44. The Respondent State raises objections to the admissibility of the Application, based on non-exhaustion of local remedies and failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. A. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 45. On the objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State avers that the Applicant raised five (5) new violations which were not considered by the domestic courts, namely that: i. the Applicant’s conviction on the basis of the doctrine of recent possession; ii. the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, did not observe the proceedings from the District Court and the High Court; iii. the Applicant’s right to be heard was violated; iv. the Court of Appeal of Tanzania procured its judgments against the Applicant by error by convicting him on the basis of evidence and identification by moonlight; and finally v. there was a delay in the dispensation of justice. 46. The Respondent State submits that it recognises the importance and significance of the principle of the exhaustion of local remedies, which is reiterated in the Court’s jurisprudence in Urban Mkandawire v. The Republic of Malawi16 and Peter Joseph Chacha v. Tanzania. Further, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held in the matter of Article 19 v. Eritrea that one should at least attempt to exhaust the available remedy. Simply casting doubt as to the futility of exhausting local remedies does not suffice. 47. It further maintains that the Applicant has not exhausted domestic remedies in respect of the five (5) new claims mentioned above, and accordingly, 16 Application No. 003/2011, Urban Mkandawire v. Republic of Malawi. 13