00019r constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union." A. Gonditions of admissibility in contention between the parties 27.While some of the above conditions are not in contention between the Parties, the Court notes that the Respondent State raised two objections: one relating to the exhaustion of local remedies and the other, regarding the timeframe for filing the Application before the Court. i. Objection based on the alleged failure to exhaust local remedies 28. The Respondent State argues that "[t]he exhaustion of domestic remedies is a fundamental principle of international law and that the Applicant should have used all domestic remedies before submitting the case to an international body such as the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights,,. 29. To buttress its assertions, the Respondent State relies on the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") jurisprudence in Communication No. 333/20 -SAHR/NGON and Others v. Tanzanra and Communication No. 275/03, Article 19 v. Eritrea. 30. The Respondent State contends that the alleged violation of the provisions of Articles 1 and 107A(2)(b) of the Tanzanian Constitution, 1977 should have been challenged in a constitutional petition3, as provided by Article 3O(3) of the Tanzanian Constitution and in the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Revised Edition, 2002. 31. The Respondent State also claims that the right to legal aid is provided under the Legal Aid Act (Crimina! Proceedings), Revised Edition, 2002, but the Applicant never requested for it before the domestic courts. *** 32.The Applicant refutes the Respondent State's assertion that the Application is inadmissible, arguing that he could not file a constitutional petition since the 3 Petition to the High Court against violations of the fundamental rights and duties 12 to 29 of the Constitution 8 g \1^^A t \