47.According to the Respondent State, after the judgments of the Kibaha District Magistrate Court and of the appeals at the High Court and the Court of Appeal on his conviction and sentence on the charge of armed robbery, the Applicant should have sought redress for any alleged human rights violations by filing a constitutional petition in accordance with the Respondent State’s Constitution and its Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. 48. The Respondent State also avers that the Applicant could have sought a review of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2007 in accordance with the provisions of Court of Appeal of Tanzania’s Rules, 2009. 49. In his Reply, the Applicant did not deny the existence of local remedies as stated by the Respondent State. He argues, however, that domestic remedies were exhausted when the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 29 May 2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 141/2007 on the charge of armed robbery. The Applicant argues that the other remedies that the Respondent State claims he ought to have exercised are "extraordinary remedies" which he was not under obligation to exhaust. He maintains that since the Court of Appeal is the Respondent State's highest court, and has pronounced on his appeal, he was not obliged to file a constitutional petition before the High Court, which is a lower court in relation to the Court of Appeal. 50. The Applicant further submits that he seized this Court in the hope that doing so would speed up the finalisation of his appeal in the second case, that is, Criminal Appeal No. 58/2006 on his conviction and sentence on the count of conspiracy to commit a felony and robbery, which had been pending before the High Court since 2007, that is for over nine (9) years. 51, The Applicant accordingly prays the Court to take into account his appeals before the High Court and the Court of Appeal in respect of the first case and the undue delay in the finalisation of the appeal in his second case, to consider 16