*** 38. 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 the local remedies are unavailable or ineffective, or the domestic procedure to pursue them is unduly prolonged.11 This is to ensure that, as the primary duty bearers, States have the opportunity to address human rights violations occurring within their jurisdiction before an international body is called upon to intervene. In its jurisprudence, the Court has affirmed that in order for this requirement to be met, the remedies that should be exhausted must be ordinary judicial remedies.12 39. In the instant Application, the Court observes that the Applicant was tried before the High Court sitting at Mbeya and convicted on 30 June 2015. Thereafter, the Applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting at Mbeya which affirmed the conviction and sentence on 12 October 2017. It was only after the Court of Appeal’s decision that this Application was filed on 28 September 2018. Given that the Court of Appeal, within the Respondent State’s legal system, is the highest judicial body that one has recourse to, the Court finds that the Applicant exhausted domestic remedies. 40. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies as required 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 conditions of admissibility 41. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding the Application’s compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and 11 Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 56. 12 Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 95. 11