000511 jurisdiction before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the responsibility of the States for such violations.s 36. ln its established jurisprudence, the Court has consistently held that an Applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies.o Furthermore, in several cases involving the Respondent State, the Court has repeatedly stated that the remedies of constitutional petition and application for review of a judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Tanzanian judicial system are extraordinary remedies that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.T 37. The Court notes from the record that the Applicant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, and on 29 July 2013, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the High Court, which had earlier upheld the judgment of the District Court of Sengerema. ln addition to pursuing the ordinary judicial remedies, the Applicant also, attempted to use the review procedure at the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State therefore had the opportunity to redress his violations. 38. lt is thus clear that the Applicant has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. 39. For this reason, the court dismisses the objection that the Applicant has not exhausted local remedies. 5Application No.006i2012. Judgmentof 26tOSl2O17 (Merits), African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya. gg 93-94. 6 Nex Thomas v Tanzania (merits) (2015) 1 AfcLR 46s g 64; witfred onyango Nganyi and others v Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 AfCLR 507 S 95. 7 Alex Thomas v Tanzania (merits) (2015) I AfCLR 465. $65; Mohamed Abubakariv Tanzania (merits) (2016) 1 ArcLR 599, gg 66-70; Christopher Jonas v Tanzania (Merits), g 44. 12