of Appeal dismissed his appeal in its entirety on 1 June 2010, thereby bringing his case to its finality. The Applicant cites the Court’s jurisprudence in Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, where it held that, “…The Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the African Commission in Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network v. Tanzania, Communication 333/2008, Activity Report Nov 2009-May 2010, that the remedies to be exhausted are ordinary remedies.” 51. Citing the same case, the Applicant argues that this Court had previously held that an application for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal is neither necessary nor mandatory and that the final appeal in criminal trials lies with the Court of Appeal, which he has already accessed. The Applicant, therefore, prays this Court to find his application admissible, since he has fully exhausted all local remedies. *** 52. This Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, unless the same are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the proceedings in respect of the local remedies are unduly prolonged.18 53. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal before the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, was determined by the said court when it rendered its judgment on 1 June 2010. 54. The Court reiterates its jurisprudence where it has held that: (…) where an alleged human rights violation occurs in the course of the domestic judicial proceedings, domestic courts are thereby 18 Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, §§ 142-144; Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 030/2017, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 43. 15