24. The Respondent State further submits that the persecution alleged by the Applicant is a figment of his imagination and that, in any event, the Applicant was aware of the existence of available local remedies but knowingly sidestepped them and brought the matter directly before this Court. 25. The Respondent State concludes that the Applicant did not exhaust the available local remedies and that, consequently, referral to the Court is premature. It, therefore, prays the Court to uphold its objection and declare the Application inadmissible. 26. In response, the Applicant prays the Court to dismiss the objection. He argues that the prevailing environment of persecution and the Constitutional Court’s lack of independence and impartiality makes recourse to it impossible de facto. 27. The Applicant further submits that his appeal to the Constitutional Court would be ineffective since one Conaïde Akouedenoudje, a national of the Respondent State, filed a petition with the Respondent State’s Constitutional Court on 16 August 2019 challenging the constitutionality of the impugned inter-ministerial order, and that the petition was dismissed by decision DCC 20-512 of 18 June 2020 which, according to him, is binding on all civil, military and jurisdictional authorities in accordance with Article 124 of the Constitution.9 28. The Applicant concludes that the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and must be declared admissible. *** 29. The Court recalls that, in accordance with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and Article 56(5) of the Charter, applications must be filed after exhaustion of 9 Article 124 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution: “... The decisions of the Constitutional Court are not subject to appeal. They are binding on the public authorities and on all civil, military and judicial authorities”. 9