00014 5 the three co-accused persons, including the two Applicants, committed the crimes in concert and deserved the same sentence. 35.Consequently, the Court is of the view that, despite the fact that the first Applicant did not appeal to the Court of Appeal, his matter was addressed by the Court of Appeal, albeit incidentally, and any appeal he could have filed would have been unlikely to result in a different outcome. 36.1n this regard, the Court recalls its position in African Commission on Human and Peoples'Rtglhfs v Kenya, where it held that for purpose of ascertaining exhaustion of local remedies, the most pertinent issue that should be considered is whether a State against which an application is filed, has been accorded the opportunity to rectify alleged human rights violations prior to the filing of an application before the Court.s 37. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection that the Applicants did not exhaust local remedies. B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 38.The Respondent State argues that the Apptication was not filed within a reasonable time after local remedies were exhausted because the first Applicant's case at the High Court was concluded on 19 May 2003 and the second Applicant's case in the Court of Appeal was concluded on 27 February 2006. 8 Application No. 006/2012. Judgment 2610512017 (Merits). Afican Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights v Republic of Kenya , S 94 t2 Y C *-- n(e,