73. It must be said, moreover, that in the instant case, the Applicant tried to exercise this remedy, but the Court of Appeal is yet to take any action. 74. Regarding the Respondent State’s argument, contested by the Applicant, to the effect that the latter brought before the national courts only one complaint out of the nine he filed before this Court, it is clear from the judicial records filed with the Court by the Parties that: i) Of the nine issues the Respondent raised in response to the Applicant's pleadings, only a particular issue, relating to the fact that the charge was allegedly defective was consistently raised as a legal issue/substantive ground of appeal. ii) Five other issues were raised in passing or may be imputed from or form the basis of the factual narrative of the Applicant. These are, namely that he was detained at the police post which had no basic facilities; that Section 32(1) and (2) and Section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act were not complied with, that at the Police Station he had no legal representation and was not availed his right to call a lawyer or have his statement taken, and that he was not accorded the right to be represented and defended and that he was discriminated against. iii) Three issues were not addressed at the national level, namely the Judgment of the Trial Court was delivered contrary to Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Act; that the sentence was improper; and that the 30 year prison sentence meted out to him was excessive. 75. It is therefore clear that most of the complaints brought before this Court had been raised before Tanzanian national courts, in one way or the other. 76. In any event, the Court notes that all of these complaints essentially relate to one and the same right, i.e. the right to a fair trial, which the Applicant has repeatedly demanded before the national courts. It therefore follows that even if the complaints in question had not been submitted in detail to the national courts, the Respondent State would not be “ S NE — bs RO G “