92. The Court recalls that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule
50(2)(e) of the Rules, applications must be filed after exhaustion of local
remedies, if they are available, unless it is clear that the procedure in respect
of such remedies is unduly prolonged.
93. The Court recalls, moreover, that the requirement of exhaustion of local
remedies is an internationally recognised and accepted rule.22
94. Accordingly, the Court emphasises that the local remedies to be exhausted
are those of a judicial nature, which must be available, that is, they can be
pursued without impediment by the Applicant,23 effective and satisfactory in
the sense that they are “capable of satisfying the complainant or of
remedying the situation in dispute”.24
95. The Court notes that in support of its objection, the Respondent State
contends that local remedies were not exhausted in regard to allegations
relating to the right to effective trial, the right to prejudice suffered, the right
to life, the right to enjoy the best mental and physical health state possible,
the right to a clean environment and the right to information. The
Respondent State asserts that these allegations were raised for the first time
before this Court.
96. The Court recalls that of the one hundred thousand (100 000) victims
recognised by the Respondent State itself, at least sixteen thousand (16
000) of them were parties to proceedings before domestic courts. The Court
notes that family members of four (4) of the seventeen (17) victims who died
after obtaining a favourable decision were awarded damages and interests
after the enterprises concerned were held liable. It is worthy of note that in
the judgment of 23 July 2014, the joint chambers of the Supreme Court of
22
Mtikila v. Tanzania, supra, § 82.1; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (28 March
2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 68.
23 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 018/2018, Judgment of 15 July 2020
(merits and reparations), § 38; APDH v. Côte d'Ivoire (merits), supra, § 94.
24 Mtikila v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 82.3; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (Dec. 5, 2014)
1 RJCA 314, § 112.
25