e. Are sent after exhausting local remedies, if any, unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged, f. Are submitted within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date the Court is seized with the matter; g. Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 21. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on non-exhaustion of local remedies. The Court will rule on this before examining other admissibility requirements, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 22. The Respondent State contends that an individual may bring a dispute against their State before an international court only after having submitted the same to the judicial authorities of that State with a view to affording them the opportunity to redress the effects of the impugned decision or act of the State. 23. The Respondent State asserts that there were satisfactory local judicial remedies that the Applicant could have pursued against the inter-ministerial order he contests, before bringing the matter before this Court. To this end, it maintains that, in accordance with Article 117 of its Constitution,8 its Constitutional Court has jurisdiction to hear allegations of human rights violations. It considers that the Applicant could have laid before the said court the allegations he raises before this Court. Article 117 of the Constitution : “The Constitutional Court shall rule mandatorily on […] the constitutionality of laws and regulatory acts allegedly infringing fundamental human rights and public freedoms in general, in relation to human rights violation […]”. 8 8