invoke the Court’s decision in Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania in support of their submissions. *** 35. 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, has to fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies 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.7 36. This Court has also stated in a number of cases involving the Respondent State that the remedies of filing a constitutional petition in the High Court and use of the review procedure before the Court of Appeal as provided for in the Respondent State’s judicial system are extraordinary remedies that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.8 37. The Court holds, therefore, that the Applicants were not obligated to file an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision or to file a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. This is particularly so because the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, the highest judicial organ in the Respondent State, had, by its judgment of 16 September 2015 dismissed the Applicants’ appeal against both their conviction and sentence thereby confirming the Applicants’ exhaustion of domestic remedies. 38. In light of the above, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s objection alleging that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies. 7 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR 9, §§ 93-94. 8 See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits) supra § 65; Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits), supra, §§ 66-70; Christopher Jonas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 101, § 44. 11