"Abdidahir Warsam," who claimed ownership of part of the Complainant's farm, and that the ruling also went against him. 45. From his submissions, the Commission notes that the Complainant has made some efforts to bring the case to the attention of the relevant authorities of the Respondent State, including the Police, the Regional Court of Mudug, and the Appellate Regional Court of Galmudug Region, but has not succeeded in recovering his property. However, the Commission observes that despite the availability of higher courts for the Complainant to contest the decision of the Galmudug Appellate Regional Court, such as the Supreme Court of Galmudug, he chose not to pursue this avenue. 46. As per Article 5 of the Law on the Organization of the Judiciary/1 the Supreme Court maintains jurisdiction across the entire Republic of Somali, with seats in "each Mogadishu." This same provision states that the Supreme Court holds authority over appeals from any courts within its appellate jurisdiction and appeals directly addressed to it. Additionally, Article 10 of the Law specifies that appeals to the Supreme Court in civil and criminal matters are centered on questions of law, such as nullity of judgment or procedure, misapplication of legal provisions, lack of jurisdiction, and insufficiency or contradiction in the grounds on which the decision is based. 47. In light of these legal provisions, the Commission acknowledges the existence of a recourse for individuals dissatisfied with the Regional Appellate Court's ruling. However, the Complainant has not indicated, in any of his submissions, that he had taken any steps to approach the Supreme Court, nor has he claimed that it was impossible. The only instance in which he approached the Supreme Court was to request the transfer of the case and replacement of the judge, not to challenge the final decision Regional Appellate Court. :¢§i" f 48. The Commission notes that the reasons presented by the Complainant regarding alleged procedural irregularities in the Regional Appellate Court fall within the purview of legal questions over which the Supreme Court holds jurisdiction. Thus, the Commission believes that the Complainant could have appealed to the Supreme Court, thereby fulfilling the requirement of exhausting local remedies. The Commission underscored in the case of Patrick Okiring and Agupio Samsnda that the local remedies of States should be utilised, to provide° opportunity to address alleged wrongs within their domestic 1e{zai'fr§' . 6" before international accountability is pursued.5 0 4 Law on the Organization of the Judiciary Law No. 3 OF 12 Jun 1962 https://clra.so/wp1 contenL"u )ioads/207 l.'0 I/_Iucliciuiv-Qrg_gl1izz1liol\-Law-Law-No.-3-oil l2-.lunc- l962-Final. dl` 5 Communication 339/2007, Patrick Okiring and Agupio Samson (represented by Human Right WICCE) v. Republic of Uganda (ACHPR) para 58. AUUA I We ET DES pi" 8 )}