000304 v. Libya of 3 June 2013,3 the prior consideration of cases has taken a decisive place in the work of the Court. The Shukrani and others Judgement confirms a judicial trend: on the one hand, many cases, like the instant case, stumble over the prior requirement of admissibility and, on the other hand, the judge is teft only with the duty of jurisdiction, that is to say, the decision to exclude from consideration on the merits cases which do not fulfilthe conditions of admissibility. L 4. ConJirmation of the preliminary rules of admissibility of cases (Article 56 of the Charter and Article 6 of the Protocol) The Shulcrani Masegenya Mango and others case confirms the doctrine of the African Court on the admissibility of applications, pursuant to Article 56 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples'Rights, Article 6(2) of the Protocol on the establishment of the Court and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. This aspect of the proceedings also constituted the Respondent State's defence base. Tanzania argued, inter alia, that "the Applicants could have fited a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act".4 It was thus emphasizing the Applicants' failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It further submitted, unlike the Applicants, that "except for the First Applicant, the Fifth Applicant and the Sixth Applicant, atl the other Applicants never applied for review of their original cases though they lodged appeals at the Court of Appeal which were dismissed".5 In its reply, the Court confirms the rule, which is constantly recalled in its case-law. It notes that in Diakite Couple v. Republic of Mali,6 it held that "exhausting local remedies is an exigency of international law and not a matter of choice; that it lies with the Applicant to take all such steps as are necessary to exhaust (...) and that it is not enough for the Applicant to question the effectiveness of the State's local remedies on account of isolated incidents".T The Court concluded, as in the instant case, that the application was inadmissible. 5. This shukrani and others case had a peculiarity. Two of the seven Applicants had filed an additional application. The First and the Seventh Applicants had filed a separate application from the joint grievances. AfCHpR, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v. Libya, (3 June 2013), Dissenting Opinion ofJudge Fatsa Ouguergouz. 4 AfCHPR, Judgement, Shukrani Masegenya Mango and others v. Tanzania, op. cil.' $ 41. 5 rbid., 42. s 6AfCFIPR, Judgement on jurisdiction and admissibility, Diakitd Couple v. Republic oJ Mali,26 September 2017, $ 53; see also AfCHPR, Judgement, Merits and Admissibility, Dexter Johnson v. Ghana,28 March 2019, $ 57. 7 AfCHPR, Judgement, Shukrani Masegenya Mango and others v. Tanzania, op. cit.,$50. 3 1