41. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of both Applications on the basis of failure to exhaust local remedies and, specifically with respect to the second Application, on the basis that his Application was not filed within a reasonable time. The Court will consider these objections before examining other admissibility requirements, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 42. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants had legal remedies available to them within its jurisdiction which they could have pursued prior to filing their Applications before this Court. In this vein, it asserts that instead of prematurely lodging applications in the Court, the Applicants could have instituted a constitutional petition for enforcement of their basic rights under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act before its High Court if they were aggrieved by the decision of any of its domestic courts. The Respondent State emphasises that this could have been done after their conviction and sentence or during the proceedings at the District Court. 43. The Respondent State further submits that the Second Applicant’s allegation that his right to legal assistance was violated is being raised before this Court for the first time. According to the Respondent State, the Applicant had the opportunity of raising this claim at the domestic level, including by requesting for legal aid or defence Counsel in accordance with Section 310 of its Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter referred to as “the CPA”). The Respondent State contends that the Applicant failed to do so prior to seizing the Court. the Court should thus dismiss his Application for non-exhaustion of local remedies. 44. The Applicants contend that their Applications are consistent with all the admissibility requirements specified in Rule 50(2) of the Rules. On the issue of exhaustion of local remedies, the Applicants aver that their respective Applications meet this requirement as they seized the Court after their 12