institutions and the African Union, which makes it consistent with the requirement of Rule 50(2)(c) of the Rules. 34. With respect to the requirement set out under Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules, the Court notes that the Application is not exclusively based on news disseminated through the mass media. The Applicant mainly relies on documents from the proceedings before national courts, and thus the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules. 35. With regard to the requirement under Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules on exhaustion of local remedies, the Court reiterates its established case law that “the local remedies that must be exhausted by the Applicants are ordinary judicial remedies”,9 unless they are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the proceedings are unduly prolonged.10 36. In the instant case, the Court notes from the record that the Applicant having been convicted and sentenced at the District Court of Bukoba filed an appeal against both to the High Court, which dismissed his appeal on 30 May 2007. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, which on 20 February 2012, upheld the judgment of the High Court. Consequently, the Applicant has exhausted all the available domestic remedies and thus, the Application complies with Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 37. With regard to Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, the Court notes that the Rule requires an application to be filed within: “a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter.” 9 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 64. See also Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465, § 64; and Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 others v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (18 March 2016) 1 AfCLR 507, § 95. 10 Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 314, § 77. See also Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398, § 40. 9