000861 i. Objection relating to exhaustion of local remedies 27.The Respondent State, citing the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights of southem Afican Human rights NGo Network and others v Tanzania, avers that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is an essential principle in international law and that the principle requires a complainant to "utilise all legal remedies" in the domestic courts before seizing an international human rights body like the Court. 28.|n this regard, the Respondent State submits that there were legal remedies available to the Applicants which they should have exhausted. The Respondent State contends that it enacted the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, to provide the procedure for the enforcement of constitutional and basic rights as set out in Section 4 thereof. 29.According to the Respondent State, the rights claimed by the Appticants are provided for under Article 13(6)(a) of the Constitution of Tanzania ol 1977, noting that though the Applicants are alleging violations of the various rights under the Constitution; they did not refer the alleged violations to the High Court during the trial as required under Section 9 (1) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. 30.The Respondent State submits that the Applicants' failure to refer the violations of their rights to the High Court or to raise them during the trial, denied it the chance to redress the alleged violations at the domestic level. 31.The Respondent State also reiterates its submission that the Applicants' allegations are being raised for the first time before this Court and thus it was never given an opportunity to address them in its national courts. 32.The Applicants submit that the principle of exhaustion of local remedies is indeed recognised in international human rights law. Nevertheless, they argue that having been convicted in the District Court, they filed appeals in both the High Court and the I /-J