opportunity to redress the violations alleged by the Applicant to have arisen from those proceedings.17 42. 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.18 43. 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, which applicants are not required to exhaust.19 44. 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.20 45. The Court, therefore, finds that the Applicant is deemed to have exhausted local remedies since the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ in the Respondent State, had upheld his conviction and sentence, following proceedings which allegedly violated his rights. 46. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies. 17 Rajabu Yusuph v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 036/2017 Ruling of 24 March 2022 (admissibility), § 51. 18 Ibid, § 52. 19 Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 78. 20 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), §§ 63-65. 14