issues alleged as being raised for the first time before the Court were not considered by the domestic courts, the latter ought to have been aware of them as they were precipitated by national proceedings. 43. In the circumstances, the issues alleged as being raised for the first time before this Court should be considered as part of the “bundle of rights and guarantees” relating to the right to a fair trial that led to the Applicant’s appeal. As such, the Applicant did not need to go back to the High Court, since the Respondent State already had the opportunity to address the possible human rights breaches before the domestic courts.15 44. 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 consistently 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.16 45. Consequently, the Court holds that local remedies were exhausted as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. B. Other admissibility requirements 46. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of the Rules. Even so, it must satisfy itself that these requirements have been met. 47. From the records on file, the Court notes that, the Applicant has been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 15 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 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. 16 14