prays the Court to declare the Application inadmissible.17 As to the conviction of the Applicant on the basis of the doctrine of recent possession, the Respondent State alleges that the Applicant had the legal remedy of filing a review of the decision of the Court of Appeal, which he did not pursue. 48. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that the Applicant failed to pursue the available local remedies before the national Courts: by not raising the issue of the Court of Appeal not pronouncing itself on the inconsistent referencing by District Court and High Court of the Criminal Case numbers; not being accorded free legal representation during the trial; the Court of Appeal’s reliance on evidence used for identification; and the delay in the dispensation of justice. 49. Finally, the Respondent State submits that the remedy to institute a review of the decision of the Court of Appeal was made known to the Applicant by the prison authorities. However, the Applicant sought the court’s leave to file an application for review,” ten (10) years after the Court of Appeal delivered its decision on 1 June 2010”. Therefore, any so-called delay was caused by the Applicant himself. On these submissions, the Respondent State asserts that the admissibility requirement under Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court have not been met and the Application should therefore be declared inadmissible and dismissed. * 50. The Applicant contends that he has exhausted local remedies available in the Respondent State’s judicial system. Moreover, he appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, being the highest court in the Respondent State, in Criminal Appeal No. 322 of 2007. Furthermore, he contends that the Court 17 Urban Mkandawire v. Republic of Malawi, ACtHPR, Application No. 003/2011, Judgment of 13 March 2011 (jurisdiction & admissibility), § 38.1-38.2; Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 003/2012, Judgment of 28 March 2014 (jurisdiction & admissibility), § 142-145 and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ decision in Article 19 versus Eritrea. 14