: 00ogo They challenged the legality of the sentence handed down for aiined robbery. Thus, for them, there is an issue of the applicants' right to a fair trial. Both of them appealed their convictions and sentences to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed their appeals. As the highest court of the Respondent State, the Court of Appeal therefore had the opportunity to rule on the legality of the sentences invoked by the Applicants' As a result, the Application of the First and Seventh Applicants was admissible. The Respondent State's objection on that point was therefore dismissed.8 The Court concluded that "the Respondent State has not violated any law",e that it remained in line with its previous decisionsl0 and that of the relevant intemational law.rr 6. The late Jean Riverot2 saw the rules of prior exhaustion of local remedies of domestic law on the intemational judicial order. This is an instructive paradox, since it is international judicial law that requires the national judiciary to consider supremely and overtly the alleged violations by a national petitioner. The purpose of this being to correct the breach of the law at the place of commission. This is the main purpose of this rule of prior exhaustion of local remedies. The question is undoubtedly different and special for those rules that affect the reserved areas of the State (The Westphalian State, according to Alain Pelletr3), as as an influence I lbid.,5 55, 57 and 75(v). e rhid., 75. S ArcHPR, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Libya (Judgement on the merits), 2016, RICA, 158; Urbm Mkandawire v. Malawi (Admissibility) (2013), RICA, 291; Frank David Omary and others v. Tanzania (Admissibility) (2014), RJCA, 371; Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania (Admissibility) (20 l4), RICA, 41 3. rrsee AfCHPR, Lohd Issa Konatd v. Burkina Faso, Judgement,5 December 2014. The Court echoed the Communication on Zimbabwe Lswlters for Human Rights and Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabwe and stated as follows: "lt is a well-established rule of customary international law that before international proceedings are instituted, the various remedies provided by the State should have been exhausted (...). "tnternational mechanisms are not substifutes for domestic implementation of human rights, but should be seen as tools to assist the domestic authorities to develop a sufficient protection of human rights in their territories. If a victim of a human rights violation wants to bring an individual case before an international body, he or she must first have tried to obtain remedy from the national authorities. It must be shown that the State was given an opportunity to remedy the case itself befbre resorting to an lnternational body. This reflects the fact that States are not considered to have violated their human rights obligations if they provide genuine and effective remedies for victims of human rights violations. "(See African Commission on Human and Peoples' B:ights, Zimbabwe Lowyers for Human Rights & Associaled Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Zimbabw e, Communication No. 293104, 1 -22 May 2008, para. 60. 12 Rivero (L), Le problime de l'influence des droits internes sur la Cour de Justice de la Communautd Europdenne du Charbon et de l'Acier [The problem of the influence of intemal rights on the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Communityl, AFDI, 1958. pp. 295-308. 13 This concept of a Westphalian State, in that it reinforces the juxtaposition of States, gives an extension of this reserved area even more important: Pellet (A.), Histoire du droit international : Irrdductible souverainetd '? G. Guillaume (dir.), La vie intentationale lHistory of international law: Irreducible sovereignty? G. Guillaume (dir.), International Lifel, Hetmann, Paris,2017, pp.7 to24. t0 3 r