opportunity to address allegations within its jurisdiction before an international human rights body is seized to determine the State’s responsibility in this regard.8 47. The Court notes that local remedies which the applicant is required to exhaust are judicial remedies, which must be available, that is, they must be available to the Applicant without let or hindrance, and effective in the sense that they are “capable of satisfying the complainant”.9 48. The Court notes that the present case involves a debt between private parties, as it emerges from paragraph 3 above. In an attempt to recover this debt of 20 October 2014, the Applicant filed a complaint on 14 July 2017 with the Public Prosecutor at the Ariana Court of First Instance for fraud. He then on 8 March 2018, lodged another complaint with the Public Prosecutor at the Tunis Court of Appeal. Finally, on 19 September 2018, he referred the matter to the Public Prosecutor of the Cassation Court before filing this Application with the Court on 20 February 2019. 49. The Court also notes that, according to the Applicant, the Public Prosecutor’s Office did not address his complaint with the required diligence and the domestic judicial proceedings were unduly prolonged. The Respondent State counters that the Applicant’s case is still being examined by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the domestic courts. It further contends that the Applicant has the avenue of bringing an action before the civil courts to recover his debt. 8 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya (Merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93 to 94. 9 Beneficiaries of Late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiéma alias Ablassé, Ernest Zongo and Blaise Ilbouldo & The Burkinabé Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v. Burkina Faso, Judgment (merits) (28 March 2014), 1 AfCLR 219, § 68; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso Application No. 004/2013 (merits) § 108; Sébastien Germain Marie Aikoue v. Republic of Benin, Judgment (admissibility) (2 December 2021), 5 AfCLR 623, § 73. 13