agree to list his application for bail and that the exhaustion of remedies is no longer in doubt. Finally, the Applicant avers that it is the reason the Respondent State filed its submissions on the merits, knowing that the Application is indeed admissible for the above-mentioned reasons. *** 35. The Court recalls that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court, applications must be filed after exhaustion of local remedies, if they are available, unless it is clear that the procedure in respect of such remedies is being unduly prolonged. 36. The Court underscores that the local remedies to be exhausted are those of a judicial nature, which must be available, that is, they must be available to the applicant without impediment, effective and satisfactory in the sense that they are “capable of satisfying the applicant or of redressing the situation in dispute”.5 37. The Court recalls, on the other hand, that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies implies that the issue which an Applicant intends to bring before an international body has been raised, in substance, before domestic bodies if the latter exist and if they are adequate, accessible and effective.6 38. The Court notes that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is assessed, in principle, at the date on which the Application is brought before it.7 5 Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema dit Ablassé, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ibouldo and Mouvement Burkinabè des Droits de l'Homme et des Peuples v. Burkina Faso (28 March 2014) (merits) 1 AfCLR 219, § 68; Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits), § 108; Sébastien Germain Marie Ajavon v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 027/2020, § 73. 6 Koumi Koutché v. Republic of Benin (jurisdiction and admissibility; § 49; Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (Judgment of 29 March 2019) (merits) 3 AfCLR 130, § 98. See also, ACHPR, Dabalorivhuma Patriotic Front v. Republic of South Africa, Decision of 9-23 April 2013, Communication No. 335/2006, §§ 81-83; ECHR, (GC), Azinas v. Cyprus, Judgment of 28 April 2004, §§ 40- 41; CHR, Kavanagh v. Ireland, Views of 26 April 2001, Communication No. 819/1998, § 9.3. 7 Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 010/2018, Judgment of 25 September 2020, § 41. 10