reasonable time. The Court will consider each of these objections before examining other conditions of admissibility, if necessary. i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 35. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants did not exhaust domestic remedies before filing their Application. According to the Respondent State, since the Applicants are alleging a violation of their rights, they could have instituted a constitutional petition before its High Court to seek redress using the mechanism under its Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. Specifically in connection to the Applicants’ allegations of a violation of the right to bail and legal aid, the Respondent State argues that the Applicants could have raised these alleged violations as grounds of appeal before its domestic courts. It thus submits that the Applicants’ failure to exhaust domestic remedies entails that they “… have not afforded the Respondent an opportunity to redress the alleged wrong within the framework of its domestic legal system before it is dealt with at the International level.” * 36. The Applicants submit that they exhausted domestic remedies before filing this Application. In support of their submission, they point out that after their conviction and sentence they lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal which was dismissed. They also point out that, after the Court of Appeal’s decision, they filed an application for review which is still pending. *** 37. The Court notes that pursuant to Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules, any application filed before it must fulfil the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies unless local remedies are unavailable, ineffective, or the domestic procedure to pursue them is unduly prolonged.14 This requirement seeks to 14 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits), (20 November 2015) 1 AfCLR 465 § 64; Kennedy Owino Onyachi and Charles Mwanini Njoka v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 10