tangible proof that the Applicant has not exhausted local remedies and that the Application should therefore be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 40(5) of the Rules. *** 35. The Applicant, in his Reply, does not contest the existence of the remedies invoked by the Respondent State but rather whether he was required to exhaust them. He argues that the remedies have been exhausted in as far as the Court of Appeal, the highest Court in the United Republic of Tanzania, delivered a Judgment in Criminal Case No.22812005, following his appeal. 36. With regard to the constitutional petition remedy and the review remedy, the Applicant alleges that these are "extraordinary remedies" which are not required to be pursued for the purposes of seeking redress before this Court. 37. Consequently, the Applicant argues that he has exhausted all the available local remedies and that the Application meets the admissibility condition set out in Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court. *** 38. With regard to local remedies, the Court notes that it has been established that the Applicant filed an appeal against his conviction before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the country, and that this Court upheld the judgments of the High Court and the District Court. 39. The key question is whether the two other remedies mentioned by the Respondent State, namely, the Constitutional Petition before the High Court and the Review before the Court of Appeal are remedies that must be exhausted by the Applicant within the meaning of Rule 40(5) of the Rules which in essence restates the provisions of Article 56 (5) of the Charter. Regarding the filing of a Constitutional Petition on the violation of the Applicant's rights, the Court has already stated that this remedy Y 4 in the 10 Tanzanian judicial system ry is an s