filing an application within a reasonable time. The Court will consider these objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 38. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant has not exhausted local remedies and thus his Application should be declared inadmissible. The Respondent State reiterates that the allegations of violations of human rights made by the Applicant were not raised before the domestic courts and it is the first time that they are being raised in the Application. According to the Respondent State, this contradicts the well-established principle of exhaustion of local remedies. 39. The Respondent State asserts that the Applicant had legal remedies available to him within its jurisdiction which he could have pursued prior to filing their Application before this Court. With regard to his allegations of not being granted bail and not being heard, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant could have commenced a constitutional petition for enforcement of his basic rights under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act at the High Court of Tanzania. Similarly, with regard to his allegation that he had no free legal assistance, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant could have applied for it in accordance with its Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act. It contends that the Applicant failed to do so prior to seizing the Court, thus, the Court should dismiss his Application for lack of exhaustion of local remedies. * 40. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s submissions and asserts that his Application meets the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. He contends that his matter went through the different Courts of the Respondent State including the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The Applicant asserts that the domestic courts should reasonably have observed all applicable laws in dealing with matters even if parties failed to 11