responsibility for the same.13 Moreover, for local remedies to be exhausted, the Applicant must have presented before domestic courts, at least in substance, the claims that he raises before this Court. 40. The Court reiterates its jurisprudence where it has held that: ... where an alleged human rights violation occurs in the course of the domestic judicial proceedings, domestic courts are thereby afforded an opportunity to pronounce themselves on possible human rights breaches. This is because the alleged human rights violations form part of the bundle of rights and guarantees that were related to or were the basis of the proceedings before domestic courts. In such a situation it would, therefore, be unreasonable to require the Applicants to lodge a new application before the domestic courts to seek relief for such claims.14 41. The Court observes that the claims raised by the Applicant in this Application were also raised in substance at the national courts, given that he had also challenged the procedure leading to his conviction. The Respondent State thus had the opportunity to redress the alleged violations. 42. The Court further observes that in the instant Application, the Applicant’s allegations about his conviction being based on circumstantial evidence and the defence of an alibi, revolve around issues relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts. Both the High Court and Court of Appeal considered the issue of circumstantial evidence and pronounced themselves on it. Additionally, the issue of the defence of alibi was raised by the Applicant but it was determined that the Applicant did not follow the applicable legal procedures for raising this defence. In any case, even if the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 14 Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 014/2015, Judgment of 28 November 2019, § 37; Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, §§ 60-65, Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 54; Ernest Karatta, Walafried Millinga, Ahmed Kabunga and 1744 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 002/2017, Judgment of 30 September 2021 (merits and reparations), § 57. 13 13