants further submit that even if they had appealed to the Court of Cassation, this remedy would not have been successful since it is an extraordinary remedy that is not effective. *** 28. The Court recalls that under Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of which are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, Applicants are required to exhaust local remedies before bringing any Application before it. 29. The Court emphasizes that the local remedies to be exhausted are remedies of a judicial nature which must be available, that is, they can be used without impediment by the Applicant, effective and sufficient, in the sense that they are able to give satisfaction to the Applicant or are of such a nature as to remedy the disputed situation.4 30. The Court further recalls that, in line with the Court’s established jurisprudence, this requirement is waived only if the Applicant demonstrates that the remedies are unavailable, ineffective, unsatisfactory or if the procedure relating thereto is unduly prolonged.5 Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 314, § 108; Sébastien Germain Marie Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 027/2020, Ruling of 2 December 2021 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 73. 5 Kijiji Isiaga v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 218, § 44; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 4 9