APDH v Côte d’Ivoire (2016) 1 AfCLR 668 679 83. The Court further holds that the Applicant was only presenting the acts of the Ivorian authorities and that none of the expressions used is insulting towards the latter. 84. It therefore dismisses the objection to the Application’s admissibility on that ground. ii. Objection to admissibility on grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies 85. In its additional submissions to the brief in Response, the Respondent State reiterates that the Applicant did not exhaust the local remedies before filing the case before the Court. It contends that the Applicant could have seized the Constitutional Council to determine the unconstitutionality of the impugned law; that in Côte d’Ivoire, the said remedy is truly judicial within the meaning of this notion as understood by the Commission; that, in fact, upon being found grounded, the remedy results in the annulment of the adopted law. 86. The Respondent further contends that the Ivorian administrative law makes it possible to hold the State liable for its legislative activity; and that such procedure may lead the State to either abrogate an impugned law or amend the same. 87. The Respondent State argues, lastly, that it lies with the Applicant to produce evidence as to the exhaustion of local remedies, failing which its Application would be declared inadmissible; that this is also the position of the African Commission in Communications Nos. 127/94 and 198/97, in the Matter of Sana Dumbuya v The Gambia and SOS Esclaves v Mauritania. 88. In conclusion, the Respondent State prays the Court to rule that the Applicant has not exhausted the aforementioned local remedies and, therefore, declare the Application inadmissible. 89. Concerning the unconstitutionality of the impugned law, the Applicant contends that, according to Article 77(2) of the Ivorian Constitution, human rights advocacy associations may refer to the Council only the laws relating to public freedoms; that given that the impugned law is a law governing an independent administrative authority, no remedy is open to non-governmental organizations and individuals to solicit the withdrawal or review of such a law. 90. In its additional observations, the Applicant further contends that, according to Article 77 of the Ivorian Constitution, the Constitutional Council should be seized only prior to promulgation of laws; that even if the Applicant were entitled to seize the Constitutional Council, it would be necessary that the Applicant be informed of the adoption of such a law by the National Assembly. 91. It maintains that, in Côte d’Ivoire, the only means by which the existence of a law is brought to the attention of the citizens, is the publication thereof in an Official Gazette after its promulgation; that, in the circumstances, it would be impossible for human rights associations to seize the Constitutional Council prior to promulgation of the laws as required by the Constitution.