(5)…are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged…”. 12. In the case under consideration, the Complainant alleges that on the eve of the demonstration for the commemoration of the International Refugee Day, the Prefect of the town of Podor issued a ban of the demonstration by Mauritanian refugees. 13. The Complainant filed the decision of the Prefect of Podor banning the demonstration scheduled th to take place on 20 and 21st June 2002 in the towns of Madina Moussa, Diolly, Podor and Ngaolé. 14. In the Complainant’s written observations, it is alleged that according to the information received, the procedure applied in such a case by Conseil d’Etat would be unduly prolonged, but without elaborating how. 15. In its response, the Respondent State refers to the provisions of Article 56 of the African Charter and Rule 116 of its [sic]Rules of Procedure which provides for the exhaustion of local remedies as a requirement for the African Commission to rule on the admissibility of communications. 16. The Respondent State also recalls that the guidelines for submission of communications provide that each communication should particularly indicate that local remedies have been exhausted. rd 17. The representative of the Respondent State stated during the 33 Ordinary Session that the Complainant had not undertaken any efforts to challenge the decision banning the demonstration. 18. She pointed out the decision complained of was an administrative measure against which the Complainant could have taken legal action and obtained redress in the following two ways: 1. Appeal to a higher administrative authority which consists of seizing the hierarchical authority for abuse of authority, including the Governor, the Minister of Interior, the Prime Minister and, finally, the President of the Republic in accordance with the Institutional Act No. 92-24 of th 30 May 1992 relating to Conseil d’Etat as amended and Article 729 of the Code of Civil Procedure; 2. Administrative law action, through seizure of Conseil d’Etat cancelling the administrative decision complained of for abuse of authority. 19. The representative of the Respondent State demonstrated that these local remedies existed but that the Complainant had not utilised any of them. She further pointed out that in emergency cases, the procedure of hour by hour interim order in an urgent case was also available to those seeking justice. She therefore concluded that the Complainant had not exhausted local remedies. 20. In light of the above submissions, the African Commission notes that the Complainant did not provide proof of attempting to exhaust the local remedies that were available to him. Holding For these reasons, the African Commission, Declares the communication inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies. rd Taken at the 33 Ordinary Session in Niamey, Niger, May 2003.