24 violation of the rights in question, the Protocol had not yet come into operation. The Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Applicants’ Response to the Preliminary Objections 81. The Applicants responded to the above preliminary objections raised by the Respondent. 81.1 Alleged lack of exhaustion of local remedies The Applicants contend that the constitution review process and Parliament do not constitute a viable local remedy required to be exhausted in terms of Article 6(2) of the Protocol, read together with Article 56(5) of the Charter. According to the Applicants, what constitutes a viable remedy which must first be exhausted is a judicial remedy. 81.2 Alleged unreasonable delay in filing the applications Regarding the objection that the Applicants took unreasonably long to bring their Applications: The Applicants contend that there has not been any undue delay. Firstly, within four months of the judgment, there were general elections, and functionaries were preoccupied with those elections. Secondly, the Applicants say that they had to wait for Parliament to deal with the matter in the wake of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. They contend that the lapsed time must be reckoned from the time Parliament failed to act.