***
41. The Court notes that under Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of
which are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application before it
must satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of
exhaustion of local remedies aims to afford States the opportunity to
address human rights violations within their jurisdiction before an
international human rights body is seized to determine the responsibility of
the State in this regard.5
42. In the instant case, the Court notes that, following their dismissal, the
Applicants brought an action against the ALS-Mali Laboratories Group and
ETS KLENE, before the Bamako Labour Court – an action which turned out
to be unsuccessful as per judgment No.196 of 14 November 2011. They
subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal of Bamako which by
judgment No. 55 of 21 March 2013, upheld the said judgment. Finally, the
Supreme Court of Mali, the highest court in the Malian judicial system,
seized with a cassation appeal, dismissed the Applicants’ appeal by
judgment No. 38 of 15 November 2016.
43. The Court notes that the Applicants have exhausted all the relevant local
remedies; and that the Respondent State had the opportunity to address
the alleged violations.
44. Consequently, the Court dismisses the objection based on non-exhaustion
of the local remedies and holds that the Applicants exhausted local
remedies.
B. Objection based on the failure to specify the provisions allegedly violated
45. The Respondent State argues that Rule 41(f) of the Rules requires the
Application to include, among others, a concise and clear statement of the
5
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2
AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94.
11