39. This Court has also stated in a number of cases involving the Respondent State that the remedies of filing a constitutional petition in the High Court and use of the review procedure in its system, are extraordinary remedies that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.7 40. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant having been convicted at the District Court of Chato filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on 29 October 2014. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, which on 19 February 2016, upheld the judgment of the High Court. The Court further notes that the claims raised by the Applicant herein were also raised in substance in the national courts, given that he had also alleged that he was not accorded the right to be heard and he challenged the procedure leading to his conviction. The Respondent State thus had the opportunity to redress the alleged violations. Consequently, the Applicant exhausted all the available domestic remedies. 41. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection relating to the nonexhaustion of local remedies. B. Other conditions of admissibility 42. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules. Even so, it must satisfy itself that these conditions have been met. 43. From the record, the Court notes that, the Applicant has been clearly identified by name in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules. 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