t) Condifions that are in contention hetween fhe Padies a) Objectlon to admissibility on grounds of failure to exhaust local remedies 37.The Respondent, relying on the jurisprudence of the Commissiona, contends that it is premature for the Applicant to bring the instant case before an international body given that he still has internal remedies at his disposal. 33.According to the Respondent, the Applicant first of all has the possibility of filing a constitutional petition before the High Court of Tanzania to obtaln relief for the alleged violation of his rights, under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act Chapter 3 as amended in 2002 (Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act [Chapter 3 Reyised Edition 20021). 39,The Respondent maintains that after the Court of Appeal decision, the Applicant also had the possibility of requesting that same court to review its Judgment under Rule 66 of its Rules. 40.The Respondent, in conclusion, submits that since the Applicant has not exercised the aforesaid remedies available at national level, the Application does not meet the requirements set out in Rule 40 (5) of the Rules and must therefore be dismissed. 41. The Applicant maintains that he has exhausted all the local remedies in filing an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Tanzania before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania which is the highest court in the country. He adds that since the Court of Appeal has made a ruling on his appeal, it would not be reasonable to require him to file a new application in respect of his a Communication No. 333/06: Southern African Human Rrghts NGOs Network and Others v Tanzania; Communication No. 2632AA2; Kenyan Section of the lnternational Commission of w Society of Kenya, Rituo Cha Shena v..Kenya; Communication No. 275103 t E L7 l ut) (!_ .li