000s8ti Rules ". The judgment could have stopped at that point and dismissed the application in its entiretyll. 12.At this juncture, a question arises, to which we unfortunately do not have an answer: what is the causal relationship between paragraphs 46 and 47 of thejudgment on the one hand, and paragraphs 48,49 and 50 ofthe judgment on the other? 13.However, and despite the finding that the application is inadmissible, as reiterated in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the judgment, the court retracts at paragraphs 53 to 56 with the exception of the case of Applicants Nos. 1 and 7. For the court, the said Applicants "made an additionalallegation which is distinct from the allegations made by all the Applicants jointly'12. This is no longer an issue of admissibility but one of merits. This is evidenced by the fact that the Court "notes, firstly, that the legality of their sentence for robbery implicates their right to fair trial"13. 14.|t is therefore not understandable why the Court considers, for the case of five Applicants, that they should have brought this action and not ignored it in "offhandedly " and exempted two other Applicants from the action because they had made additional allegations in relation to their co-applicants. 15. Thus, after distinguishing where there was no need to distinguish, the Court severed the unity of the application and did not really consider the objection raised by the Respondent State. [. ls the appeal for unconstitutionality an extraordinary appeal? 16. Under Article 56(6) of the Charter as reiterated in Rule 40(6), the Court has always held that local remedies must be exhausted after the Application has been brought, including judicial remedies and that such remedies must be available, effective and sufficient. rr Paragraph 54 ofthe Judgment 12 Paragraph 55 of the judgment. t3 ldem. 4