constitutional petitions cannot overturn the Court of Appeal decision, which was determined by a three-judge bench. Further, the Applicant refutes the claim that the review remedy was not pursued since he filed a notice of motion for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, which was received by the “Registry of the Court of Appeal at Bukoba on 11 March 2014”. *** 38. The Court notes that, pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it must fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The requirement aims at providing States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the State’s responsibility for the same.13 39. The Court has also stated in a number of cases involving the Respondent State that the remedies of filing a constitutional petition in the High Court and use of the review procedure in the Respondent State’s judicial system are extraordinary remedies. Therefore, an Applicant is not required to exhaust these remedies prior to seizing this Court.14 40. The Court notes that the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ in the Respondent State, had, by its judgment of 21 May 2009 on the Applicant’s appeal, upheld his conviction and sentence following proceedings which the Applicant alleges violated his rights. The Court therefore finds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies prior to filing the Application. 41. In view of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection alleging that the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies. 13 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Kenya (merits), supra, §§ 93-94. See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65; Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 66-70; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44. 14 12