g) Do not deal with cases which have been settled by those States involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Constitutive Act of African Union or the provisions of the Charter. 32. In the present case, the Respondent State has raised objections to the admissibility of the Application based on non-exhaustion of local remedies as well the reasonableness of time that the Applicants took to file the Application. The Respondent State’s objections will now be addressed seriatim thereafter the Court will consider other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objections to admissibility i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 33. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants failed to exhaust available domestic remedies before filing this Application. According to the Respondent State, the Applicants could have filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision or they could have filed a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act to challenge the alleged violation of their rights which they did not do. * 34. In their Reply, the Applicants submit that an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision was neither necessary nor mandatory as “the final appeal process in criminal trials lies as of right in the court of appeal of Tanzania which the applicants proved that they had accessed.” The Applicants also submit that “an application for review is an extraordinary remedy because the granting of leave by the court of appeal of Tanzania to lodge an application for review of its decision is based on specific grounds and is grants as the discretion of the court of appeal …” The Applicants 10