that the Complainant wrongfully submitted that she has exhausted local remedies by the mere fact that she "has approached the Constitutional Court which is the highest Court in the Respondent". 53. The Respondent State argues that in the case wherein a court grants the application for recession of judgment, the original default judgment will be set aside or reconsidered. This in effect entails that the case will be reopened, and the parties will have an opportunity to present their case. According to the Respondent State, in this Communication, the University of Limpopo succeeded in having the default judgment of Semenya J rescinded and set aside. Therefore, the Complainant as the dominus litis can enroll her application for hearing since the main review application under case number: 2172/2019 is still pending before the High Court. · 54. The exhaustion of local remedies requirement is a fundamental principle of international law ensuring the proper functioning of domestic legal systems and granting national authorities the opportunity toaddress alleged violations before international intervention. The Commission held in Nixon Nyikadzino v Zimbabwe 4 that requesting Complainants to exhaust local remedies before approaching the Commission is to give the Respondent State a chance to redress the alleged human rights violation~ through its structure and organs. In Amnesty International and Others v. Sudan 5, the Commission also held that it is when local remedies have been exhausted or proven ineffective, is recourse to international mechanisms appropriate. 55. In the present communication, the Commission notes the arguments of the Complainant that local remedies have been exhausted as the matter has been heard in the higllest court in South Africa i.e. the Constitutional Court. However, the Commission in analyzing the facts and decisions of the Courts approached in the Respondent State, agrees with the Respondent State that the merits of the matter is still pending before the High Court of the Respondent State. This is because the matter that was heard up to the Constitutional Court of South Africa was on an application for leave to appeal the decision by the High Court to rescind the default judgement that was previously granted and that the University should file an affidavit that will allow the matter to be heard on its merits. 4 Communication 340/07-Nixon Niykadzino (represented by Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum) v. Zimbabwe, (2014) par. 84. See also Peter Joseph Chacha v Tanzania, App. No. 003/2012, Judgment of 28 March 2014, par. 142, where the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights found that the exhaustion of local remedies is not a matter of choice, but a legal requirement in international law. ~-ui:.--:;;,~ 5 ,?·~• Communication 48/90-50/91-52/91-89/93 ......Amnesty International and Others v. Suda/n# .., (,; •:> ~ ~ 1 1,:( 1· ..) .,,i:.ctH:T ,' ,- C I n i '~4~<f'o , r "'~,.q:·..,~~ . ' ' i I,..~:., (' \ . . · w <·V,<o,,..,4 ~•o ·'11'11 ~· ' .. P J ;: p ff!' g9 "1 ;·.1 o AU,UA rc,'?" ' .<r?/CAIN"' O '¼ ;;, ,.,~'-';/ ~~