000512 A. Conditions of admissibility in contention between the Parties 32. The Respondent State submits that the Application does not comply with two admissibllity requirements. First, on Rule 40(5) relating to exhaustion of local remedies and second, on Rule 40(6) on the need for applications to be filed within a reasonable time. Objection relating to exhaustion of local remedies 33. The Respondent state alleges that this Application fails to comply with the requirement of Rule 40(5) of the Rules because the Applicant did not exhaust local remedies. Citing the African Commission on Human and peoples' Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") in SAHR/NGON and Others v Tanzania and Articb 19 v Eritrea, fhe Respondent state argues that the Applicant ought to have complied with the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies that applies to any international adjudication. The Respondent State avers that the Applicant ought to have instituted a constitutional petition in the High Court of Tanzania pursuant to the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, to remedy the complaints of violations of fair trial rights that allegedly occurred during the hearing of his appeal at the Court of Appeal of Tanzania. 34. The Applicant avers that local remedies were exhausted and that he sought redress at the High court and the court of Appeal before seizing this court. The Applicant also states that his application for review of the Court of Appeal,s judgment of 29 July 20'13 was yet to be heard by the time he filed the Application before this Court. 35. The court notes that pursuant to Rule a0 (5) of the Rules an application filed before the Court shall meet the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies reinforces the primacy of domestic courts in the protection of human rights vrs-ii-vis this court and, as such, aims at providing States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations occurring in 11 I tr