40. The Court observes in this regard that, in the present application, it is evident from the record that the issue of summoning of witnesses arose during the proceedings before the High Court during the hearing of the Applicant’s appeal from the District Court.15 In the said proceedings, the High Court dismissed the allegation highlighting that during the proceedings at the District Court on 27 January 2014, the Applicant informed the court that he would give his testimony under oath and that he had neither a witness to call nor an exhibit to tender. 41. It follows from the foregoing that the issue of calling of witnesses was considered as an appeal issue by the High Court and cannot, therefore, be said to arise for the first time before this Court. Domestic remedies should, therefore, be considered to have been exhausted in respect of the said issue. 42. Consequently, the Court holds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies as required under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and, therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection. B. Other conditions of admissibility 43. The Court notes that, in the present case, the parties are not challenging the application’s compliance with the requirements in Article 56 sub-articles (1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7) of the Charter, which are reiterated in sub-rules 50(2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of the Rules. However, the Court must examine whether these conditions have been met. 44. It is apparent from the record that the condition set out in Rule 50(2)(a) of the Rules has been satisfied, as the Applicant has clearly indicated his identity. 15 Jackson Godwin v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2014, Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania, 7 May 2015, pages 7-8. 11