are “capable of satisfying the complainant” or of remedying the disputed situation.6 37. The Court notes, moreover, that exhaustion of local remedies is assessed at the time the proceedings are brought before it and that compliance with this requirement means that the Applicant must await the outcome of pending remedies before seizing the Court7. The only exception to this rule is where the procedure in respect of the remedy is unduly prolonged. 8 38. The Court emphasises that it has consistently held that, in the Burkina Faso judicial system, a cassation appeal is a remedy to be exhausted insofar as it is available, effective and satisfactory.9 39. The Court notes that, according to the Respondent State, the remedies to be exhausted are as follows: the cassation appeal pending at the time of filing the present Application, the remedy before the Constitutional Court, the liability proceedings before the administrative or judicial courts and the applications for parole, pardon or amnesty. The Court will examine each of these remedies. 40. On the cassation appeal, the Court emphasises that although the Applicant does not provide written proof of the remedy, the Respondent State does not contest its existence. In this regard, the Court notes that the appeal was filed on 5 July 2015 and was pending at the time of its referral on 23 April 2019. The Court notes that it has consistently held that in the Burkina Faso judicial system, a cassation appeal is an available, effective and satisfactory remedy. Accordingly, it considers that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies pending at the time of filing the Application.10 6 Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo, Aboulaye Nikiema alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo and Blaise Ilboudo and Mouvement Burkinabè des droits de l’homme et des peuples v. Burkina Faso, Judgment (5 December 2014), (merits) 1 AfCLR 219, § 68 ; Ibid. Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits), § 108. 7 Yacouba Traoré v. Republic of Mali, Judgment (admissibility) 4 AfCLR 672, § 41 and 42. 8 Ghaby Kodeih and Nabih Kodeih v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application No. 008/2020, Judgment of 23 June 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 49; Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, ACtHPR, Application no. 032/2020, judgment of 22 September 2022 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 38. 9 Ibid. Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo v. Burkina Faso § 66; Ibid. Konaté v. Burkina, §§ 91-92. 10 Oulaï Marius v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Application No. 032/2019, ACtHPR, Judgment of 4 December 2023, (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 34. 9