mandatory step for exhaustion of local remedies is inconsistent with the Court’s jurisprudence. 43. Furthermore, the Applicants argue that they are not appealing against the decision of the Court of Appeal, but are challenging the validity of Section 148(5) of the CPA in light of the provisions of the Charter and the ICCPR. 44. The Applicants aver that the last stage of appeal from the decision of the High Court of the Respondent State is the Court of Appeal, which is its highest court. Furthermore, that, the decision in the matter of Dickson Paul Sanga was “delivered on 5 August 2020” in favour of the Respondent State, before this Application was filed, and thus, local remedies have been exhausted. *** 45. The Court notes pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, that, any application filed before it has to fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies is paramount and 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.5 46. For local remedies to be exhausted, they must be available, effective, sufficient and must not be unduly prolonged.6 The Court recalls that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies does not in principle require that a matter filed before it must also have been filed before the domestic courts by the same Applicant especially in a public interest case.7 What must rather be demonstrated is that prior to the seizure of the Court, the Respondent State African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid, § 94. 5 12