000832 need not be exhausted for admissibility before the court. ln support of this argument he relies on the court's decision in Alex Thomas v l.Jnited Republic of Tanzania. 42. The Applicant also contends that, with regard to the Respondent state's submission that he could have raised the issue of legal aid during his trial, being a layman, he had the right to be informed of his right to free legal aid and be facilitated to access the same. 43. The court notes that subsequent to the Applicant's conviction by the District court at Mbinga, Ruvuma Region, he filed an appeal before the High court and, subsequently, before the court of Appeal. The High court dismissed the Applicant's appeal on 9 August 2001 and the court of Appeal also dismissed his appeal on 9 April 2003. The Applicant, therefore, accessed the highest court in the Respondent State with regard to his grievances. 44. The Court also notes that the alleged violations of his rights relate to the domestic judicial proceedings that led to his conviction and sentence. The allegations raised by the Applicant, therefore, form part of the bundle of rights and guarantees that were related to or were the basis of his appeals and which the domestic authorities had ample opportunity to redress even though the Applicant did not raise them explicitly. o 45. Concerning the filing of a constitutional petition for violation of the Applicant,s rights after the court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, the court has already established that this remedy, in the Respondent state's judicial system, is an extraordinary remedy that an Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing the Court.T 6 see, A/ex Thomas v. Tanzania..(Me.rits), supra note 3, g 60-65; Apptication No 027l2ol s. Judgment of 2110912018 (Merits and Reparations), Minani Evarist v.United Rdpuflic of ranzania g 3s. 7 Alex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), supra note 3, SS 63-65. L7 a