108. The Court is of the view, same as the Commission, that a remedy is deemed effective if it offers prospects of success9, is found satisfactory by the complainant or is capable of redressing the complaint. 109. It should be noted that the remedy envisaged under Rule 40 (5) of the Rules of the Court are considered in the application submitted to the African Court. In the present matter, the Applicant essentially prays the Court to declare that the Burkinabe Laws on the basis of which he was held criminally and civilly liable are in breach of the right to freedom of expression. The issue therefore is to ascertain if the Cour de Cassation could, under Burkinabe Law, rule on such a request and thus ultimately overturn the laws in question. 110. As the Court had already noted in the matter of Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso " ... in the Burkinabe Legal system, the appeal to the Cour de Cassation is a remedy intended to repeal, for violation of the law, a judgment or a ruling delivered as a last resort (criminal procedure Code of 21 February 1968, Article 567 et seq). The appeal does not therefore allow for the law itself to be annulled but only applies to the Judgment in question, either due to wrongful application or interpretation of the law. Far from causing an annulment of a law, the Cour de Cassation is on the contrary charged with ensuring the ·strict observance of the law by other lower domestic courts. 111. In such circumstances, it is clear that the Applicant in the instant case was not in a position to expect anything from the Cour de Cassation in relation to his request for the annulment of the Burkinabe laws, in pursuit of which he was convicted. 112. Indeed, in the Burkinabe judicial system, it is the Constitutional Council that is responsible for overseeing compliance of such laws with the Constitution, including in the provisions of the latter which guarantee human rights (Article 152 of the Constitution). In addition, Article 157 of the Constitution which provides for the institutions entitled to bring matters before the Constitutional Council for the purpose of detennining the compli~R. e ~ :___ s-.')---------~ ·~-~ -30-laws with the Constitution does not make reference to individuals. As a result, the Applicant could not seize the Constitutional Council in order to have the laws, on the basis of which he was convicted, overturned. 113. On the basis of all the foregoing considerations, it could be said that the Burkinabe Legal System does not afford the Applicant in the present matter any effective and sufficient remedy to enable him overturn the Burkinabe laws which he is complaining about. Consequently therefore, the Applicant did not have to exhaust the remedy at appeal or any other remedy for that matter, after his final conviction on the merits by the Ouagadougou Court of Appeal on 10 May 2013.