Human Rights our Collective Responsibility court rules are not followed, because in cases of urgent court applications, the court dispenses with the normal rules pertaining to set down of applications, which is what the Complainant requested in his notice of motion, but was dismissed due to lack of urgency. In that regard, the Respondent State submits that no barrier or obstacle exists in the domestic laws and court rules of the Respondent State to prevent the Complainant's application from being placed on the normal court roll, when his application for enrolment on the urgent court roll was dismissed. The Respondent State argues that practice shows that, that is what the Complainant ought to do to have his matter heard, but avoided doing; consequently his case was never placed before South African courts for consideration on merits. Against that backgroundf tq~ Respondent State argues that the Complainant has not exhausted IOCCll remedies', . Complainant's Reply to the Respondent State's Submissions on Admissibility 36. In response to the Respondent ~!atte's argument that the matt~rw~s not h~ard in the courts of the Re,$pondent St~t~,and therefore the Complainant did not exhaust local remedies,' the Complainant responded that the Respondent State has misdirected itself as to what is an "adjudication" of a dispute. In reply, the Respondent State argues that, the fact that the matter went until the Constitutional Court, and that there are court orders handed down by the Respondent State's domestic courts, it means that the matter has been adjudicated until the highest Court of ~heland, and that is sufficient to justify the conclusion that the Complainant has exhausted local remedies. 37. The Complainant further argues that the requirement is not whether the local courts handed down a "written judgment" on the matter, but whether such courts were approached by the Complainant, and whether decisions" were taken by such'~burts. The Complainant submits that he approached the domestic Courts of the Respondent State seeking an order to protect his rights, including the right to citizenship, from the High Court to the Constitutional Court, which is the highest court of the land, giving the Respondent State an opportunity to redress the alleged human rights violations through its courts, but his case wer,_e.~ dismissed and the courts refused to grant the relief he sought, th~r ).,0 ~c~~ )\!'}4r /0', exhausted local remedies. -!f?'? ".:> <'0"" /I < ~ o . i1 ~ 'i i~ -/ ,. ~'" The Commission's Analysis on Admissibility ~ ~ '>: ~ <'(" ..:,'-J c-. u.s. /(jl'v <~ / ''., \)'v V ..q,._ I,JI..,; p..\\"'\' .... \(_"v 11,') \',," , > ,"'~'1(['1 • Dr"', ---,. 8 An 0, gan of the African~~~) · \1'~ Unlon ~m; •• The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo North District, West Coast Region Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 0504 Email: au-banjul@africa-union.org https:/achpr,au.intlO 0 D