and guarantees that were related to or were the basis of the proceedings before domestic courts. In such a situation it would, therefore, be unreasonable to require the Applicants to lodge a new application before the domestic courts to seek relief for such claims.15 43. In the instant Application, the Court finds that the Applicants’ allegations form part of the “bundle of rights and guarantees” relating to the right to a fair trial that led to their appeal. Thus, there was no need for them to go back to the High Court.16 As the Court has previously stated, the “bundle of rights and guarantees” applies, among others, in circumstances where (i) the issue to be bundled should be inherently connected to other issues that were expressly raised and adjudicated in the course of domestic proceedings;17 or (ii) the said issue was or is deemed to have been known to the domestic judicial authorities.18 44. In the present Application, the Respondent State had the opportunity to address the possible human rights breaches raised by the Applicants when the matter was brought before the domestic courts. The allegations relating to the fairness of the trial and reliance on allegedly questionable evidence are all matters which fall within the bundle of rights and guarantees. The Applicants’ grievances before this Court, naturally and implicitly, flow from the Applicants’ complaints in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 45. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection and holds that the Applicants exhausted local remedies as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules. 15 Jibu Amir alias Mussa and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (28 November 2019) 3 AfCLR 629, § 37; Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 60-65, Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 65, § 54; Ernest Karatta, Walafried Millinga, Ahmed Kabunga and 1744 Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 002/2017, Judgment of 30 September 2021 (merits and reparations), § 57. 16 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60. 17 Onyachi and Njoka v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 54; Viking and Nguza v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 53; Thobias Mang’ara Mango and Shukurani Masegenya Mango v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (11 May 2018) 2 AfCLR 314, § 46. 18 Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 60 and Sadick Marwa Kisase v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 005/2016, Judgment of 2 December 2021 (merits and reparations), §§ 38-39. 13