106. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that at national level, there were remedies available to the Applicant which the latter could have exhausted. 107. The Court notes, however, that the Applicant's reaction to the Respondent State's objections relate mainly to the effectiveness of these local remedies and their ability to remedy the violations he alleges. 108. In the instant case, the Applicant relies on the lack of independence or the dysfunction of the justice system, and also on the slowness of the system, to buttress the objections invoked. 2. On effectiveness of the local remedies 109. The Court notes that it has already stated that, as regards the exhaustion of local remedies , it does not suffice for the remedy to exist just to satisfy the rule. The local remedies that the Applicant is supposed to exhaust should not only be found to exist, but must also be effective, useful and offer reasonable prospects of success or be capable of providing redress for the alleged violation. " 110. The Court considers that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor applicable automatically". In the same vein , international jurisprudence, in particular the European Court, has affirmed that in interpreting the rule of exhaustion of local remedies, it has regard to the circumstances of the case, such that it realistically takes into account not only the remedies provided in theory in the national legal system of the Respondent State, but also the legal and political context in which the said remedies are positioned and the personal situation of the Applicant". 13 Norbert Zanga and Others v. Burkina Faso, Judgment, Merits , op.cit. § 68 . Issa LaM Konete v. Burkina-Faso Judgment, Merits , op.cit. § 108. 14 Application No. 009-011/2011. Ruling of 14/6/2013 (Admissibility) Rev. Christopher Mitikila v. United Republic of Tanzania, (herein-after referred to as "Rev. Christopher Mitikila v United Republic of Tanzania (Admissibility)>», § 82.1. 15 ECHR, Application No. 21893/93, Akdivar and Others v. Tur. ey, Judgment of 16/91996,§ 50. See also Application No 25803/94, Selmouni v. France, Judg t 0 28/7/199~J,74 . I -0