64. Furthermore, citing the decision of the High Court of Tanzania in the matter of Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanzania Albino Society v. Attorney General and Others, the Applicants argue that a public interest case filed on behalf of PWA was rejected on the basis that it had been filed by an NGO, and the PWA were informed that they had to file individual cases alleging violations of their rights. *** 65. Article 56(5) of the Charter whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, provides that any application filed before the Court shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, unless the same are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the domestic proceedings thereof are unduly prolonged.15 66. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that a remedy is available if it can be utilised as a matter of fact without impediment; a remedy is effective if it offers a real prospect of success; and a remedy is sufficient if it is capable of redressing the wrong complained against.16 67. The Court notes that the bone of the contention herein is whether domestic remedies are available in respect of corporate bodies’ ability to file human rights petitions on behalf of individuals. In this regard the Court refers to the Tanzanian case of Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanganyika Law Society v. Hon. Mizengo Pinda and Attorney General,17 where it was held that: The petitioners’ allegations are in general terms, and they are litigating on behalf of individuals, which would bring the matter into the realm of public 15 Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, §§ 142-144; Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 030/2017, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 43. 16 Jebra Kambole v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (15 July 2020) 4 AfCLR 460, § 37. 17 High Court of Tanzania, Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanganyika Law Society v. Hon. Mizengo Pinda and the Attorney, General Misc. Civil Cause No. 24 of 2013 (2014) 22-25. 17