35. The Respondent State also contends that, as per the Commission’s decision in Article 19 v. Eritrea, the onus is on the Applicant to demonstrate that he took all the steps necessary to exhaust domestic remedies and not merely cast aspersions on the effectiveness of those remedies. 36. In this regard, the Respondent State argues that there were remedies available to the Applicant which he should have exhausted but did not. The Respondent State contends that it enacted the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, to provide the procedure for the enforcement of constitutional and basic rights as set out in Section 4 thereof.5 It argues that the Applicant should have filed a petition to the High Court alleging the violations of his rights. It adds that the Applicant also had the option of filing a petition for review of the Court of Appeal judgment, if he was not satisfied with the same. 37. The Applicant avers that he exhausted all local remedies as he filed appeals in the national courts up to the apex court, which is the Court of Appeal. *** 38. The Court notes pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, that, any application filed before it has to fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing states the opportunity to resolve cases of alleged human rights violations within their jurisdiction before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the state’s responsibility for the same.6 “If anybody alleges that any of the provisions of Section 12 to 29 of the Constitution has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, he may, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter that is lawfully available, apply to the High Court for redress.” 6 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017), 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 5 10