000303 within its judicial system. ln this vein, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant could have sought a review or revision of the Court of Appeal's decision or filed a constitutional petition before the High Court of Tanzania by claiming that his fundamental rights had been or are still being violated, but he did not pursue both remedies before he filed his Application before this Court. 35. The Applicant claims that the Application meets the requirement stipulated in Rule 40(5) of the Rules. He asserts that he has exhausted local remedies because his rights were violated by the Court of Appeal, the highest court of the Respondent State and his appeal to that Court was the last necessary step that he could take to exhaust local remedies. 36. The Applicant further submits that he had filed an application for review or revision of the Court of Appeal's decision but it was denied. As regards the possibility of filing a constitutionalpetition in the High Court, the Applicantargues that since the violations were committed by the highest Court of the Respondent State, the matter cannot be successfully resolved by a lower court. 37. The Court notes that in accordance with Article 56 (5) of the Charter and Rule 40 (5) of the Rules, in order for any application before the Court to be admissible, local remedies must have been exhausted, unless the domestic procedure to pursue them is unduly prolonged. 38.1n its established jurisprudence, the Court has consistently held that an Applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies.a With respect to similar applications against the Respondent State, the Court, after having examined the domestic laws of the Respondent State, has further observed that the filing of a constitutional petition in the High Court and an application for review of the Court 4 Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), $ 64. See also Application No. 006i2013. Judg ment (Merits), Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, S 95. 10 of 1810312016