000 0Bg 32. As it previously affirmed, the Court holds that: "... the local remedies to be exhausted by applicants are the ordinary judicial remedies3", unless it is obvious that these remedies are unavailable, ineffective, and insufficient or that the procedures therein are unduly prolongeda. lt follows, therefore, that the non-judicial remedies exercised by the Applicant in the instant case are irrelevant as regards the exhaustion of local remedies. 33. ln this case, the Applicant clearly stated that he had not exhausted the domestic remedies, claiming that: i. such remedies would not be feasible because a member of the Republican Guard was involved. ii. the time limit for filing a case before national jurisdictions elapsed upon the mmpletion of the proceedings before the administative and political authorities. 34. With regard to the first allegation, the Court holds that the Applicant alleges that the proceedings before the Respondent State's judicial authorities are not feasible, without adducing evidence in support of this allegation. The Court, therefore, dismisses allegations. 35. With regard to the second allegation, the Court notes that the Applicant did not file his case before the national courts, as he claims to have sought to settle the dispute before the administrative and political authorities. However, there was nothing preventing him from exercising both judicial and non-judicial remedies at 3 Application No. 007/2013. Judgmenl of 31612016 - Mohamed Abubakai v. United Republic of Tanzania, S 64. See also Application No. 005/2013. Judgment ot 2011112015 - Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, $ 64 and Application No. 006/2013. Judgment ot 101312016 - Wilfred Onyango Ngani & 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, $ 95. a Application No. 004i2013. Judgment on 511212014 (Merits) - Loh6 /ssa Konatb v. Burkina Faso, $ 77. See also Application No. 003/2012. Ruling (Admissibility and Jurisdiction) - Peter Chacha v. Tanzania, $ 40. 5 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania, lbid, S 140 9