heard. According to the Applicant, this demonstrates the procedural complexities and limitations he faced within the domestic legal system, further strengthening his argument that he has exhausted all local remedies. *** 40. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, unless the same are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the domestic proceedings are unduly prolonged.15 This requirement seeks 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. 41. In its established case-law, the Court has consistently held that in order for this requirement of admissibility to be met, the remedies that should be exhausted must be ordinary judicial remedies.16 Furthermore, the Court has considered that the review procedure, as it applies in the Respondent State’s judicial system, is not a remedy that an Applicant is required to exhaust.17 42. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal before the Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, was determined when the said Court rendered its judgment on 15 June 2016. 43. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection based on the failure to exhaust local remedies. 15 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 64; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 56; Werema and Werema v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 40. 16 Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3 AfCLR 308, § 95. 17 Zabron v. Tanzania, supra, § 13. 12