fundamental rights of the human person” and may, in this regard, be seized by any person “of a complaint relating to violation of human rights and public liberties”. 45. The Court has consistently held that this remedy before the Constitutional Court of the Respondent State is available and effective, insofar as Beninese citizens can pursue it without hindrance, and that the decisions of the Constitutional Court “are binding on the public authorities and on all civil, military and judicial authorities”.15 46. The Court notes that the Applicant acknowledges that she did not pursue any local remedies. She justifies her failure to do so, on the one hand, by their inaccessibility due to the threats and intimidation against her and, on the other, by their ineffectiveness since the Respondent State did not initiate any investigations or proceedings against the perpetrators of the deadly shootings. 47. Regarding the claim that local remedies were inaccessible, the Court notes that the Applicant has not adduced any evidence of threats or intimidation targeting her specifically and which prevented her from pursuing local remedies. The Court also notes that nothing prevented the Applicant from hiring a lawyer to pursue the available remedies as she has done before this Court. 48. Regarding the argument that local remedies were ineffective owing to the Respondent State’s failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the shootings, the Court notes that the Applicant is simply casting aspersions on the effectiveness of the remedy and adduces no evidence to substantiate her 15 Laurent Mentegnon and others v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 031/2018, Judgment (jurisdiction and admissibility), 24 March 2022, § 63. 13