or were the basis of their appeals. The domestic authorities thus had ample opportunities to address these allegations even without the Applicants having raised them explicitly. It would therefore be unreasonable to require the Applicants to lodge a new application before the domestic courts to seek redress for these claims? 55. With regard to the other two claims relating to the procedural irregularities claimed to have existed in the identification parade and the alleged violation of the Applicants' presumption of innocence contrary to article 7 of the Charter, the records available before the Court show that the Applicants raised these matters before the domestic courts. 8 Therefore, the Applicants have exhausted local remedies with respect to such claims. 56. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of this Court has established that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is applicable only with respect to ordinary, available and efficient judicial remedies but not extraordinary or nonjudicial remedies. In this regard, the Respondent alleges that the Applicants could have filed a constitutional petition to the High Court before they bring their matter to this Court. On this issue, this Court has held that the said constitutional review is "not common, that it is not granted as of a right and that it can be exercised only exceptionally... and is available as extraordinary remedy" in the Respondent State, thus, the Applicant was not required to pursue it. 9 In the same vein, it was not necessary for the Applicants in the instant Application to approach the High Court to seek constitutional redress for the violations of their rights because such remedy was extraordinary. 57. In view of the foregoing, the Court therefore decides that the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is satisfied in the instant Application in terms of Article 56 (5) of the Charter. 7 Alex Thomas v The United Republic of Tanzania, Application No. 005/2013, Judgment of 20 November 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Alex Thomas Case), para. 60-65 8 Judgment of High Court of Tanzania, p. 250 9 Abubakari Case, para. 72 17