Arusha, Tanzania Email: registrar@african-court.org Website: www.african-court.org Telephone: +255-272-510-510 JUDGMENT SUMMARY On challenging the alleged restrictions under the BRADEA, the Court distinguished this Application from those adjudicated in its established case-law, where it held that the constitutional petition through the BRADEA is an extraordinary remedy. The distinguishing factor, the Court held, is that its case-law involved domestic criminal proceedings previously adjudicated by the highest court of the Respondent State. The Court recalled that, in those instances, it was unreasonable to require the same applicants to then lodge a fresh application regarding the violation of their human rights before a subordinate court. As opposed to such instances, the Court considered that the remedy of the constitutional petition under the BRADEA cannot be said to be extraordinary; and is rather an ordinary remedy. Having found so, the Court set out to examine whether the Applicants in this Application had standing to file a petition under the BRADEA. The Court recalled its jurisprudence in the matter of Centre for Human Rights and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania, where it held that local remedies need not be exhausted in circumstances where NGOs representing the interests of individuals are proscribed from seizing the domestic courts of the Respondent State, as the local remedy is then considered unavailable. The Court further recalled its finding in the same case that in the domestic system of the Respondent State, anyone who could not demonstrate victimhood was barred from pursuing the petition under BRADEA. In applying this precedent to the present Application, the Court noted that the Applicants did not have standing to make use of the petition under BRADEA. As a consequence, the Court held that this remedy was not available and should be considered as exhausted. It therefore, dismissed the Respondent State’s objection in this regard. On the basis of the analysis, the Court held that the Application met the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies with regard to challenging the alleged restrictions under BRADEA. 5