004084 111. The Court notes that the judicial proceedings conducted in 2016 and the proceedings before CRIET in 2018 have a nexus of continuity and the Court will consider the issue of exhaustion of local remedies globally on account of this link. 112. The Court notes that generally and as concerns all the remedies that the Applicant could have exercised in 2016 (remedy before the Constitutional Court, remedy on the basis of Article 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, remedy before administrative jurisdictions) the circumstances surrounding the Prosecutor General's appeal and CRIET's Judgment in 2018 confirm the Applicant's apprehensions regarding their effectiveness . 113. With regard, in particular, to the remedy provided under Article 206 of the Benin Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court notes that there was evidence of judicial malfunction to the point of making the said remedy unavailable to the Applicant. The Court holds that the parties acknowledged that the appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General against the Judgment of 4 November 2016 had not been served on the Applicant, and that the recording of the same in the register of appeals in the Court Registry was done on 26 December 2016, after the Applicant had received an attestation precluding him from appealing or filing an Application to set aside the judgment. Hence, it is apparent that the Prosecutor General's appeal in the end placed the Applicant in a state of confusion, such that he could not utilise the remedy provided under Article 206 of the Benin Code of Criminal Procedure, and this , ipso facto rendered the remedy unavailable. Thus , failure in the obligation to effect service was transformed into an impediment for the Applicant to exercise the local remedies and exhaust them. 114. Regarding the remedies before administrative courts , the Court notes that, against the decisions taken by HAAC and the customs administration , the Applicant brought two actions for annulment for abuse of power. The Court further notes that the two appeals filed, respectively, under No. COTO/2017/RP/01759 dated 15 February 2016, did not generate any court decision, at least until the Applicant's trial before CRIET, thus contributing to fuelling the mistrust or suspicion I