Criminal Application No. 80 of 2010, in which the Applicant claimed violation of his basic rights and freedoms guaranteed in Part Ill of Chapter One of the Constitution of the Respondent and claimed restoration of his property allegedly seized by the Police unlawfully, was withdrawn by the Applicant. The withdrawal of the two applications by the Applicant has not been disputed by the Applicant. He disputes the withdrawal of another application, Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 16 of 2011. The view of the Court is, therefore, that the Applicant withdrew these applications freely and voluntarily. 141. Now, according to the law and practice in Tanzania, an Applicant who is dissatisfied with a dismissal or a striking out of an application has the liberty to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania. There is no evidence that even in instances where he could have done so, the Applicant seized the Court of Appeal Again, an application which 1s withdrawn can be reinstituted in the High Court. According to the Application before this Court, the Applicant neither appealed to the Court of Appeal the cases which were struck out, nor reinstituted in the High Court some of the applications which were withdrawn In these circumstances, the Court finds any claim that the Applicant has exhausted local remedies in respect of the applications which were dismissed, struck out or withdrawn, to be incorrect. 142. Exhaustion of local remedies by an Applicant is not a matter of choice. It is a legal requirement in international law. Therefore this Court in the matter of Application No 003/2011 Urban Mkandawire v Republic of Malawi affirmed the importance of this requirement; it dismissed the application on the basis that the Applicant in that matter had not exhausted local judicial remedies. 143. In Communication 263/02 Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists, Law Society of Kenya and Kituo Cha Sheria v Kenya the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights stated that: "The African Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on the Complainants to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of local remedies. It is not enough for the Complainants to cast aspersion on the ability of the domestic remedies of the State due to isolated mcidences.''5 5 144. The Commission reiterated this position in Communication 299/05 Anuak Justice Council v Ethiopia in which it stated that: "Apart from casting aspersions on the effectiveness of local remedies, the Complainant has not provided concrete evidence or demonstrated sufficiently that these apprehensions are founded and may constituted [sic] a barrier to it attempting local remedies. In the view of this Commission, the Complainant is simply casting doubts about the effectiveness of the domestic remedies. This Commission is of the view that it is incumbent on every complainant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt the exhaustion of, local remedies''6 6 145. In relation to the instant case, the Applicant stated that though he was aware of the existence of the Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania, he did not approach that Court as he was frustrated. The Court of Appeal of the United Republic of Tanzania was t given a chance to address the issues at hand, a situation that this Court will not countenance by admitting the Application Whether local remedies are unduly prolonged 146. In reply to the Respondent's response, the Applicant claims that the local remedies in the national courts were unduly prolonged and that he is therefore covered by the exception to the requirement to exhaust local remedies under Article 56 (5) of the Charter which makes it mandatory for Applicants to exhaust local remedies first before filing their applications in this Court, "unless it is obvious that this procedure is unduly prolonged". 147. To fully address the issue of undue prolongation of domestic remedies, it would be necessary to monitor the progress of the Miscellaneous Criminal and Civil applications through the national courts of the Respondent. Between 2007 and 2011, the Applicant was able to file a total of seven applications in the High Court at Arusha, as follows: [list=a][*]Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7 of 2007: It commenced after 26 October 2007 the day when he got detained. The application was dismissed on 14 December 2010. It was in the High Court for approximately two (2) years and two (2) months. [*]Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 54 of 2009: It commenced in 2009 and ended on 11 August 2010 when it was struck out. The application was in Court for about one (1) year and seven (7) months. [*]Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 6 of 2010: commenced 19