*** 41. 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 has to fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing states 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.7 42. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant having been convicted at the District Court of Nzega filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on 25 March 2002. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, which on 7 March 2005, 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 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. 43. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection relating to the nonexhaustion of local remedies. B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 44. The Respondent State contends that the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 7 March 2005, while the Applicant seised the Court on 20 October 2017. In addition, the Respondent State alludes to the fact that it deposited its Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 7 11