United Republic of Tanzania, Application no. 011/2011 paragraph 82. 3, the Court held that: "The term local remedies is understood in human rights jurisprudence to refer primarily to judicial remedies as these are the most effective means of redressing human rights violations. What the Court needs to determine in this case is whether f) the Applicant has exhausted local judicial remedies. 38.2 The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) stated in Mariblanca Staff Wilson and Oscar E. Ceville v. Panama. Case 12.303. Report No. 89/03, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.UV/11.118 Doc. 70 rev. 2 at 531 (2003), paragraph 35 and 36 as follows: 35. In the present situation, the State argues that the 11 petitioners did not exhaust domestic remedies because the tamparo' brought by the presumed victim was not the appropriate remedy It argues that in reality the petitioners should have presented a motion of unconstitutionality ... 36. In support of its arguments, the State invokes the decision of the Supreme Court . . .... in which the court, analyzing the 'amparo' brought by the alleged victim, ruled that the tamparo' was not the appropriate remedy because the challenged law was a legislative act of a general nature issued by an authority constitutionally empowered to do so. . .. and that it was not susceptible to challenge through 'amparo ' for constitutional protection . . .. . The court concluded that this type of challenge must be pursued through independent unconstitutionality. The State argues action for tbaf-.t~etitioners failed -=--- [20] ~/ / ... - 1!! LIJ-e___ S ,_Y ?-- Cit-