the Court reiterates its jurisprudence that a constitutional challenge before the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court is an available, effective and satisfactory remedy.14 34. In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicant acknowledges that he did not pursue any local remedies. However, he advances three arguments in support of this omission: firstly, the environment of persecution; secondly, the lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the Constitutional Court; and thirdly, the fact that the said Court, previously seized by a citizen, declared the inter-ministerial decree to be consistent with the Constitution. The Court will examine these arguments successively. 35. With regard to the first argument relating to the environment of persecution, the Court notes that the Applicant does not adduce any evidence of persecution specifically targeted him that would have prevented him from exhausting local remedies. The Court, therefore, dismisses this allegation. 36. With regard to the second argument relative to the Constitutional Court’s lack of independence and impartiality, the Court emphasises that independence and impartiality of judges is presumed, such that any party alleging a violation thereof must prove the same beyond any shadow of doubt.15 The Court observes that the Applicant does not prove his allegations and confines himself to mere assertions. The Court, therefore, dismisses this contention. 37. Finally, with regard to the third argument that the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court, seized by one Conaïde Akouedjenoudje, had already ruled on the constitutionality of the impugned interministerial order, the Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 028/2020, Judgment of 1 December 2022 (merits and remedies), § 50. 14 Laurent Mètognon et autres v. République du Bénin, AfCHPR, Application No. 031/2018, Judgment of 24 March 2022, § 63; Conaîde Akouedjenoudje v. République du Bénin, AfCHPR, Application No. 024/2020, Judgment of 13 June 2023, § 39. 15 Fidèle Mulindahabi v. Rwanda (merits and reparations) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 291, § 69. 11