61. Furthermore, the Court notes that if in proceedings in n subordinate court, basic rights are alleged to have been contravened, an application is made under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, to the High Court to be decided by a three -Judge Bench and an appeal therefrom lies to the Court of Appeal.5 62. In the instant case, once the Court of Appeal of Tanzania decided on the Applicant's appeal, it would have been unreasonable to require him to lodge a fresh application regarding his right to a fai:· trial, to the High Court, which is a court lower than the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 63. Regarding the Respondent's contention that the Applicant should have pursued the application for review to its conclusion, the Court finds that this was neither necessary nor mandatory. The final appeal in criminal trials lies, as of right, to the Court of Appeal, which the Applicant has proved that he accessed. In addition, his appeal to the Court of Appeal was based on allegations of violations of his basic right to a fair trial, which the Court of Appeal also decided on6 , therefore, it was not necessary for him to file a separate constitutional petition to the High Court vide, the procedure set out in the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, based on the alleged violation of his basic right to a fair trial. The Court also finds that an application for review is an extraordinary remedy because 5 Basic Rights and Duties Enfor ement Act, Act Number 33 of 1994, Sections 9 and 10. 6 Court of Appeal of Tanzania at Arusha, Criminal Appeal Number 230 of 2008 Alex Thomas v The Republic Judgment of 29 May 2009. 26