contends that the exhaustion of local remedies is a fundamental principle of international law which requires that a Government be informed of alleged human rights violations in order to have the opportunity to remedy them before being brought before an international body such as this Court. 25. The Respondent State maintains that, in violation of Rule 40(5) of the Rules3 which essentially restates the provisions of Article 56(5) of the Charter, the Application was filed prematurely. It asserts that the Applicant had the opportunity to bring his grievances concerning human rights violations before the Constitutional Court, in accordance with Article 117 of Law No. 2019-40 of 7 November 2019 amending Law No. 90-32 of 11 December 1990 on the Constitution of the Respondent State. 26. It argues that the Applicant did not fulfil the condition of prior exhaustion of local remedies and therefore his Application must be declared inadmissible. 27. Without specifically replying to the Respondent State’s arguments, the Applicant avers in the Application that he brought a case before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court seeking to vacate both the Suspension Order and Dismissal Decree. Furthermore, he concedes that he did not appeal against the CRIET’s judgment, since a warrant had been issued against him. *** 28. The Court notes that in accordance with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court and Article 56(5) of the Charter, applications must be filed after exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless the procedure in respect of such remedies is unduly prolonged.4 3 Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of Court of 1 September 2020. Ghaby Kodeih and Nabih Kodeih v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 008/2020, Judgment of 23 June 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 49; Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application no. 032/2020, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 38. 4 9