United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 36. In the present Application, the Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Court will consider this objection before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 37. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant did not exhaust all the local remedies available within its jurisdiction before filing the Application. The Respondent State asserts that the Applicant could have filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision under Rule 66 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. The Respondent State also claims that the Applicant had the remedy of filing a Constitutional Petition before the High Court for enforcement of his basic rights under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. * 38. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s objection and asserts that this Application has passed the test of admissibility and should be allowed. *** 39. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule on exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing states the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State’s responsibility for the same.14 14 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 11