at the Court of Appeal must, pursuant to the jurisdiction of the Court, be available, effective and satisfactory. 44. In support of its contention, the Respondent State cites the judgment of the Court in Tanganyika Law Society and the Legal and Human Rights Centre & Rev. Christopher Mtilika v. Tanzania. * 45. The Applicant asserts that he pursued all available local remedies before filing the Application before the Court. He clarifies that his case reached its conclusion with a final ruling from the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal. *** 46. The Court notes that under Article 56(5) of the Charter, which is restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any Application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless the same is unduly prolonged.9 The Court has consistently pointed out the rule of exhaustion of local remedies aims at offering States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to determine the responsibility of the Respondent State.10 47. In the instant Application, the Court notes that the Applicant’s appeal before the Court of Appeal, the highest domestic court of the Respondent State, was determined when a judgment was rendered on 3 September 2015. As the Court has previously held, the review procedure within the Respondent 9 Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 030/2017, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 43; Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, §§ 142-144. 10 Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44. 11