The Applicant thus submits that there is no remedy for his grievance within the Respondent State. 35. Thirdly, the Applicant contends Enforcement Act, a person violation by articles covered that under the Basic Rights can only go to court if he alleges 12 to 29 of the Respondent and Duties a human State’s rights Constitution. According to the Applicant, the violation he is alleging arises from article 41(7) of the Respondent State’s Constitution and is not covered by the remedies offered under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The Applicant thus submits that there is no remedy for him to exhaust in the Respondent State. ke 36. The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules, for an Application exhausting local remedies, if any, to be admissible unless it is obvious it must be filed “after [to the Court] that this procedure is unduly prolonged’. 37. The Court recalls that for purposes of exhausting local remedies an Applicant is only required to exhaust sufficient.2 As confirmed judicial remedies that by both the Commission are available, effective and the Court, and a remedy is available if it can be utilised as a matter of fact without impediment; a remedy is effective if it offers a real prospect of success; and a remedy is sufficient if it is capable of redressing the wrong complained against. However, the Court has always considered unavailable, that there is an exception to this rule if local remedies ineffective or insufficient, 2 Sir Dawda K Jawara v. The Gambia, (2000) AHRLR 3 Ibid. 10 or if the procedure 107 (ACHPR 2000) §§ 31-32. for obtaining are such