jurisprudence, that the remedy before the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court is an available, effective and satisfactory remedy.6 37. The Court notes that under the aforementioned provisions, any act likely to violate fundamental rights may be brought before the Constitutional Court by way of a simple complaint. Therefore, the Applicants, who allege violations of fundamental rights arising from an internet shutdown on 28 April 2019, the day of the legislative elections, could have seized the Constitutional Court with the violations they allege in the present Application. 38. The Court recalls that determination of circumstances warranting exemption from exhaustion of local remedies is made on a case-by-case basis taking into account, inter alia, the likelihood that an Applicant is able to exercise the local remedies without impediments.7 It is, therefore, for the Applicant to demonstrate the existence of impediments that render local remedies unavailable or ineffective. The Court will consequently examine each of the Applicants’ arguments separately in light of this requirement. 39. The Court observes, with regard to the first argument, namely, the habitual lengthy judicial proceedings before the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court, that the said court renders its decision on alleged violation of human rights within eight (8) days of referral.8 The Court considers that this time-limit attests to the fact that the court conducts proceedings expeditiously. The Court further notes that the Applicants not only failed to exercise the said remedy but Article 22 of Law No. 91-009 of 4 March 1991 on the Constitutional Court as amended by the Law of 31 May 2001 states that: “Laws and regulatory acts deemed to infringe fundamental human rights and public freedoms, and in general, violate human rights shall similarly be transmitted to the Constitutional Court either by the President of the Republic, or by any citizen, any human rights advocacy association or nongovernmental organization.” 6 Laurent Metegnon and Others v. Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 031/2018, Judgment of 24 March 2022, § 63; Conaïde Togla Latondji Akouedenoudje v Republic of Benin, AfCHPR, Application No. 024/2020, Judgment of 13 June 2023 (merits and reparations), § 39 7 Bernard Anbataayela Mornah v. Republic of Benin and Others, AfCHPR, Application No. 028/2018, Judgment of 22 September 2022 (merits and reparations), § 204. 8 Article 33(1) of Law No. 91-009 of 4 March 1991 establishing the Organic Law on the Constitutional Court as amended by Law of 31 May 2001. 10