while the Applicant was never heard. In her view, this shows inaction and undue prolongation of the internal judicial process. *** 75. The Court notes that the bone of contention between the Parties regarding exhaustion of local remedies relates exclusively to the complaint lodged by the Applicant with the Public Prosecutor against the two officials who signed the forensic report based on which the courts convicted her for adultery and sentenced her to seven months in prison. 76. The Court further notes that this complaint was referred to the Ariana Public Prosecutor on 14 April 2015, who in turn referred it to the Second Central Division of the National Guard in El Aouina on 20 December 2016, and that the complaint was referred to the Tunis Public Prosecutor on 26 September 2018. 77. The Court further observes that from the date of the last action relative to the complaint, that is, 26 September 2018, to the date of filing the instant Application on 19 October 2019, one year and 13 days elapsed. According to the Applicant, this period is shorter than it would have taken to obtain a decision in her case, which decision, should forgery be established, would have afforded her the right to appeal the adultery conviction, in accordance with Article 278 of the Tunisian Code of Criminal Procedure. 78. The Court therefore upholds the Respondent State’s objection in relation to the complaint filed by the Applicant against the officials who signed the forensic report, and holds that the Application does not meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies regarding the allegation that the proceedings involved were unduly prolonged. 79. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies relative to the divorce case, and relative to the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code. The Court 22