0001s0 violation had been committed by the Court of Appeal; nor could he file such a petition before a single High Court Judge against a ruling by the highest court in Tanzania made up of a panel of three Judges. 33. The Court notes that the Applicant filed an appeal and had access to the highest court of the Respondent State, namely, the Court of Appeal, to adjudicate on the various allegations, especially those relating to violations of the right to a fair trial. 34. Concerning the filing of a constitutional petition for violation of the Applicant's rights, the Court has already established that this remedy in the Tanzanian judicial system is an extraordinary remedy that the Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.a 35.With regard to the allegation that the Applicant did not raise the issue of legal aid during domestic proceedings but chose to bring it before this Court for the first time, the Court, in accordance with the Judgment rendered in A/ex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzanra, is of the view that the violation occurred in the course of the domestic judicial proceedings that led to the Applicant's conviction and sentence to thirty (30) years' imprisonment; that the allegation forms part of the "bundle of rights and guarantees" relating to the right to a fair trial which was the basis of the Applicant's appeals. The domestic judicial authorities thus had ample opportunity to address the allegation even without the Applicant having raised it explicitly. lt would therefore be unreasonable to require the Applicant to file a new application before the domestic courts to seek redress for these claims.s 36.Accordingly, the Court finds that the Applicant has exhausted the local remedies as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 40(5) of the Rules. The Court therefore overrules this preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Application relating to the exhaustion of local remedies. a Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment, op. cit., paras. 60 - 62; Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania Judgment, op. crT., paras.66-70;Application No.011/2015. Judgment ot28lgl20 17, v United Republic of Tanzania (hereinafter referred to as "Chnbtopher Jonas v Jonas ud para.44. s Alex Thomas v. Tanzanra Judgment, op. cff., pars. 60 - 65 9 C YAr-a S \