52. The Court also take cognisance of Article 45 of the said Law No. 97-010 of 11 February 1997 on the organic law setting the rules for the organisation and functioning of the Constitutional Court as well as the procedure before it,19 the Applicants lack standing to bring an action before the Constitutional Court challenging compliance of domestic laws with international obligations. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Applicants had a judicial remedy available to them in the legal system of the Respondent State. 53. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there were no local remedies available to the Applicants as regards the compatibility of Articles 125 and 127 of the Law of 12 July 2012 with human rights instruments ratified by the Respondent State. 54. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and holds that Applicants exhausted local remedies. B. Other conditions of admissibility 55. The Court notes that the Parties do not dispute that the present Application complies with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2) (a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules. Nonetheless, the Court must satisfy itself that these conditions are met. 56. In this regard, the Court notes, in accordance with Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules, that the Applicants have clearly indicated their identity. Ibid, article 45: “Organic laws adopted by the National Assembly must be transmitted to the Constitutional Court by the Prime Minister before they are promulgated. The letter of transmittal must indicate, where appropriate, that it is urgent. Other categories of law may be referred to the Constitutional Court before promulgation by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the President of the National Assembly or one tenth of the deputies, the President of the High Council of Local Authorities or one tenth of the National Councillors, or the President of the Supreme Court. 19 14