constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union". 34. Whereas some of these conditions are not in contention between the parties, the Respondent State raised two objections: the first, concerning the exhaustion of local remedies and, the other, the period within which the Court is to be seized of the Application. A. Conditions in contention between the Parties i. Objection to admissibility of the Application on grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies 35. The Respondent State maintains that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies before seizing the Court with the matter. tt argues that the Applicants had all the opportunities to bring the matter before the national judicial authorities; that the Malian Judiciary is totally independent because it is separate from the Executive and the Legislative arms; that the Applicants however, did not make any effort to submit their alleged violations to the national courts. 36. At the public hearing of 16 May 2017, the Respondent State responding to questions put by the Court, contended , inter alia, thatthe Applicants acted too hastily given that they did not adduce any specific evidence to justify the alleged violations; and that they should have gone to court on the basis of Articles 115 and 116 of the Respondent State's Constitution prior to bringing the case before this Court. 37 . The Respondent State in conclusion prays the Court to rule that the Applicants have not exhausted local remedies and consequently, dismiss the Application outright. 38 their Reply, the Applicants submit that no remedy exists at the national level; that the Respon dent State on ly argues that the Applicants have the opportunity 4 10 TsW@u