contends that she was unable to pursue the relevant remedy as the Respondent State has yet to operationalise its Constitutional Court. * 66. The Court notes that, under the provisions of Rule 258 of the Respondent State’s Code of Criminal Procedure entitles a convicted person to appeal decisions on the merits originally issued as final before the Cassation Court, even if they have been implemented, based on lack of jurisdiction, excessive authority, breach or error of the law. 67. The Court further notes that the Grombalia Court of First Instance, by Judgment No. 8210 of 9 December 2014, convicted the Applicant of adultery, and sentenced her to seven months in prison and ordered her, together with her friend, to pay her husband an amount of Five Thousand (5,000) Tunisian Dinars as reparation. On 19 January 2015, the Nabeul Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment in its Judgment No. 7380. After serving her sentence, the Applicant was released from prison on 15 March 2015. 68. The Court observes that another remedy was available for the Applicant to exhaust as she could appealed the Court of Appeal of Nabeul’s Decision No. 7380 of 19 January 2015 before the Court of Cassation, in accordance with Article 258 above. Having failed to do so, she did not exhaust the said remedy. 69. The Court further notes that the Applicant could have also filed a petition to the Constitutional Court of the Respondent State challenging the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code under which she was tried and convicted, on the ground that the said provision does not define the material particulars of the offence of adultery. However, given that the Respondent State has yet to operationalise its Constitutional Court, the requirement relating to the existence and availability of the remedy is not met. As such, this remedy should be considered to have been exhausted. 20