003067 Hundred and Pesewas (GHC 53.The Eighty-Three Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty and Fifty-Nine 51, 283, 480.59). Respondent State also submits Applicant to say that merely because that it is simplistic the decision and on which misleading for the he is aggrieved was rendered by the Supreme Court tn exercise of its review jurisdiction, he could not have resorted to the lower courts of the Respondent State for redress. It avers that even after the Supreme Court renders its decision, subordinate courts, in exercise of their specific jurisdictions, have given judgments in favour of claimants. 54.The Respondent subordinate courts State emphasises handling that this matter, if the Applicant he could have was not invoked confident of the the human rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It states that, by the Applicant failing to do so, the Supreme Court was never availed an opportunity to determine whether the Applicant’s human rights were breached. 55. According to the Respondent State, the matter before the Supreme Court concerned the constitutionality of the two contracts and was not related to a violation of human rights. It argues that the Applicant therefore did not exhaust local remedies with respect to the alleged human rights violations. 56. The Respondent State submits further that remedies for the enforcement of human rights are expressly provided for under Article 33 of its Constitution". It avers that the procedure for the enforcement of human rights is fairly simple, can be completed in a timely manner and meets the international standards of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency. 1 Article 33 of the Constitution of Republic of Ghana states that “where a person alleges that a provision of this Constitution on the fundamental human rights and freedoms has been, or is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any other action person may apply to the High Court for redress. 2. The High Court may, that is lawfully available, that under clause (1) of this article, issue such directions or orders or writs including writs or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and quo warranto as it may consider appropriate for the purposes of enforcing or securing the enforcement of any of the provisions on the fundamental human rights and freedoms to the protection of which the person, concerned is entitled. 3. A person aggrieved by a determination of the High Court may appeal to the Court of Appeal with the right of a further appeal to the Supreme Court...”