A. Conditions of admissibility in contention between the Parties 30. The Respondent State raises two (2) objections to the admissibility of the Application, the first one relating to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and the second one to the filing of the Application within a reasonable time under Rules 40 (5) and (6) of the Rules, respectively. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 31. The Respondent State submits that the right to seek review of a judgment of the Court of Appeal is not automatic. It depends on the conditions set out in Rule 66 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeal. They claim that one of the conditions to be met is that an application for review must be filed within sixty (60) days of the decision which is sought to be reviewed. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant has not produced any evidence to prove that he has complied with this condition and further, he has not attached any evidence to prove that he sought leave of the Court of Appeal to file the application for review. 32. Citing the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights’ decision in the Communication SAHRINGON and Others v. Tanzania, Article 19 v. Eritrea and Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists and Others domestic v. Kenya, the Respondent remedies is a State submits that the exhaustion of fundamental principle in international law. Therefore, the Applicant may still file a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act or apply for review under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. 33. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant is raising the claim of denial of legal assistance for the first time before this Court whereas he ought to have raised it before domestic courts. It states that if the “court entertains this matter it will be unclothing the domestic court of the jurisdiction to adjudicate on domestic issues and clothing itself with jurisdiction of a first 10