39. The Court observes that the Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application on the ground of non-exhaustion of local remedies and on the basis that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court will consider these objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 40. The Respondent State contends that the Application does not meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies given that the Applicant failed to institute a constitutional petition in terms of Article 30(3) of its Constitution to address his grievance on the alleged violation of his rights during the hearing of his appeal in the Court of Appeal. 41. On his part, the Applicant submits that his Application is admissible as he has exhausted all legal remedies available to him. He also submits that exhaustion is typically satisfied by appealing the case to the highest national tribunal and in his case as the Court of Appeal is the final appeal court in the Respondent State, there is no higher court to hear this matter in the local jurisdiction. It is the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent State’s claim that he could have instituted a constitutional petition at the High Court under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act is manifestly incorrect as this Court has repeatedly held that applicants are only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies and that filing a constitutional petition is an extraordinary remedy which he was not required to exhaust prior to filing his Application. 42. In his reply, the Applicant reiterates these arguments and further submits that the Respondent State’s argument that the alleged violation of the right to be heard could have been raised during the appeal proceedings is irrelevant because he was actually denied effective representation. *** 12