93. As underscored in the Court's jurisprudence as well as in that of the Commission 8 , in the application of the rule governing exhaustion of local remedies, the following three conditions must be met, namely: availability, effectiveness and sufficiency of the remedies. 94. In the Matter of Nobert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, 9 for example, the Court decided that "the effectiveness of a remedy is measured in terms of its ability to solve the problem raised by the Applicant". 95.1n the same vein, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that: Adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy is not adequate in a specific case, it obviously need not be exhausted"10 . 96. Regarding the remedies before administrative jurisdictions as mentioned by the Respondent State, Article 5 (2) of lvorian Law No 94-440 relating to the Supreme Court provides that the Administrative Chamber "shall hear in the first instance and without appeal cases of annulment on the grounds of abuse of authority, against decisions emanating from the administrative authorities". 97. It follows from the aforementioned provision that administrative jurisdictions are not competent to hear cases of unconstitutionality of laws. 98. The Court therefore holds that the administrative remedy is not sufficient and, for this reason, that the Applicant did not have to exercise it. 8 Matter of Reverend Christopher Mtikilo v. Tanzania (Application 009-001/2011), Judgment of 14 June 2013 paragraph 82.1; Matter of Lohe lssa Konate v. Burkina Faso (Application 004/2013), Judgment of 5 December 2014 paragraph 92 See also Communications Nos. 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dowda Jawara v. The Gambia, paragraph 32 9 Application No. 013/2011, Judgement of 28 March 2014, paragraph 68 10 Matter of Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras, Judgment of 29 July 1998 (Series C), No. 4, paragraph 64 23