63. The Court therefore holds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies and dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this point. iii. Proceedings against the Commissioner of the Cotonou Central Police Station, the Director General of Police and the Minister of the Interior 64. The Court notes that, as it emerges from the record, the Applicant filed a complaint against his driver for withholding his vehicle. Having considered that the Cotonou Central Commissioner did not forward his case to the Cotonou public prosecutor, he contacted the Director General of Police and the Minister of the Interior seeking their intervention in order to forward the case. 65. When this did not produce the desired result, he brought an action before the Constitutional Court against these authorities on the grounds that they violated the duty of conscience, competence, probity, devotion and loyalty in the interest of, and respect for, the common good, as set out in Article 35 of the Constitution, and for violation of his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter. 66. The Court notes in relation to the said proceedings that in its decisions DCC 16- 121 of 4 August 2016 and DCC17-092 of 4 May 2017, the Constitutional Court noted that the Applicant failed to comply with the procedure before the Commissioner of Police, which prevented the latter from forwarding the file for purposes of prosecution; and that neither the Director General of Police nor the Minister of the Interior had the power to interfere in these judicial proceedings. The Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction with regard to the action against the Commissioner of the Cotonou Central Police Station for violation of Article 35 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights; and dismissed the Applicant’s action against the Minister of the Interior on the grounds that the Applicant’s petition sought to have the Minister of the Interior intervene in legal proceedings that were still pending. 18