47. The Court observes that in the instant Application, the Applicant’s allegations form part of the “bundle of rights and guarantees” relating to the right to a fair trial that led to his appeal, thus there was no need for him to go back to the High Court.13 Furthermore, this Court observes that the Respondent State had the opportunity to address the possible human rights breaches before the domestic courts but did not. 48. Regarding the filing of a constitutional petition before the Respondent State’s High Court, as provided for under Article 13 of the Respondent State’s Constitution, the Court has already held that this remedy, in the Tanzanian judicial system, is an extraordinary remedy that the Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.14 49. Consequently, the Court holds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and therefore, it dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. B. Objection on the ground of failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 50. The Respondent State claims that since the Application was not filed within a reasonable time, this Court should dismiss this Application for failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 40(6) of the Rules. It asserts that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was rendered on 20 February 2016 but the Applicant filled his Application before this Court eight (8) months later, on 18 October 2016. 51. The Respondent State argues that the Court has not provided for a specific definition of a reasonable time, however, other regional mechanisms such as the European Court of Human Rights and African Commission on Human 13 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 60. Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid, §§ 60-62; Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 66-70; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44. 14 14