00 09,3 9 32. Moreover, this Court has stated in a number of cases involving the Respondent State that the remedies of Constitutional petition and review in the Tanzanian judicial system are extraordinary remedies that the Applicant is not required to exhaust prior to seizing this Court.6 lt is thus clear that the Applicant has exhausted all the available domestic remedies. 33. For this reason, the Court dismisses the objection that the Applicant has not exhausted local remedies. ii. Objection based on the ground that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time 34.The Respondent State argues that the Application was not filed within reasonable time pursuant a to Rule 40(6) of the Rules. lt submits that the Applicant's case at the domestic courts was concluded on 13 August2O14, and it took one (1) year and one (1) month for the Applicant to file his case before this Court. 35. Noting that Rule 40(6) of the Rules does not prescribe the time limit within which individuals are required to file an application, the Respondent State draws the Court's attention to the fact that the African Commission has held a period of six (6) months to be the reasonable time.7 36.The Respondent State avers further that the Applicant has not explained the reason why he could not lodge the Application within six (6) months, and submits that for these reasons, the Application should be declared inadmissible. 6 See A/ex Thomas v Tanzania (Merits), op. crt, $ 65, Application No. 007/20'13. Judgment of 0310012013 (Merits), Mohamed Abubakari v. United Republic of Tanzania, (hereinafter referred to as " Mohamed Abubakai v Tanzania (Merits)") S S 66-70, Application No.01'1/2015. Judgment of 2810912017 (Merits), Chistopher Jonas v Tanzania, $ 44. 7 Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) AHRLR 146 (ACHPR 2008) 10 o v--r2'