Act. In this connection, the Respondent State's contention is that both Applicants could have filed a constitutional petition regarding the alleged violation of their rights before approaching this Court. However, as the Court has consistently held, the remedy of a constitutional petition in the Respondent State’s judicial system is an extraordinary remedy that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.10 46. Given that there is no contest that both Applicants, after being convicted and sentenced, pursued their appeals all the way to the Court of Appeal, which is the highest judicial body in the Respondent State, with their grievances, the Court finds that both Applicants exhausted domestic remedies and thus dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. ii. Objection alleging failure to file the consolidated Applications within a reasonable time 47. The Respondent State contends that it took the First Applicant three (3) years and ten (10) months after the Court of Appeal’s dismissed his appeal for him to file his Application. According to the Respondent State, this lapse of time was unreasonable and should thus make the First Applicant’s Application inadmissible. In support of its argument, the Respondent State cites the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Michael Majuru v. Zimbabwe and submits that a period of no more than six (6) months should be deemed as reasonable for filing applications before the Court. 48. According to the Respondent State, “the [Second] Applicant’s case at the local jurisdiction was concluded in 27th day of October 2008. The [Second] Applicant filed this Application on 08th May 2018, which is ten years after the conclusion of his case…” The Respondent State thus submits that 10 Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 46; Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 60-62 and Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 66-70. 14