00136? raise them explicitly, local remedies must be considered to have been exhausted.6 42. This Court notes that in the instant case, given that the Court of Appeal was in a position to examine several claims of the Applicants with respect to the manner in which the High Court conducted the proceedings, there was ample opportunity to assess whether the right to be heard was upheld by the lower court. 43. Regarding the constitutional petition, the Court finds that as earlier recalled in the present Judgment, this remedy as it applies in the judicial system of the Respondent State is an extraordinary remedy, which an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to filing a case before this Court. 44.The Court notes that after being sentenced to death by the High Court on 25 November 201 1, the Applicants appealed against the decision before the Court of Appeal, which on 22 March 2013, dismissed their appeal. The Court further notes that the Court of Appeal is the highest court of the Respondent State. 45.As a consequence of the foregoing, the Court finds that local remedies have been exhausted and therefore dismisses the Respondent State's objection in relation to non-exhaustion of local remedies. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 46. The Respondent state submits that the period of two (2) years that it took the Applicants to file the present Application after the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 22 March 2013 is not a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the Charter. Referring to the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Commission) in the case of Michaet 6 See Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), $ 50. See also A/ex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), SS 60-65; and Application No. 003/2015. Judgment of 21t09l2ai (Merits), Kennedy owino Onyachi and Charles John Mwanini Njoka v. lJnited Repubtic of Tanzania, g 54. 15