70. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Respondent State’s objection based on the failure to appeal the conviction for adultery before the Cassation Court and dismisses the objection based on the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code. 71. Consequently, the Court holds that the Application meets the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies in respect of the alleged violation of the right to have one’s cause heard, concerning the adultery case. iii. Objection relating to the Applicant’s complaint to the Tunis Court of First Instance Prosecutor 72. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor against the officials who signed the forensic report conducted in her case, which proved that the Applicant had committed adultery with Hannibal. The Respondent State argues that the case is still pending, has not gone through the prescribed litigation stages, and has not yet been finalized. * 73. The Applicant considers that her complaint Number 7019636/15 of 10 April 2015 registered with the Public Prosecutor is still in the preliminary investigation phase and that the Public Prosecutor has not taken a decision to send it to court. She further submits that she decided to seize this Court due to undue delay in hearing her case. She points out that the appeals procedure was unduly prolonged. 74. She explains that between 10 April 2015 when she filed the complaint with the Public Prosecutor, and 9 October 2019 when she filed the present Application with this Court, a period of five years elapsed during which the Public Prosecutor made only one decision which is to open an investigation; 21