violated are also protected under its Constitution. According to the Respondent State, both Applicants had the option of instituting a constitutional petition to address their grievances but failed to do so thereby confirming their failure to exhaust domestic remedies. * 42. In his Reply, the First Applicant argues that by taking his case to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on 17 May 2003, and the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on 11 August 2014, before approaching this Court, he fulfilled the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies. He contends, therefore, that the Respondent State had the opportunity to redress the alleged wrongs within the framework of its domestic legal system and submits, as a consequence, that he exhausted domestic remedies. 43. The Second Applicant’s submissions did not address the objection raised by the Respondent State *** 44. The Court reiterates that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies must be complied with before any Application is admissible before it. However, this condition may, exceptionally, be dispensed with if local remedies are not available, they are ineffective, insufficient or the domestic procedures to pursue them are unduly prolonged. Furthermore, this requirement only demands that a litigant exhaust ordinary judicial remedies.9 45. In the present consolidated Applications, the Court observes that the Respondent State’s arguments relate particularly to both Applicants’ nonrecourse to the procedures under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement 9 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 64 and Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Another (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 56. 13