Enforcement Act. The Respondent State therefore contends that the Applicant had the available legal remedy of instituting a Constitutional Petition for the enforcement of his right to equality before the law and equal protection by the law, as provided by Article 13(1) of the Constitution, and the right to a fair trial provided under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution. 40. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent State claims that the admissibility requirement under Rule 40(5) of the Rules12 is not met and that the Application should be declared inadmissible. * 41. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s objection and claims that he exhausted all available remedies, as the Court of Appeal, the highest court in the Respondent State, decided on his appeal with finality. 42. The Applicant further notes that he was not under obligation to lodge a constitutional petition to enforce his rights. *** 43. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of which are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State’s responsibility for the same.13 44. The Court recalls its established jurisprudence that, where the criminal proceedings against an applicant have been determined by the highest 12 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 13 11