46.The Respondent State concludes that since the Applicant did not exercise the aforesaid remedies available locally, the Application does not meet the conditions set forth under Rule 40 (5) of the Rules, and must therefore be dismissed. 47.The Applicant submits that he has exhausted the local remedies available in the Respondent State in conformity with section 1O (f) of the Tanzanian lmmigration Act which provides that "...every declaration of the Director...shall be subject to confirmation by the Minister, whose decision shall be final." 48.The Applicant also submits that he appealed the "prohibited immigrant,, decision before the Minister through his father, but that the Minister confirmed the decision. 49.The Applicant further submits that after his expulsion from the Respondent state, he wrote to the Prime Minister (through his father), appealing his expulsion, but that the Minister, requested by the Prime Minister to examine his request responded, confirming the said expulsion. He avers that, consequently, the Respondent State was aware of his desire to return to its territory, and that the avallable domestic remedies have been exhausted. 50.The Applicant also points out that the Tanzanian lmmigration Act does not provide judicial remedy for the decisions of the immigration authorities. According to him, the only other remedy was therefore that of review which is inefficient, unavailable and illogical. *** 51.The Court notes that the Applicant did in actual fact exercise the remedies provided by the Tanzanian lmmigration Act by first seizing the Minister of Home Affairs and lmmigration2 of the matter. He also sent a letter to the Prime Minister3. The Court also notes that beyond these remedies ( 2 See above g 5 of the Judgment " See above $ 10 ofthe Judgment L2 9 t/ l/