64. It is recognised in international law that the remedies that must be exhausted by the Applicants are ordinary judicial remedies. That was the point also underscored by the Court particularly in the case of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania. 65. It is therefore important, in the instant case, to determine if the constitution-related complaint and the application for review, as conceived in the legal system of the Respondent State, are ordinary or extraordinary remedies. 66. In the legal system of the Respondent State, it is generally accepted that the usual remedies are, in a case like the instant one, the appeal before the High Court and the appeal before the Court of Appeal, which is the country’s highest judicial organ. 67. Other remedies, such as the constitutional remedy or application for review are apparently exceptional judicial remedies, which are not normally thought about, and are thus extraordinary remedies. 68. As regards the constitutional remedies in particular, as the Court observed in the case of Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania, having considered the nature of the said remedy, it emerged that that was an extraordinary remedy which the Applicant was not required to use’®. 69. In this respect, Section 8(2) of the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act of the Laws of Tanzania provides that: “The High Court shall not exercise its powers under this section if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are or have been available to the person concerned under any other law, or that the application is merely frivolous or vexations”. 8 Judgment of 20 November 2015, para 64. See also: Matter of Wilfred Onyango Nganyi and 9 Others v. P_ United Republic of Tanzania, Judgment of 18 March 2016, para 95. 10 Judgment of 20 November 2015, para 65. See also paras 60 — 64. 0 / ¢ ¥ > 22