guarantees” relating to the right to a fair trial which was the basis of the Applicants’ appeals.18 The domestic judicial authorities thus had ample opportunity to address the allegations even without the Applicants having raised them explicitly. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to require the Applicants to file a new application before the domestic courts to seek redress for this claim.19 41. The Court finds, therefore, that the Applicants have exhausted local remedies since the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ in the Respondent State, had upheld their conviction and sentence. 42. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Applicants have exhausted local remedies, as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. The Respondent State’s objection is thus dismissed. ii. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 43. The Respondent State argues that the Applicants did not file their Application within a reasonable time as provided by Article 56(6) of the Charter. According to the Respondent State, the judgment of the Court of Appeal, concerning the Applicants, was delivered on 27 March 2014 but the Applicants only filed their Application on 15 June 2016. The Respondent State points out that it took two (2) years and two (2) months and eighteen (18) days, after the Court of Appeal’s judgment, for the Applicants to file their Application. 44. According to the Respondent State, although the Rules do not “quantify a period of reasonable time, there are developments in international human rights jurisprudence which have established that a period of six (6) months is considered reasonable time.” In support of its position, the Respondent State cites the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ 18 19 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60; Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania, ibid, § 68. Ibid, §§ 60-65. 12