Article 26(2) of the Constitution which was the relevant provision. The Respondent State thus argues that if the Applicants had filed a case alleging violations of rights of PWA pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Constitution they would have been heard. 60. During the public hearing, the Respondent State contended, that the third Applicant, the LHRC had successfully filed constitutional petitions before the High Court of Tanzania alleging violation of human rights, and cited the case of Legal and Human Rights Centre and Others v. Attorney General as an illustration of one such occasion.14 * 61. The Applicants aver that the rationale of the rule on exhaustion of local remedies is to give national authorities the chance to prevent or remedy the violations of the Charter. Citing the Court’s case of Lohé Issa Konate v. Burkina Faso, the Applicants argue that they are not required to exhaust local remedies unless they are available, effective and sufficient. 62. Referring to the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania in the matter of Legal and Human Rights Centre and Tanganyika Law Society v. Hon. Mizengo Pinda and Attorney General, the Applicants aver that local remedies are unavailable to them before the Respondent State’s courts. In this regard, they argue that corporate bodies do not have locus standi to seize national courts on alleged violations of human rights in the Respondent State. 63. According to the Applicants, section 4 of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act 1995, limits the seizure of the High Court on alleged human rights violations to “direct victims” of the alleged violations. 14 High Court of Tanzania case, Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) & Others vs Attorney General (2) (Massati, J.) (Misc. Civil Case 77 of 2006) [2006] TZHC 2 (24 April 2006). 16