local remedies, which are guaranteed to be effective, sufficient and available. 33. The Respondent State further contends that the Applicant merely alleges that she filed several complaints that were dismissed, without providing any evidence to buttress her allegations or indicating the authority she seized and the decision rendered. The Respondent State further submits that evidence is required to determine whether local remedies have been exhausted. According to the Respondent State, no evidence was included in the file to indicate any action taken by the Applicant locally, whether at first instance or before the appellate courts, whereas she had the opportunity to do so since she was assisted by counsel. * 34. The Applicant did not respond on this point. *** 35. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of which are restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules, applications shall be considered if they “are filed after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that the procedure is unduly prolonged”. The Court notes that the rule of exhaustion of local remedies seeks to afford States the opportunity to examine allegations of human rights violations within their jurisdiction before an international body is seized to determine the State’s responsibility in that regard.4 36. The Court underscores that the local remedies to be exhausted must be ordinary judicial remedies.5 Moreover, such remedies must not only be provided for in the judicial system of the Respondent State but must also be African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits), ACtHPR, Application No. 006/2012, Judgment of 26 May 2017, §§ 93 and 94. 5 Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 314, § 96. 4 9