r,'0cg,3g filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies provided for under Rule 40(6) of the Rules. i. Objection based on non- exhaustion of local remedies 28.The Respondent State contends that the Applicant raises allegations of violations of his rights to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and the right to a fair hearing, both of which are guaranteed and protected in Articles 12-29 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. 29. The Respondent State submits also that it has enacted the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Ac1 which provides for the enforcement of constitutional and basic rights as set out in Section 4 thereof.s Furthermore, that this Act is enforceable at the High Court and the failure of the Applicant to use this procedure denied it the chance to redress the alleged violations. 30. The Applicant avers that the Application satisfies the admissibility requirement because it was filed after the Applicant had already exhausted local remedies that is, he had seized the Court of Appeal in a case that was determined on 13 August 2014 and then he filed for review of that judgment. The Applicant concludes that he "did pursue all available legal remedies." 31. The Court notes from the records that the Applicant filed an appeal against his conviction before the High Court which was decided against him on 11 October 2006 following which he seized the Court of Appeal of Tanzania , the highest judicial organ of the Respondent State, and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the High Court on 13 August 2014. "lf anybody alleges that any of the provisions of Section 1? to 29 of the Constitution has been, is being, or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, he may, without prejudice to any other action with respect 5 to the same matter that is lawfully available, apply to the High Court for redress." 9 @f ('- ;