34. The Respondent State states that it acknowledges the importance and significance of the principle of exhaustion of local remedies. It further submits that the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held in Article 19 v. Eritrea that, at least, an attempt should be made to exhaust available remedies. It is not enough to merely cast doubt on the merits of exhausting local remedies. It contends that it is incumbent on the Applicant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt to exhaust, local remedies. 35. The Applicant contests the Respondent State’s responses and submits that all judicial remedies that must be exhausted in respect of the case were pursued, namely, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which is the highest court of the Respondent State. 36. He further submits that the reasons given by the Respondent State lack merit insofar as there was the opportunity to redress the harm in the present case within the domestic legal system. He further submits that, in any event, the request for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision suggested by the Respondent State in its response is not just and that his application meets this admissibility requirement. *** 37. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2) (e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. As regards the remedies to be exhausted, the Court has held that they must be ordinary judicial remedies.10 38. Furthermore, in line with its jurisprudence, the Court underscores that in the Respondent State’s judicial system, Applicants are not required to pursue the constitutional petition remedy before the High Court, after the Court of 10 Laurent Munyandilikirwa v. Republic of Rwanda, ACtHPR, Application No. 023/2015, Judgment of 2 December 2021, § 74; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 64. 10