35. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application, based on non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to file the application within a reasonable time. The Court will therefore consider the said objections (A) before examining other admissibility requirements (B), if necessary. A. Objection based on failure to exhaust local remedies 36. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant has not met the admissibility requirements provided under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, as he did not exhaust all local remedies prior to filling this Application before this Court. 37. The Respondent State avers in this respect that the trial court, the District Court of Karagwe, rendered its decision on the 19 August 2011. Aggrieved by this decision, the Applicant appealed at both the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2015 and at the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal Case No. 483 of 2015, on which the two Courts rendered their decisions on 12 October 2015 and 20 February 2016, respectively. The Respondent State further avers that the High Court not only upheld the decision of the District Court, but also substituted the 20-year sentence with the mandatory sentence of 30 years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the decision of the High Court, thereby dismissing the Applicant’s appeal. 38. The Respondent State contends that the alleged violations of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter and Article 13 of its Constitution are completely new claims which were never raised at the municipal level. Furthermore, if the Applicant felt that his right to legal representation was being curtailed by the District Court, he should have raised his concern before the same Court, which could have referred the matter to the High Court for determination under Section 9 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. 11