Human Rights our Collective Responsibility levels of national courts have been petitioned, and enforcement mechanisms must be a measure of last resort. 32. that international The Respondent State states that in terms of Section 166 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the court system consists of Magistrate's Courts, the High Courts, the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the Constitutional Court, which is the highest court on constitutional matters in terms of Section 167 (3) (b) of the same Constitution. The Respondent State further submits that in the normal course of legal processes and procedures, which applies to appeals and constitutional matters, they commence with an ,~;tf?plication to the High Court, then to the Supreme Court of Appeal, and then to the Constitutional Court. However, the Respondent State submits that, the Constitutional Court is mandated in terms of Section 167(6)of the Constitution to consider and grant leave to a person to bring a matter directly to the Constitutional Court, when a matter is regarded to be in the interests of justice, which is the test that the Complainant's request for direct access failed, hence his application was dismissed. , 33. Further, the Respondent State submit~ that wh~n the Complainant approached the High Court seeking enrollment of his matter to be heard as an urgent application, which was dismissed, and he subsequently approached the Constitutional €ourt and was refused direct access, as narrated; he effectively bypassed the Supreme Court, and the matter was never heard on merits but only ruled on issues of procedure in both courts, and therefore did not exhaust local remedies. 34. In substantiating the argument that local remedies have not been exhausted as Article 56 (5) requires, the Respondent State submitted that the issue of the Complainant's right to citizenship as the subject matter of his Communication has not been adjudicated upon to the highest court of the land, which is the Constitutional Court. In that regard, the Respondent State argues that adjudication by definition is the process of making a formal judgment on a disputed matter, but in this case the High Court and the Constitutional Court did not hand down judgments on merits, but mere court orders in respect of procedure. Based on those facts, the Respondent State submits that the matter was only considered on the basis of procedure in both courts, but not on merits, which is an option that is still available to the Complainant, but he refused to exercise it. 35. In furthering that argument, the Respondent State submits tha~ l/fiJ" ap.plicant approaches the High Court through an urgent '.,~ An Organ of the Af ncan . ~~ ..=;-..:,~. (~; Union '~tii'Al, =rr:~ '(:_CI\t: '/~ ! .. The African Commission o.n~u~an 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo No {~D~t Phone: (220) .. ,t;:'~r .o".,_ ~0-i)\. ((..;,;~ U'\ :(! .' uJ:;ll andl:eeopl1!s' RJ~ts~ I. t, WA!i\.~st e~ort;'1 ax: (~20) 4, .,Q}5 04J ?~e~3§.} Email: au-b~nJI.II@~ [I< -~~lI:0n.Qtg. /.. k,t t,\, "i' / '~ttpslt<\e~~!\atJ.'t~~ D ~- 0