would have been impractical and an extra-ordinary measure that was not required of the Applicant. dismissed by the therefore exhausted li Court Since the Applicant’s appeal was of Appeal of Tanzania, the Applicant local remedies. The Application has not been filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion 66. of local remedies. In the alternative, and without prejudice to the. Respondent’s argument that the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent argues that the Application has not been filed within a reasonable time vis-a-vis his Notice of Motion of 5 June 2009, to Review the Court of Appeal’s decision in Criminal Appeal Number 230 of 2008. This is because three (3) years and almost three (3) months have lapsed since this Notice of Motion was filed. The Respondent submits that the “reasonable period; specified in the Charter for filing applications after exhaustion of local remedies should be set at six months in line with developments in international human rights jurisprudence and considering this, the Applicant has filed his application out of time’. The Respondent maintains that, by these standards, the Applicant would still be out of time for filing the Application, if time was of the reckoned from 20 September 2011, being the date Applicant’s correspondence to the Chief Justice, reminding the Chief Justice of the Application for Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 67. The Respondent concludes that on this basis, since the Application has failed to meet some of the conditions of admissibility, it should be declared inadmissible and be dismissed with costs. ~~