0 0014 6 Appeal referred to the first Applicant as well. Therefore, The Applicants concluded therefore that they exhausted local remedies. 31. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56 (5) of the Charter and Rule 40 (5) of the Rules, in order for an application before the Court to be admissible, local remedies must have been exhausted, unless the procedure to pursue them is unduly prolonged. 32.|n its jurisprudence, the Court has underscored that an applicant is only required to exhaust ordinary judicial remedies.6 ln relation to applications against the Respondent State, the Court has determined that the constitutional petition procedure in the High Court and the use of the review procedure at the Court of Appeal are extraordinary remedies in the Tanzanian judicial system, which are not required to be exhausted prior to filing an application before this Court.T 33. ln the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the second Applicant, Mr. lfunda Kisite appealed to the highest court in the Respondent State, that is, the Court of Appeal, which upheld his conviction and sentence. 34.The first Applicant, Mr Godfred Anthony appealed only to the High Court following his conviction by the District Court. However, while considering the appeal of the second Applicant, the Court of Appeal observed that all 6 Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment (Merits), 64. See also Application No. 006/2013. Judgment $ 1810312016 (Merits), Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and g Others v. united Republic of Tanzania, g 95, Oscar Josiah v Unrted Republic of Tanzania (Merits)", $ 38, Application No. 016/2016. Ruling ol 07t12t2018 (Merits and Reparations). Diocles William v United Republic of Tanzania, g 42 7 Alex Thomas v Tanzania Judgment (Merits), SS 63- 65. 11