the Court of Appeal. Additionally, he does not expound on the circumstantial evidence he alludes to before this Court. As an additional objection in this regard, the Respondent State contends that the Applicant is raising for the first time the defence of an alibi, whilst he had the opportunity to raise it during the proceedings before the High Court and Court of Appeal. According to the Respondent State, after the Court of Appeal decision, the Applicant had the possibility of requesting for a review under Rule 66 of the Court of Appeals Rules on the grounds that the decision was based on a manifest error which resulted in a miscarriage of justice. * 38. On his part, the Applicant maintains that he exhausted all the local remedies by filing an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Tanzania before the Appeal Court, which is the highest court of the country. He further submits that since the Court of Appeal had rendered a decision on his appeal, it would be unreasonable to require him to file a new application in respect of his right to a fair trial before the High Court which is a court of a lower rank in relation to the Court of Appeal. *** 39. This Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, unless the same are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the domestic proceedings are unduly prolonged.12 The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing states the opportunity to resolve cases of alleged human rights violations within their jurisdiction before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the state’s 12 Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, §§ 142-144; Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 030/2017, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 43. 12