0001{ Constitutive Act of the African union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union". 27.The Respondent State raises two objections to the admissibility of the Application; the first one relates to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and second, the filing of the Application within a reasonable time under sub-Rules 40 (5) and (6), of the Rules, respectively. A. Objection based on the non-exhaustion of local remedies 28.The Respondent State contends that the Applicants should have sought redress at the High Court of Tanzania for their alleged human rights violations by filing a constitutional petition in accordance with its Constitution and its Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Acts. 29.The Respondent State also asserts that the first Applicant, Mr Godfred Anthony, never appealed against the decision of the High Court even though he had the opportunity to seize the Court of Appeal. The Respondent State further argues that the second Applicant, Mr lfunda Kisite, could have applied for a review of the decision of the Court of Appeal as provided by law. lt therefore concludes that the Applicants filed the Application before this Court without exhausting the available local remedies. 30. The Applicants aver that the first Applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence to the High Court, while the Prosecutor also appealed against the second Applicant's acquittal to the same court; with both appeals going in favour of the Prosecutor. Subsequently, the second Applicant filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal which while dismissing it, the Court of s Chapter 3 of the laws of Tanzania 10 ?