25 81.3 Alleged lack of jurisdiction The objection based on lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the Protocol was not yet operational at the time of the alleged violation of the 2nd Applicant’s rights: The 2nd Applicant argues that a distinction has to be made between normative and institutional provisions. The rights sought to be protected were enshrined in the Charter to which Respondent was already a party at the time of the alleged violation; although the Protocol came into operation later, it was merely a mechanism to protect those rights. The Charter sets out rights while the Protocol provides an institutional framework for enforcement of those rights. The Applicant stated that it is not the ratification of the Protocol that establishes the rights, rather these rights existed in the Charter and the Respondent has violated them and continues to do so. The issue of retroactivity therefore does not arise. The Court’s Ruling on admissibility. 82. Lack of exhaustion of local remedies. 82.1 The Court is of the view that, in principle, the remedies envisaged in Article 6(2) of the Protocol read together with Article 56(5) of the Charter are primarily judicial remedies as they are the ones that meet the criteria of availability, effectiveness and sufficiency that has been elaborated in jurisprudence