31. In this Application, the Respondent State raises an objection to the admissibility of the Application based on the Applicant’s failure to exhaust local remedies. The Court will, therefore, consider the said objection before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 32. The Respondent State contends, without substantiating, that the Application does not meet the requirement of Article 56(5) of the Charter as local remedies were not exhausted. 33. The Applicant avers that he exhausted all local remedies and, therefore, complied with the requirement under Article 56(5) of the Charter. *** 34. The Court notes that, pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of which are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, 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.8 35. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the High Court of Tanzania sitting at Tabora on 26 June 2015. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State which, on 26 February 2016, upheld the judgment of the High Court. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicant exhausted all the available domestic remedies. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 8 9