50. The Respondent State contests the Applicants' claims, arguing that this
case had
been properly managed in local courts contrary to the claims in the Applicants,
submissions. lt maintains that the sentencing of Boussourou to one year
imprisonment term by the Court of First lnstance of Bamako District V is proof
of
the fact that the case, at criminal level, has been expeditiously managed with
maximum strictness.
***
51. The Court notes that the Applicants limit themselves
exercise the remedy
to arguing that they did not
of re-classification of the offence based on the
facts
because there is no prospect of obtaining any such re-classification.
52. As the Court already stated in previous cases, "lt is not enough for the Complainants
to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated
incidences"s as a way to discharge themselves of the obligation to exhaust
the
local remedies. ln the final analysis, "it is incumbent on the complainant to take
all
necessary steps to exhaust or, at least, attempt the exhaustion of local remedies,,.'e
53.1n the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants have no proof
to show
that the remedy of re-classification could not lead to another ruling, different from
that of the examining magistrate; they contented themsetves with casting doubt
on the sufficiency of a remedy available to them1o and which they have
deliberately refused to use.
t
See Application No. O03/2012, Ruling
of 28132012, Peter Joseph Chacha v. IJnited Repubtic of
Application No. oo1/2012, Judgment of 28103i2014: Frank David omary v. lJnited
\e O u Ot ic of Tanza n ia S 1 27. http://www. af rican-court. oiq
See also ACHPR communication No. zaaoz'. xenyan Section of the lntemational
commission of
UL"t", Law Society of Kenya and Kituo Cha Sheria v. Kenya, in l8th Activity neport Juty-December
2004, 5 41;
ACHPR, Communication No.299/OS Anuak Justice Councit v. Ethiopia, in 20th Activity
Report January June 2006, para 54.
' See Application No. oo3t2o12, Ruling of 28t03t2012, Peter Joseph Chacha. v. llnited Republic
Tanzania, S.
143;
Tanzania,
44 op. cit.
$,1
of
12
e-
t
q
),
1,.