-24submits that the Applicant has failed to show in practical terms how an appeal at the Cour de Cassation is not accessible, effective or sufficient to redress the alleged violations. 87. At the Public Hearing of 20 March 2014 and in its oral submissions, the Respondent State maintains the same position, casting doubt on the good faith of the Applicant in this case. It argues that the Applicant has been given a fair trial in open court, assisted by counsel and has acknowledged the facts and even sought forgiveness from the tribunal and then asked for presidential pardon, thus demonstrating his acceptance of the judgments of the local courts. 88. The Applicant states in his Application that although an appeal is possible in formal terms, it is not effective as a remedy under the terms of Article 56 (5) of the Charter. He submits that for local remedies to be exhausted, they have to be "available, effective and sufficient". However, in the present case, the period of five clear days provided by the laws of the Respondent State for filing an appeal is unreasonably short, particularly as he does not have a complete text of the judgment on which to rely in lodging his appeal. He argues that the unreasonably short period renders the process ineffective. 89. Relying also on the jurisprudence of the Commission in regard to the criteria of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency of remedies, the Applicant argues that if local remedies do not meet the criteria, he is not obliged to exhaust them before taking the matter to an international court. 90. At the Public Hearing of 20 March 2014, the Applicant reiterates his position on the effectiveness of an appeal at the Cour de Cassation; which according to him, could not hear the merits of the case and therefore could not have satisfied his prayer and approve payment for reparation. 24/W