Respondent State maintained that the Court of Appeal is the highest Court in the land.* Additionally, the procedures followed on local remedies were unduly prolonged. 57. delays The Court finds that there were in the determination systematic and prolonged of his appeal to the Court of Appeal. Following the dismissal, on 23 March 2000 of the Applicant’s appeal to the High Court, being Criminal Appeal Number 82 of 1998, it was only on 17 April 2003 that his Appeal to the Court of Appeal was registered. There were also unreasonable delays in providing the Applicant with the record of proceedings of the appeal heard by the High Court, (Criminal Appeal Number 82 of 1998), which he required to prosecute his Appeal at the Court of Appeal. A period of two (2) years and five (5) months lapsed between 23 April 2003, when the Applicant of proceedings, first requested for this record and 21 September 2005, when the appeal at the Court of Appeal was heard and dismissed, for being filed out of time. The Court notes that by the time the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, the Applicant was yet to be provided with the record of the proceedings of Criminal Appeal Number 82 of 1998. 58. The Applicant then filed a Miscellaneous Application at the High Court, on 31 October 2005, seeking leave to file his Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal, out of time. Once this application was granted on 12 February 2007, his new appeal to the Court of Appeal was registered on the same date, as Criminal Appeal Number 217 of 4 See Communication 333/06 Southern Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania 28" Activity Report November 2009 — May 2010 paragraph 29. so a = 24 Sw ES ©_