to it must meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies.8 The Court further notes that the local remedies to be exhausted are ordinary judicial remedies. Such remedies must be available, that is, they can be pursued by the Applicant without hindrance; effective and satisfactory in the sense that they are capable of satisfying the applicant or remedying the situation in dispute.9 48. The issue for determination in the present Application is whether the Applicants should have raised before the domestic courts some of the violations alleged before this Court in order to meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. 49. The Court notes that the violations alleged before this Court concern, on the one hand, the sale of plots that were not expropriated by the Respondent State and, on the other hand, the procedure before domestic courts in respect of the Applicants’ compensation. 50. Regarding the allegations of transfer of the non-expropriated part of the land to third parties, the Court notes that after the judgment rendered in their favour on 16 February 2016 by the Tribunal of First Instance of Abidjan, the Applicants did not appeal. The Court thus finds that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies in respect of this issue. 51. Concerning the alleged violations in connection with the proceedings for compensation before domestic courts, the Court notes that, following the judgment of 13 July 2007 delivered by the Court of Appeal of Abidjan, AGEF lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal by a judgment of 9 April 2009. 8 Kambole v. Tanzania, supra, § 36; Kennedy Gihana and Others v. Republic of Rwanda (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 655, §§ 65 and 66. 9 Kouassi Kouame and Sylla v. Côte d'Ivoire, supra, § 49; Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (preliminary objections) (21 June 2013) 1 AfCLR 197, § 84. 13