;~:c:p~~\" ACH PR Q'\ 1/, , 'am:;:.:/" African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility urgent court on 23 November 2021, and it was struck from the roll on the same day for lack of urgency by Acting Judge Naude. 27. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Complainant approached the Constitutional Court with an urgent application for direct access seeking the setting aside of the order of the High Court handed down on 23 November 2021 by Acting Judge Naude. 28. On 6 December 2021, the Constitutional Court; .dismissed the Complainant's urgent application for direct access on the ~asis that a case for direct access has not been made out. It is against that background that the Complainant submits that he has approached the apex court in the Respondent State and therefore has exhausted domestic remedies as required by Artid~ A 56'(5) on admissibility. .,} . 29. Further, the Complainant ar&ues that the Communication'was submitted within a reasonable time after exhaustion of localreroeciies, in com9!x:nity with Article 56 (6) of the African Charter, because the Constitutional Court'handed down its order on 6 Decembe'r:' 2021, and: h~" submitted this Communication to the Commission on 3.0 December 2021, which is within three (3) weeks after the Constitutional 'Cobrt's order was handed-down. 30. In conclusion, the Complainant submits that the Communication does not deal with issues that have been settled by theparties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of the African Union or the provisions of the African Charter and therefore complies with Article 56 (7) of the African Charter.' 31. The Respondent State does not dispute compliance with the requirements of Article 56 on admissibility, except for Article 56 (5) requirement on exhaustion of local remedies before a Communication is submitted to the Commission. The Respondent State argues that the Complainant has not exhausted local remedies as required in terms of that provision and submits that the principle of subsidiarity requires that local remedies must be exhausted before an application is submitted to an international body. With reference to authorities, the ~es.p?ndent State submitted that domest~c remedies are only SOU~l< . "':tv~, judicial courts of a State and are only considered to have been exh9~~~cIlffMh4r -Vo,c ">. "/;;,,"> ~ ~'',<~0 pU <"0 ' ""\' ~,\ 1"<f, \ ' ,I'.c: u« An OI'Him of the AfriGant~) Uruon \\.\Y"~ ,\2 i'~\\ '" 1~'6')' \,1l;t:: ,."," r.: 5! I .«'...'J'i( o y, ' The African Commission on\' \tm~!) nd P~8=~' R' QJs0.', 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo NortH ~ist?iet, est Coas e9fo Phone: (220) 230 361°!ta;c~ 22 4<b.:£~ .j " " "i~RICA\N~ ",J" Email: aU-banji.@r.af;t;ica-uniq.o$Org ...-~'IO , ET DES ~ ht~/acn~V6 , 0-:0' 00