000229 A. Conditions of admissibility in contention between the Parties i. 35. Objection based on failure to exhaust the local remedies The Respondent State contends that the Applicant raises before this Court allegations of violation of his rights, which were never brought before the domestic courts. The Respondent State further avers that the said rights mentioned by the Applicant as having been violated are guaranteed and protected by the Tanzanian Constitution in its Articles 13 and 15, as summarised hereunder: i. equality before the law and equal protection of the law - Article 13(1) and (2); ii. iii. the right to a fair hearing and the right to appeal - Article 13(6Xa); prohibition of sanctions for acts which do not constitute a crime at the time of its commission - Article 13(6Xc); iv. the right to individual freedom - Article 15. 36.The Respondent State contends that, pursuant to Article 30 of its Constitution, anyone claiming that his fundamental rights are violated shall have the right to seek redress before the domestic courts. lt further argues that the Applicant should have exercised this remedy before seizing the African Court. 37. The Respondent State also invokes Section 9 of The Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, and contends that the Applicant had the possibility of filing a constitutional petition before the High Court of Tanzania after he was sentenced by the District Court or after the judgment of the High Court. 38. The Respondent State finally submits that the Applicant, having not exercised the aforesaid remedies available at the domestic level, has not met the conditions set forth in Rule 40(5) of the Rules of Court, and therefore his Application must be dismissed for failure to exhaust the local remedies. 39.1n reply, the Applicant submits that he is a layman in Iegal matters and that he was not provided with legal aid to enable him better understand the issu of law and 10 S