grievance that he was denied legal aid for the first time in his Application before this Court. 45. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant could have applied for legal aid during the trial, or during his appeals before the High Court and before the Court of Appeals. It also contends that that the Applicant had the legal remedy of raising the allegations as grounds of appeal before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, if he was truly aggrieved, but failed to do so. 46. The Respondent State further asserts that since the Applicant is claiming that not being granted legal aid deprived him of the right to be heard, he could have filed for an Application to review the Court of Appeal’s decision under Rule 66(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2009. This Rule provides for a review on the basis of a party being “wrongly deprived of an opportunity to be heard”, which the Respondent State considers to be a component of the right to a fair hearing. 47. It is the Respondent State’s submission that since the Applicant did not pursue these remedies that were available to him and that there was no delay in accessing them, this Application has not met the admissibility requirement under Rule 40(5) of the Rules12 and should therefore be dismissed. * 48. The Applicant did not make any submissions on this point. *** 49. 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 of exhaustion of local remedies aims at providing States the opportunity to 12 Corresponding to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules of 25 September 2020. 13