***
55. The Court notes that, in accordance with Article 56(5) of the Charter, which
essentially restates Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, applications submitted to it
must meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of
exhaustion of local remedies aims to give States the possibility to address
human rights violations within their national jurisdiction before resorting to
an international human rights body to determine State responsibility in this
regard.9
56. The Court recalls that the local remedies to be exhausted are ordinary
remedies, unless it is clear that they are unduly prolonged. It is, therefore,
for the Court to consider whether, in the present Application, the Applicants
exhausted local remedies.
57. From the records, the Court notes that the Applicants filed proceedings
before the courts of the Respondent State in three groups:
58. As for FENAME, the first group, it filed a lawsuit on 25 March 2014 against
LTA-Mali S.A. seeking the enforcement of the arbitral award. On 2 June
2014 the Court rendered its judgment, dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction due to the collective nature of the dispute and the fact that LTAMali S.A filed a statement of opposition in respect of the arbitration decision
on 1 February 2013, which makes the award pending.
59. In respect of the second group of workers, Ismaila TRAORÉ and twelve (12)
other workers, brought a case against LTA-Mali S.A. before the Kayes
Labour Court. The Labour Court in its Judgment No. 015 of 24 June 2013
dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction.
9 ACtHPR, Application 006/2012, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of
Kenya, Judgment of 26 May 2017 (Merits), §§ 93-94.
14