seized, contrary to Section 38 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 24(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. 107 It is further argued that the Applicant has been charged in the Criminal Cases unprocedurally, contrary to Section 38(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act; therefore, the charges against him are incurably defective and in violation of his human rights and which violation cannot be determined by the Resident Magistrate's Court of Arusha. 108. The Applicant maintains that he was not arrested on 12 September 2007 but on 26 October 2007 and that Session No. 3/2009 is pending trial at the High Court at Arusha for almost three years. 109. The Applicant states that the High Court at Arusha determined that Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 7 of 2007 was premature; therefore it was unnecessary to appeal this decision. This Application to the High Court was for the Police to produce a document acknowledging seizure of the Applicant's property following the failure of the Regional Crime Officer to produce the said document. 110. The Applicant maintains that he did not withdraw Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.16 of 2011, rather, he wrote requesting for the coram of three Judges to be constituted to hear the case. Thereafter, the High Court at Arusha withdrew the case in the absence of the Applicant. These circumstances constitute the exhaustion of local remedies. 111. The Applicant contends that the local remedies which the Respondent alleges he has not exhausted have been unavailable, Inordinate and unduly prolonged. The Court's Ruling on the preliminary objection on jurisdiction 112. The Respondent's contention that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae since the Application is based only on the provisions of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Criminal Procedure Act upon whose adjudication is the sole preserve of the national courts of the Respondent cannot be upheld. This would be tantamount to stating that the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the compatibility of national legislation, including Constitutions, with the Charter; that is, as long as national Constitutions and national legislation form the basis of an application, the Court would not have jurisdiction. 113. The Court rejected the above contention in Application 00912011 Tanganyika Law Society and The Legal and Human Rights Centre v the United Republic of Tanzania and Application 011/2011 Reverend Christopher Mtikila v the United Republic of Tanzania (Consolidated Applications). In that matter, the Court considered the provisions of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, and found them to be incompatible with the provisions of the Charter. This is because where only national law or constitution has been cited and relied upon in an application, the Court will look for corresponding articles in the Charter or any other human rights instrument, and base its decision thereon. 114. As long as the rights allegedly violated are protected by the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the State concerned, the Court will have jurisdiction over the matter. In the instant case, the Applicant alleges violation of his right to equal protection of the law and equality before the law, the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status, the right to liberty and security of the person and not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained, the right to a fair trial, the right to property and the right to the independence of the Courts and the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. 115. The rights alleged to have been violated are protected under the Charter. The Court therefore finds that it has jurisdiction ratione materiae over the Application. 116.Article 56 of the Charter also comes into consideration in this regard Article 56 of the Charter provides that. "Communications relating to human and peoples' rights referred to in Article 55 received by the Commission, shall be considered if they: 2. Are compatible with the Charter of the Organization of African Unity or with the present Charter..." 117. The introductory sentence of Article 56, speaks of "Communications relating to Human and Peoples' Rights." None of these provisions require that the communrcation should state that it is based on the Charter; rather, the communication must merely relate to "human and peoples ' rights", and be compatible with the Charter. 15