TĂNASE v. MOLDOVA JUDGMENT 27 the applicant within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention. He pointed to the fact that it was inaccessible as it was not open to any citizen to lodge a complaint and he was not a member of any of the categories of persons entitled to lodge a complaint until 22 April 2009, when his mandate as an MP was confirmed. In any event, the applicant had appeared as Mr Filat’s representative in the proceedings brought before the Constitutional Court and raised all the issues which had come before this Court. The court ruled that the Law was constitutional (see paragraph 55 above). To the extent that the remedy could be considered effective, it had clearly been exhausted. (c) The Romanian Government 118. The Romanian Government highlighted that the remedy proposed by the respondent Government had been raised for the first time in their submissions to the Grand Chamber. They argued that it was clear from the Court’s case-law that such objections should be made in submissions on admissibility. The Romanian Government further noted that the respondent Government had at their disposal all the facts necessary to have raised this objection at the admissibility stage and had provided no explanation for their failure to do so. Accordingly, there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the delay in advancing this objection and the respondent Government were therefore estopped from objecting at this stage of the proceedings. 119. In the event that the Court allowed this objection to be considered notwithstanding the delay, the Romanian Government contended that the remedy proposed did not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention. It was not accessible to the applicant because he had no right directly to address a challenge to the Constitutional Court but had to make a request through an intermediary, who could choose whether to apply to the court to have the contested legislation examined. 3. The Court’s assessment 120. The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court. Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems (see, for example, Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). Under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing