between citizens and the State and not over private law disputes between lawyers and their clients. 38. The Respondent State concludes that local remedies were not exhausted so that the Application must be declared inadmissible. *** 39. The Applicant prays that the objection be dismissed. He submits that the requirement of exhaustion of local cannot apply against him in the present case insofar as the remedies available are unduly prolonged and therefore ineffective. 40. He maintains that the Constitutional Court, guarantor of respect for human rights, handed down a decision on 26 January 2016, in the matter between him and his two lawyers, a decision that violates Article 2(3) of the ICCPR. In his view, the remedy is not of a nature to redress the harm suffered in the event of a human rights violation and is therefore ineffective. 41. The Applicant further alleges that in his quest to bring an end to the violation of his fundamental rights by the Beninese police, he exercised several remedies before ordinary courts and before the Constitutional Court. 42. On the one hand, he points out that following his dismissal, he referred the matter to the Labour Inspectorate on 6 November 2001, but it was only on 8 May 2007, that is, six (6) years later, that the said Inspectorate released a report of non-conciliation.8 43. The Applicant further avers that on 31 July 2007, he brought the same case before the Cotonou Court, which dismissed it on 29 July 2011. According to 8 The dispute relates to the following claims: compensation for paid holidays in the amount of Four Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Eight Thousand CFA francs (488,738), compensation for dismissal of the union leader in the amount of Ten Million CFA francs (10,000,000), damages in the amount of Three Hundred Million CFA francs (300,000,000) as well as issuance of a pay slip and an employment certificate. 13