36. The Respondent State raises two (2) objections to the admissibility of the Application, namely: that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies, and that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court will therefore consider the said objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objections to the admissibility of the Application i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 37. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant did not raise the allegation that he was denied free legal assistance in the proceedings at the national courts and, therefore, he did not exhaust local remedies for this allegation. 38. The Respondent State also contends that, as per the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Article 19 v. Eritrea, the onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that he took all the steps necessary to exhaust domestic remedies and not merely cast aspersions on the effectiveness of those remedies. 39. In this regard, the Respondent State argues that there were remedies available to the Applicant which he should have exhausted, but he did not. Furthermore, the Respondent State contends that the Applicant should have filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, if he was dissatisfied with its judgment. 40. In light of the foregoing, the Respondent State argues that it was not given the opportunity to redress the alleged violations within the national judicial system and therefore the Application should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion of local remedies. 41. The Applicant avers that he exhausted local remedies when the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in its entirety on 21 February 2016. 10