remedy (Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, application 004/2013, judgment, 5 December 2014 para 112). In Konaté v Burkina Faso seeking remedy from the Constitutional Council which had the jurisdiction to grant the order the applicant sought (annulment of the legislation which criminalises libel) was deemed unavailable because individuals had no standing before the Constitutional Council. By the tenor of the joint provisions of article 6(2) of the Protocol establishing the Court and article 56(5) of the African Charter, the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies anticipates judicial remedies which ‘meet the criteria of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency’ and which are not unduly prolonged (Tanganyika Law Society, The Legal and Human Rights Centre v The United Republic of Tanzania, application 009/2011; Reverend Christopher R. Mtikila v The United Republic of Tanzania, application 011/2011, judgment, 14 June 2013, paras 82.1, 82.3; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Libya, Merits, Application 002/2013, 3 June 2016, paras 67-70; Actions Pour la Protection des Droit de L’homme (APDH) v The Republic of Cote D’Ivoire, application 001/2014, Judgement, 18 November 2016, para 93; (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Kenya, application 006/2012, Judgement, 26 May 2017, para 93). A local remedy is deemed effective if it offers prospects of success, is found satisfactory by the complainant or is capable of redressing the complainant. A local remedy is therefore deemed ineffective and need not be exhausted if the local institution from which the remedy would be sought does not have the jurisdiction to issue the remedies the applicant seeks (Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso, application 004/2013, judgment, 5 December 2014 paras 108-113). In Konaté v Burkina Faso local remedies were deemed ineffective because the cour de cassation from which the applicant would have had to seek a remedy had no jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought by the applicant i.e. annulment of the legislation which criminalizes libel. Where the highest judicial authority of the respondent state has already pronounced itself on the issues in contention, albeit in a different case, such a remedy may be deemed ineffective, as a new applicant cannot be reasonably expect a different conclusion by filing a new application (Actions Pour la Protection des Droit de L’homme (APDH) v The Republic of Cote D’Ivoire, application 001/2014, Judgement, 18 November 2016, para 102-103). The role concerning the exhaustion of local remedies does not require that the applicant before the Court must have been the same applicant before the domestic courts. The applicant only has to demonstrate that the respondent state has had the opportunity to deal with the matter through the appropriate domestic judicial proceedings (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Kenya, application 006/2012, Judgement, 26 May 2017, para 94). Being kept in secret detention without access to a lawyer deprives the accused of access to remedy and therefore make such remedies unavailable (African Commission

Select target paragraph3