-22proceedings are instituted, the various remedies provided by the State should have been exhausted". [ ... ] "International mechanisms are not substitutes for domestic implementation of human rights, but should be seen as tools to assist the domestic authorities to develop a sufficient protection of human rights in their territories. If a victim of a human rights violation wants to bring an individual case before an international body, he or she must first have tried to obtain a remedy from the national authorities. It must be shown that the State was given an opportunity to remedy the case itself before resorting to an international body. This reflects the fact that States are not considered to have violated their human rights obligations if they provide genuine and effective remedies for the victims of human rights violations'16• 80. As seen from the jurisprudence of the Commission, States are not considered to have violated their human rights obligations if their internal laws provide effective and sufficient remedy for victims. b). The issue of unduly prolonged process of appeal at the Cour de Cassation 81. In response to the Application, the Respondent State argues that the Applicant relies solely on information obtained from the website of the Cour de Cassation in Burkina Faso to argue that appeals took on average seven years. It submits that the Applicant does not provide any precision as to his real source of information, the type and number of cases involved. The Respondent concludes that based on its jurisprudence, the arguments tabled by the Applicant are unfounded. 22