*** 36. The Court recalls that, as it has consistently held, the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies is an internationally recognised and accepted rule restated in Article 56(5) of the Charter, and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules.11 As established in the Court’s jurisprudence, the remedies to be exhausted must be those that are ordinary and judicial in nature.12 37. The Court has also held that the constitutional petition procedure as it applies in the Respondent State’s judicial system is not a remedy that an Applicant is required to exhaust.13 Consequently, in instances where the Applicant has gone through the judicial system up to the Court of Appeal, which is the highest court in the Respondent State, it should be considered that local remedies have been exhausted.14 38. The Court notes that in the present application, the Applicant’s appeal was determined through a judgment rendered on 16 February 2016 by the Court of Appeal sitting at Bukoba, which is the highest judicial authority of the Respondent State. Given that the constitutional petition is not a remedy that the Applicant ought to have used, the Court holds that domestic remedies were exhausted in the present matter. 39. The Court is cognisant of the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicant’s allegation that he was prevented from calling witnesses is being raised for the first time and, therefore, domestic remedies were not exhausted in that respect. 11 Sébastien Germain Ajavon v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (4 December 2020) 4 AfCLR 133, § 85 and Diakité Couple v. Republic of Mali (jurisdiction and admissibility) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 118, § 41. 12 Laurent Munyandilikirwa v. Republic of Rwanda, ACtHPR, Application No. 023/2015, Ruling of 2 December 2021, § 74 and Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 64. 13 Gozbert Henerico v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 056/2016, Judgment of 10 January 2022, § 61; Elisamehe v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 35-36; Mgosi Mwita Makungu v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 550, § 46 and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 95. 14 Hamis Shaban alias Hamis Ustadh v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 026/2015, Judgment of 2 December 2021, § 51 and Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 76. 10