31. Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that examining the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies must take into account the circumstances of the case. Thus, it has taken into account in a realistic manner not only the remedies available in the domestic legal system of the Respondent State but also the legal or political context which could impact the availability, effectiveness or the sufficient nature of the remedies, as well as the personal situation of the Applicant.6 32. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants acknowledge that they did not exhaust existing and available local remedies. It further notes that to justify the fact that they did not exercise the cassation remedy, the Applicants argue that they were not assisted by counsel, that they themselves were unaware of the existence of the cassation remedy which, by the way, is an ineffective extraordinary remedy. 33. The Court observes that after the judgment of 23 April 2013 by which the Abidjan District Court found the Applicants guilty of gang robbery, illegal possession of firearms and issuing death threats, and sentenced them to twenty (20) years imprisonment, the Applicants filed an appeal. 34. The Court observes that having filed a proper and timely appeal against the judgment of the District Court as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though, they did not receive legal assistance throughout their trial, the Applicants cannot rely on the argument that they were not assisted by a lawyer to justify their failure to pursue the cassation remedy. 35. Similarly, the Court further considers that the Applicants cannot claim that they were unaware of the existence of the cassation remedy. 36. As regards the extraordinary nature of the cassation remedy, the Court notes that in the Respondent State’s judicial system, the existing and available legal remedies are those that can be exercised before the trial 6 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (merits) (29 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 130, § 110. 10