34. The Court observes that the Respondent State objects to the admissibility of the Application based on the alleged non-exhaustion of local remedies by the Applicant. The Court will, therefore, consider the said objection first before examining other admissibility requirements, if necessary. A. Objection based on failure to exhaust local remedies 35. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant does not meet the admissibility requirements provided under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, as he did not exhaust all local remedies before filling this Application. It reiterates that the exhaustion of local remedies is a fundamental principle of international law as confirmed by the Court’s judgments in Urban Mkandawire v. Republic of Malawi and Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania. 36. In this regard, the Respondent State submits that the “Applicant never made an attempt to exhaust the available remedies and give the Respondent the opportunity to address his alleged grievances.” The Respondent State also points out that that “the Applicant had another remedy available to him whereby he could contest and challenge the alleged fundamental rights violations he has brought before this Honourable Court.” It contends that the Applicant could have instituted a constitutional petition before its High Court, under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. It is the Respondent State’s submission, therefore, that the failure to institute the constitutional petition means that the Applicant does not meet the admissibility requirements under the Charter and the Rules. * 37. The Court observes that under Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of which are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless the same are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or unless the domestic 10