ensure that States, as primary duty bearers, have the opportunity to address
human rights violations occurring within their jurisdiction before an
international body is called upon to intervene. It also reinforces the
subsidiary role of international human rights bodies in the protection of
human and peoples’ rights. As the Court has consistently affirmed, in order
for this requirement of admissibility to be met, the remedies that should be
exhausted must be ordinary judicial remedies.15
38. In the instant case, the Court notes, from the record, that the Court of
Appeal, the highest court in the Respondent State, dismissed the
Applicants’ appeal on 27 March 2014. Although the Applicants claim to have
lodged an application for review of this decision, the Court of Appeal’s
decision is the final ordinary judicial remedy that was available to them. As
the Court has previously held, the review procedure, before the Respondent
State’s Court of Appeal, is an extraordinary remedy which an applicant is
not required to pursue before seizing the Court.16
39. Similarly, concerning the filing of a constitutional petition before the High
Court, this Court has consistently held that this remedy, as applied in the
Respondent State’s judicial system, is an extraordinary remedy that
Applicants are not required to exhaust prior to bringing their matters to this
Court.17
40. With regard to the Respondent State’s contention that the Applicants did not
raise the issue of denial of legal aid and bail during domestic proceedings,
the Court holds that these alleged violations occurred in the course of the
domestic judicial proceedings that led to the Applicants’ conviction and
sentence. The allegations, therefore, forms part of the “bundle of rights and
September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 56; Werema Wangoko Werema and Wasiri Wangoko Werema v. United
Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 40.
15 Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (reparations) (4 July 2019) 3
AfCLR 308, § 95.
16 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 64; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 56;
Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44.
17 Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, § 72;
Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 56.
11