A. Objections to the admissibility of the Application 37. The first objection of the Respondent State relates to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and the second relates to whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time. i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 38. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant is raising before this Court an allegation which he never raised before the domestic courts. The Respondent State submits that the Applicant is raising the grievance that he was denied legal aid for the first time in his Application before this Court. 39. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant could have raised this issue before the Respondent State’s domestics courts, these courts could then have appropriately addressed it in accordance with the Respondent State’s Constitution and criminal procedural law. The Respondent State, therefore, considers that since the Applicant did not pursue this avenue, he is now estopped from raising the same in this Court. * 40. In his Reply, the Applicant objects to the submissions by the Respondent State. He asserts that he has gone through all remedies available in the Respondent State’s judicial system. He submits that the Respondent State’s Court of Appeal, being the highest court of the land, dismissed his appeal in its entirety on 29 June 2011, thereby bringing to finality the local judicial remedies available to the Applicant. *** 41. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 56(5) of the Charter, whose provisions are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule 11