any, unless it is obvious that this procedure (local remedies) is unduly prolonged". (emphasis added). 88. There is no dispute as to the availability of local remedies, as even the Applicants themselves acknowledge that remedies are available, but only that they have been unduly prolonged in their case. Rule 40 (5) of the Rules, as interpreted by the Court, provides a test for the credibility of any local remedy. It does not only require the remedy to be available, but requires it to also be effective and sufficient. 89. In Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise 1/boudo and the Burkinabe Movement for Human and Peoples' Rights vs. Burkina Faso, (supra) this Court indeed ruled that an effective remedy refers to "that which produces the expected result and therefore the effectiveness of a remedy as such is measured in terms of its ability to solve the problem raised by the complainant". 3 This position is shared by the African Commission, which held in Communication 147195-149196, Dawda Jawara vs. The Gambia, that "a remedy is available if it can be pursued by the Applicant without any impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers prospects of success, is found satisfactory by the complainant or is capable of redressing the complaint". 4 90. The exception under Rule 40 (5) requires that the procedure must not only be prolonged but must have been done so "unduly". This presupposes that resort to the exception will not stand if it is demonstrated by the Respondent that the procedure was 'duly' prolonged'. 91. According to the Black's Law Dictionary, unduly means, "excessive ly" or "unjustifiably" Thus, if there is a justifiable reason for prolonging a case, it cannot 3 Afncan Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, Application 013/2011 , Judgment of 28 March 2014, page 24, paragraph 68. 4 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Sir Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gambta, Communication 147/95-149/96, paragraph 31 ; African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe, Communica tion 284/03, paragraph 116 ~ ~ 27 fr-.JJ?' ~ ~ ~~~ ~«~() ' I