43. The Court notes that pursuant to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it must fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless local remedies are unavailable, ineffective, or the domestic procedure to pursue them is unduly prolonged.15 This requirement seeks to ensure that States have the opportunity to address human rights violations occurring within their jurisdiction before an international body is called upon to intervene. As established in the Court’s jurisprudence, the remedies to be exhausted must be those that are judicial and ordinary in nature.16 44. The Court observes that the Respondent State’s arguments relate to the Applicant’s failure to file a constitutional petition regarding the alleged violation of his rights before approaching this Court. In this regard, the Court reiterates its position that the constitutional petition procedure, as it applies in the Respondent State’s judicial system, is not a remedy that an Applicant is required to exhaust.17 45. The Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal was determined through a judgment rendered on 25 September 2013 by the Court of Appeal sitting at Tabora, which is the highest judicial authority of the Respondent State. Given that the constitutional petition is not a remedy that the Applicant ought to have used, the Court holds that all domestic remedies were exhausted. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection on this point. B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 46. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant filed his Application after a period of three (3) years had elapsed following the dismissal of his appeal 15 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 64 and Werema Wangoko Werema and Wasiri Wangoko Werema v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 40. 16 Laurent Munyandilikirwa v. Republic of Rwanda, ACtHPR, Application No. 023/2015, Ruling of 2 December 2021 (jurisdiction and admissibility), § 74 and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 95. 17 Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022 (merits and reparations), § 61; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 46 and Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 66-70. 13