33. It further contends that the fact that the Applicant seized the Constitutional Court does not mean that he exhausted local remedies insofar as this avenue is open to all Beninese citizens to undertake an objective review without having to raise personal grievances. 34. It therefore considers that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies and therefore the Application is inadmissible. 35. The Applicant did not make any submission regarding the remedies provided for by Article 827 of the Code of Civil Procedure mentioned by the Respondent State. He contends, however, that he exhausted local remedies insofar as the Constitutional Court of Benin, which is the organ that protects fundamental rights and whose decisions are not subject to appeal, rendered the decision of 18 June 2020 dismissing his action challenging the constitutionality of the inter-ministerial Order of 22 July 2019 which, he had alleged, violates the Charter and the UDHR. *** 36. The Court recalls that in accordance with Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2) of its Rules of Court, applications must be filed after the exhaustion of local remedies, if any, unless it is clear that the proceedings in respect of such remedies have been unduly prolonged.9 37. The Court notes that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies prior to bringing a case before an international human rights court is an internationally recognised and accepted rule.10 9 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. 10 Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, ACtHPR, Application No. 010/2018, Judgment of 25 September 2020 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 39. 10