protected by the Respondent, in line with the African Charter and other instruments ratified by the Respondent. The Court has already ruled on this matter in its Judgment in Application 00312012, Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, delivered on 28 March 2014, where it held that, so long as an Application states facts which revea led a prima facie violation of rights , the Application will be admissible (paragraphs 114 to 124 of the Judgment). 80. Having examined the arguments of both Parties and considering its finding on jurisdiction above, the Court hereby rejects the Respondent's objection on this ground. iii. Exhaustion of local remedies 81 . The Respondent avers that it is premature for the Applicants to have instituted this matter before this Court, as they have ongoing cases before the national courts which are yet to be finalised. The Respondent adds that the Applicants have the right to appeal any of the cases against them if they feel aggrieved by the decisions of the Courts, but the cases have to come to finality in order for the Applicants to exercise their right to appeal. According to the Respondent, the Applicants have the additional remedy of Instituting a Constitutional Petition regarding the alleged violations of rights, vide the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, and, if the Applicants are aggrieved with the Court of Appeal's decision, they have at their disposal, the remedy of instituting a Review of such decision, as provided in Part 111 8-Section 66 of the Tanzania Court of Appea l Rules, 2009. 82 . With regard to the pending cases before the High Court, the Respondent submits that cases are heard on a first-come-first-heard basis, and unfortunately, there is a backlog of cases pending at the national Courts. The Respondent adds that it has every intention of ensuring that matters before the Courts are dispensed with in a timely manner as it is cognizant of the fact that justice delayed is justice denied and wishes no unwarranted delays to anyone. 25