40. The Court recalls its established jurisprudence that, where the criminal
proceedings against an applicant have been determined by the highest
appellate court, the Respondent State will be deemed to have had the
opportunity to redress the violations alleged by the applicant to have arisen
from those proceedings.15
41. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal before the
Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, was
determined when that Court rendered its judgment on 23 February 2016.
Therefore, the Respondent State had the opportunity to address the
violations alleged by the Applicant arising from the Applicant’s trial and
appeals. The Court further notes that the Applicant’s allegations form part
of the “bundle of rights and guarantees” relating to the right to a fair trial
which was the basis of the Applicant’s appeals in domestic courts.16
42. Regarding the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant ought to
have filed an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the
Court has previously held that such an application for review is an
extraordinary remedy within the Respondent State which applicants are not
required to exhaust.17
43. Regarding the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant ought to
have filed a constitutional petition, the Court has, similarly, held that that the
constitutional petition procedure, within the Respondent State’s judicial
system, is an extraordinary remedy which applicants are not required to
exhaust.18 It would, moreover, be unreasonable to require the Applicant to
file a new application regarding his fair trial rights to the High Court, which
is a court lower than the Court of Appeal.19
15
Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 76;
Mohamed Selemani Marwa v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 014/2016
Judgment of 2 December 2021 (merits and reparations), § 45; Rajabu Yusuph v. United Republic of
Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2017 Ruling of 24 March 2022 (admissibility), § 51.
16 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 62.
17 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 78.
18 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 63-65.
19 Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 60-65.
12