680 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) 92. The Applicant made no observation on the competence of the administrative jurisdictions suggested by the Respondent State. 93. As underscored in the Court’s jurisprudence as well as in that of the Commission,88 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,99 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. In 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 10 exhausted”.10 96. Regarding the remedies before administrative jurisdictions as mentioned by the Respondent State, Article 5(2) of Ivorian Law No 94440 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. 99. Concerning the unconstitutionality of the impugned law, the Court notes that Article 77 of the Ivorian Constitution provides that: “The laws can, before their promulgation, be referred to the Constitutional Council by the President of the National Assembly or by one-tenth at least of the Deputies or by the parliamentary groups. The associations of the defense of the Rights of Man legally constituted can equally refer to the Constitutional Council the laws concerning the public freedoms. The Constitutional Council decides in a time period of fifteen days counting from its seizing.” 100. The Court observes that the impugned law does not relate to public freedoms and that, for that reason, the Applicant could not refer 8 Reverend Christopher Mtikila v Tanzania (Application 009-001/2011), Judgment of 14 June 2013 para 82.1; Lohé Issa Konaté v Burkina Faso (Application 004/2013), Judgment of 5 December 2014 para 92 See also Communications Nos. 147/95 and 149/96, Sir Dawda Jawara v The Gambia, para 32. 9 Application No 013/2011, Judgement of 28 March 2014, para 68. 10 Velasquez-Rodriguez v Honduras, Judgment of 29 July 1998 (Series C), No 4, para 64.