State’s judicial system constitutes an extraordinary remedy that no
Applicant was required to exhaust before seizing this Court.11
48. In relation to the contention that the Applicant is raising some allegations for
the first time, the Court notes that the Applicant makes three main
allegations of human rights violations. Firstly, he contends that the domestic
courts convicted him based on unlawfully obtained confessions and
exhibits. Secondly, he further alleges that he was remanded in police
custody for seven days without being promptly brought before the Court, as
mandated by law. Lastly, the Applicant alleges that he was subjected to
torture during his time in police custody.
49. With regard to the first allegation, that the Applicant’s conviction was based
on unlawfully obtained evidence, the Court notes that the evidence which
the Applicant impugns is the confession statement which was admitted by
the High Court and upheld by the Court of Appeal. In respect of this issue,
the Court notes, from the record, that this contention was key to the
proceedings before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. As a
matter of fact, due to the contentious nature of the Applicant’s confession,
the High Court conducted a trial within a trial before admitting the confession
statement. The Court of Appeal also had occasion to review the Applicant’s
confession and found that it had no reason to differ with the findings of the
trial court.
50. Given the above, it is clear that the Applicant’s allegations of unlawfully
obtained evidence were dealt with by the domestic courts. The Court thus
finds that the Applicant exhausted local remedies.
51. As for the second allegation, concerning prolonged detention in police
custody, the Court observes, from the record, that the Applicant did not raise
this issue during the domestic proceedings, thus it was not examined by the
domestic courts. Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicant did not
11
Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, §§ 60-62;
Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (23 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 66-70.
12