take action violated Articles 3523 and 5924 of the Constitution and, by extension, his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter. 70. In its decision DCC18-090 of 12 April 2018 in this regard, the Constitutional Court dismissed the Applicant’s case on the grounds that the Applicant’s request sought to have the President of the Republic intervene in an ongoing court case. According to the high court, such intervention would have violated the principle of separation of powers entrenched in Article 125 of the Constitution.25 In any event, the Court notes that in the judicial system of the Respondent State, when the prosecutor in charge of a case fails to act, individuals may bring an action before the investigating judge. It follows that in the present case, the Applicant could have leveraged this remedy to overcome the prosecutor’s inaction, but failed to do so. 71. Consequently, the Court holds that the Applicant did not exhaust the remedies in respect of the latter proceedings either and therefore upholds the Respondent State’s objection in that regard. 72. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the present Application does not satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies under Article 56(5) of the Charter in respect of all the allegations except that relating to the Applicant’s complaint against his lawyers.26 23 Ibid. Article 59 of the Constitution states: “The President of the Republic ensures the enforcement of laws and guarantees the execution of court decisions”. 25 Article 125 provides: “Judiciary power is independent of the legislature and the executive ” powers”. 26 Goh Taudier et Autres v. Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, ACtHPR, joinder of cases, Applications Nos. 017/2019, 018/2019 and 019/2019, Judgment of 4 June 2024, § 39. 24 20