36. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application. The Court will therefore first consider the said objections (A) before examining other conditions of admissibility (B) if needed. A. Objections to the admissibility of the Application 37. The Respondent State raises two objections to the admissibility of the Application. The first objection relates to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies while the second one relates to whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time. i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 38. The Respondent State argues that the Application does not meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as provided under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules10 which states that a case concerning the violation of human rights must be heard at all levels of domestic courts before being filed before the Court. According to the Respondent State, this Application was filed prematurely because the Applicant still had the option to institute a constitutional petition before the High Court under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act for the enforcement of the rights allegedly violated. 39. The Applicant refutes the Respondent State’s objection and argues that he was not compelled to file a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act because the said remedy is extraordinary as previously decided by this Court. According to the Applicant, remedies are exhausted once he goes through the required criminal trial process up to the Court of Appeal. *** 10 Rule 40 of the Rules, 2 June 2010. 10