33. The Applicants contend that they filed their Application after exhausting all domestic remedies. They specifically highlight that, in the Respondent State, there is no further judicial remedy beyond the Court of Appeal. *** 34. The Court notes that pursuant to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it must fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless the local remedies are unavailable or ineffective, or the domestic procedure to pursue them is unduly prolonged.9 This is to ensure that, as the primary duty bearers, States have the opportunity to address human rights violations occurring within their jurisdiction before an international body is called upon to intervene. In its jurisprudence, the Court has affirmed that in order for this requirement to be met, the remedies to be exhausted must be ordinary judicial remedies.10 35. In the instant Application, the Court observes that the Applicants were tried before the District Court of Ludewa and convicted on 2 September 2013. Thereafter, the Applicants appealed to the High Court sitting at Iringa which upheld their conviction and sentence on 18 September 2015. The Applicants lodged a further appeal with the Court of Appeal which was dismissed on 3 August 2016. It was only after the Court of Appeal’s judgment that the Applicants filed this Application. Given that the Court of Appeal, within the Respondent State’s legal system, is the highest judicial body that one can have recourse to, the Court finds that the Applicants exhausted domestic remedies. 36. As for the claim that the Applicants ought to have instituted a process to review the Court of Appeal’s decision, the Court reiterates that this is an extraordinary remedy that the Applicants were not required to exhaust.11 9 Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 56. 10 Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 95. 11 Kalebi Elisamehe v. United Republic of Tanzania (judgment) (26 June 2020) 4 AfCLR 265, § 36. 10