A. Objection to admissibility based on failure to exhaust local remedies 33. The Respondent State argues that the Applicant had the opportunity to raise his grievances during the cross-examination of witnesses and as grounds for appeal before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 34. The Respondent State further argues that the Applicant had a legal remedy available to him in the form of an application for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision, under Article 66 of the 1979 Rules of the Court of Appeal, as amended, if he considered that he had sufficient and convincing grounds. The Respondent State asserts that, instead of pursuing the available remedy, the Applicant prematurely seised this Court seeking reparation. 35. The Respondent State also contends that the Applicant could have filed a constitutional petition under the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, Cap 3, to enforce the rights he believes were violated. 36. In support of its contention, the Respondent State cites the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission) in Sharingon and Others v. Tanzania where the Commission stated that it is necessary to at least attempt to exhaust available remedies and that it is not sufficient to merely question the merit of exhausting local remedies. The Respondent State further submits that it is incumbent on the Applicant to take all necessary steps to exhaust, or at least attempt to exhaust, local remedies. * 37. For his part, the Applicant prays that the objection be dismissed. He contends that all relevant judicial remedies were exhausted in the present case, including before the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which is the highest court of the Respondent State. 38. He further submits that the Respondent State’s arguments are unfounded in this case, since the national legal system had an opportunity to address 10