'i" o00urr 56.The court further notes that both the First Applicant and the seventh Applicant appealed their convictions and sentences to the court of Appealwhich dismissed the appeals. The question of the legality of their conviction and sentence, therefore, was enmeshed in the bundle of rights and guarantees due to the Applicants which the court of Appeal could have pronounced itself on during the hearing of the appeals. The court of Appeal, therefore, which is the highest court in.tfu_ Respondent State, had the opportunity to pronounce itsetf on the allegatiort pertaining to the legality of the Applicants' sentences. 57. secondly, the court, recalling its jurisprudence, reiterates its position that the remedy of a constitutional petition, as framed in the Respondent state's legal system, is an extraordinary remedy that an applicant need not exhaust before approaching the court.6 For this reason, the court holds that the First Applicant and seventh Applicant need not have filed a constitutional petition before approaching the Court. court, therefore, hotds that the Application is admissible in so far as relates to the allegations by the First Applicant and the seventh 58. The it Applicant. The Respondent State's objection is, therefore, dismissed. 59.The court, having declared inadmissible the joint allegations by all the Applicants and having only admitted the allegation by the First Applicant and the seventh Applicant will now proceed to examine the merits of this allegation. VII. MERITS 60.The First Applicant and the seventh Applicant submit that their fundamental rights under Article 13(6)(c) of the Respondent state,s 6 Application No. 053/2016. Judgment oI 28t0312019 (Merits), oscar Josiah v tJnited Republic of Tanzania, SS38-39 and Application No. 006i2013. Judgment of 18/03/2016 (Merits), Wilfred'Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v United Repubtic of Tanzania, g 9b. 18 ('P \-t ----