42. Furthermore, the Applicant argues that he was not required to file an application for review as it would have been determined by the same Court of Appeal. He therefore submits that, he exhausted local remedies and thus complied with Article 56(5) of the Charter. *** 43. The Court notes pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, that any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing states with 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 responsibility for the same.6 44. This Court has also held in a number of cases involving the Respondent State that the remedy involving the application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision is an extraordinary remedy that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.7 45. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant having been convicted at the District Court of Chato on 3 February 2014, filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on 30 October 2014. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, which on 21 February 2016, upheld the judgment of the High Court. 46. Furthermore, the Court notes, that the right to free legal assistance forms part of the bundle of fair trial rights and guarantees which were related to, 6 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 7 See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 65; 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. 11