000 827 38. ln this regard, citing the jurisprudence of the Commission4, the Respondent State alleges that the Applicant failed to comply with Rule 4O(5) of the Rules arguing that at no time was the issue of legal aid raised at the domestic courts, notwithstanding the fact that both Section 3 of Criminal Procedure Act and Rule 31 of the 2009 Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeal provides for legal aid. *** 39. The Applicant refutes the objection of the Respondent State to the admissibility of his Application on the grounds that he did not lodge a constitutional petition for he was not obliged to exhaust this remedy. 40. Concerning the question of legal aid, the Applicant contends that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Rule 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 'Appeal, the only condition required for an accused to be afforded legal aid is when, in the interests of justice, the judicial authorities deem it desirable to provide such legal aid. *** 41 The Court notes that the Applicant filed an appeal and had access to the highest court of the Respondent State, namely, the Court of Appeal, for determination of the various allegations, especially those relating to violation of the right to a fair trial. 42. Concerning the filing of a constitutional petition for violation of the Applicant,s rights, the Court has repeatedly stated that this remedy in the Tanzanian judicial system is an extraordinary remedy that the Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Courts. a African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Communication 263/02 - Kenyan Section of the lnternational Commission of Jurists, Law Society of Kenya and Ktuo Cha Sheria Kenya. 5 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania Judgment, op. cit., paras. 60 62; Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania Judgment, op. cit , paras. 66 - 70; Application No. 01 112015. Judgment of 17, Christopher Jonas v United Republic of Tanzania, para. 44. - 4 o )