40. The Court notes that under Article 56(5) of the Charter, the provisions of
which are restated in Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before
it shall fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless the same
are unavailable, ineffective and insufficient or the domestic proceedings to
pursue them are unduly prolonged.12 The rule of exhaustion of local
remedies, as the Court has consistently pointed out, aims at providing
States the opportunity to deal with human rights violations within their
jurisdictions before an international human rights body is called upon to
determine the State’s responsibility for the same.13
41. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants’ appeal before the
Court of Appeal, the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, was
determined when a judgment was rendered on 20 February 2015. Although
the Applicants claim to have lodged an application for review of this
decision, the procedure by which the Court of Appeal upheld their conviction
and sentence is the final ordinary judicial remedy that was available to them.
As the Court has previously held, the review procedure, as well as the
constitutional petition procedure, as framed in the Respondent State,
constitute extraordinary remedies that the Applicants were not required to
exhaust before seizing this Court.14
42. In relation to the contention that the Applicants are raising some allegations
for the first time, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence that:
[…] where an alleged human rights violation occurs in the
course of the domestic judicial proceedings, domestic courts
are thereby afforded an opportunity to pronounce themselves
on possible human rights breaches. This is because the
alleged human rights violations form part of the bundle of rights
12
Peter Joseph Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania (admissibility) (28 March 2014) 1 AfCLR 398,
§§ 142-144; Almas Mohamed Muwinda and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR,
Application No. 030/2017, Judgment of 24 March 2022 (merits and reparations), § 43.
13 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2
AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94.
14 Thomas v. Tanzania, supra, §§ 60-62; Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits)
(3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 599, §§ 66-70; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28
September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44.
12