the domestic courts of the Respondent State. The Court therefore holds that the request complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules.6 35. On the exhaustion of local remedies, the Applicant contends that when the Abidjan Plateau Court of First Instance was seised of his complaint against SYNATRESOR for compensation for the harm he had suffered, the latter, by judgment rendered on 4 June 2020, declared his Application inadmissible on the grounds that SYNATRESOR, which was established on 17 March 2004, had no legal existence in 1996, the year in which the violations alleged by the Applicant occurred. 36. The Applicant contends that such a judgment “rendered in limine litis, without any hearing and reflecting a manifest dilatory tactic, left him with no possibility of appeal”. He argues that by dismissing his Application in limine litis with an inadmissibility decision “which cruelly lacked any legal basis and legal standing, the Court condemned him to remaining without any means of appeal before the second level of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal”. 37. The Court recalls that it has consistently held that the remedies to be exhausted, in order to comply with the requirement of Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules are ordinary judicial remedies7, unless these are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the related internal proceedings are unduly prolonged8. 38. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant clearly acknowledges that he did not exhaust local remedies, in this case, by filing an appeal to the Abidjan Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the judgment dismissing his complaint, handed down in limine litis, left him no other avenue to appeal the judgment. Kouassi Kouame Patrice and Baba Sylla v. Republic of d’Ivoire, supra, § 55. Kouadio Kobena Fory v. Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Judgment of 2 December 2021, supra, § 47. 8 Ibid. 6 7 11