000113 language, nor is it based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. 27.Regarding exhaustion of local remedies, the Applicant avers that he took steps to meet senior political and administrative authorities of the country, the Police department, the Office of the Prosecutor, the notably, Ministry of Infrastructure in charge of Transport, the Ministry of Internal Security in charge of the Police, the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Parliament, the Senate, the President of the Republic, the National Human 28.The Rights Commission, the Rwanda Transparency and the civil society. Applicant envisaged further because when contends that “seeking redress from courts was not presidential guards are involved in a matter, such a matter runs the risk of not being determined by the courts, and today the Application would have been inadmissible following the deadline after the remedy provided under Article 339 of Law No. 18/2004 of 26/6/2004 on the Civil, Commercial, Social and Administrative Procedure Code”. 29.The Court notes that only ordinary judicial remedies must be exhausted> and this requirement may be dispensed with only if the said remedies are unavailable, ineffective, insufficient, or if the domestic procedures to pursue them are tinduly prolonged®. In effect, the non-judicial remedies pursued by the Applicant are not considered material to the exhaustion of local remedies. 30.In the instant case, the Court notes acknowledged that he has not pursued such would remedy not yield any that the local remedies results because Applicant has clearly alleging that, firstly, it the soldiers of the Presidential Guard were involved and, secondly, that the deadline for filing an 5 Application No. 007/2013. Judgment of 3/6/2016 (Merits), Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as “Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania Judgment (Merits)”), § 64. See also Application No. 005/2013. Judgment of 20/11/2015 (Merits), Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred as to “Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment (Merits)”) § 64; Application No. 006/2013. Judgment of 18/3/2016 (Merits), Wilfred Onyango Nganyi & 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, § 95. § Application No 004/2013. Judgment of 05/12/2014 (Merits), Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso, § 77. See also Application No. 004/2013. v Tanzania, § 40. Ruling of 24/3/2014 (Jurisdiction a and Adm mpssillly), Peter Chacha L