41. It emerges from the aforementioned provisions that the investigating judge may conduct all investigative proceedings requested by the accused or the civil party who also has the right to appeal the decision of a judge who refuses to carry out the requested investigative acts. 42. The Court notes that bringing a civil party action enables the victim to participate in the proceedings and to request the investigating judge directly to carry investigation. 43. In light of these provisions, the Court considers that the remedy before the investigating judge in the Respondent State’s judicial system is effective and satisfactory and that the Applicant could have pursued it if only to have her complaint examined.8 44. The Court notes that the complaint lodged by the Applicant with the President of the Malian Section of the International Federation for Human Rights on 10 November 2014 does not constitute a remedy within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the Charter, since the Federation is not a court. 45. With regard to the Applicant’s assertion that she filed a complaint before the investigating judge and was a civil party, the Court notes that the Application only includes the text of the complaint, written and signed by her. However, the Applicant does not provide proof that the said complaint was actually registered before the competent investigating judge. Nor did she submit any decisions issued by domestic judicial authorities in relation to the complaint. It emerges from the foregoing that the Applicant has not provided proof of the local remedies she claims to have pursued before domestic courts prior to filing the present Application. 8 Ibid., §§ 44-51. 11