301. According to the Applicant State, the assessment of the efficiency of a remedy is not systematic, and neither is it done in absolute terms. In this regard, it referenced the Court’s judgment in the matter of Sébastien Germain Marie Aïkoué Ajavon v. Republic of Benin. * 302. In its Response, the Respondent State reiterates its position on the need to exhaust local remedies, even in inter-State cases, as is clear from the ECHR’s established case law, notably in the matter of Ukraine and Netherlands v. Russia judgments. It contends that if the invocation of diplomatic protection is relevant before the ECHR, it is equally relevant before this Court. 303. In this respect, the Respondent State submits that this Application has been filed under Article 5(1)(d) of the Protocol, taken up in substance by Rule 39(1) of the Rules, under which the State party whose national is the victim of a human rights violation may bring the case before the Court. It therefore considers that the Applicant State cannot deny that the present action is equivalent to traditional requests for diplomatic protection. 304. The Respondent State contends that the argument that diplomatic protection only applies to complaints relating to violations committed abroad has not been substantiated and is therefore inapplicable. 305. At the hearing, the Respondent State reiterated the content of its submissions. It added that the fact that the question of exhaustion of local remedies was presented from the point of view of diplomatic protection is irrelevant. In its view, the essential point is that local remedies were not exhausted in the present case. It is the case, however, that this principle of customary international law applies in inter-state cases. 306. The Respondent State further submitted that this requirement does not depend on the subjective opinion of the Applicant State as to availability, 68