000801 Respondent State concludes in this regard that, the Applicant seized the Court prematurely as he ought to have exhausted all the local remedies.s 40.The Applicant argues that the Application is admissible as it was filed after exhausting local remedies; that is, after the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 178 of'2007 on 17 February 2012 by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest and final appellate Court in the Respondent State. 41.The Court notes from the record thatthe Applicant filed an appeal against his conviction before the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State and that the Court of Appeal upheld the judgments of the High Court and the District Court. 42. This Court has stated in a number of cases involving the Respondent State that the remedies of constitutional petition and review in the Tanzanian judicial system are extraordinary remedies that the Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.e lt is thus clear that the Applicant has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. 43. For the above reasons, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies. lt. Objection on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 44.The Respondent State contends that the Applicant has not complied with the requirement under Rule 40(6) of the Rules that an application must be filed 8 Kenyan Secfbn of the lntemational Commission of Jurists, Law Society, Ktuo Cha Sheia v. Kenya (2004) AHRLR 71 (ACHPR 2004). s See A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), op. cit. S 65: Mohamed Abubakai v Tanzania (Merits) op.cit., gg ffi-70; Christopher Jonas v Tanzania (Merits), g 44. 11