00CI833 the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union." 37. While some of the above conditions are not in contention between the Parties, the Respondent State has raised two objections in relation to the admissibility of the Application. The first objection relates to the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies and the second objection relates to whether the Application was filed within a reasonable time or not. A. Conditions of admissibility in contention between the parties Objection relating to non-exhaustion of loca! remedies 38. The Respondent State avers that, with respect to the allegation that the sentence imposed on the Applicant was unconstitutional, the Applicant could have challenged this through the procedure provided under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act. The Respondent state further contends, with regard to the allegation that the thirty (30) year sentence was inappropriate, that the Applicant had the opportunity to argue this before the court of Appeal which he did not do despite being represented by an advocate. 39. The Respondent State also submits that, with regard to the allegation that the Applicant was denied legal aid, the Applicant could have raised this issue before the trial court. The Respondent state thus submits that the Applicant had legal remedies at his disposal which he did not utilise and that it is, therefore, premature of him to institute this Application. 40. For his part, the Applicant submits that he took his case to the court of Appeal which is the highest court in the Respondent state and that he, therefore, exhausted local remedies. 41. Concerning the filing of a constitutional petition for violation of his rights, the Applicant submits that the Court has consistently ruled that the application for review of a Court of Appeal decision amounts to an extraordinary measure which 10 & \