000228 29. On the other hand, in the proceedings before this Court, the Applicant alleges the Respondent State's liability for the domestic courts' violation of his rights guaranteed under the Charter. On this point, the Respondent State does not contest that the Applicant has exercised all the available remedies, since the Supreme Court Judgment is not subject to appeal. 30. ln view of the aforesaid, the Court holds that the local remedies have been exhausted, and dismisses the admissibility objection raised in this regard. B Objection on the grounds of faiture to file the Application at a reasonable time 31. ln its Response, the Respondent discretionary power State recognises that the Court "has the to determine the time limit within which Applications should be brought". g2. The Respondent State alleges, however, that the instant Application was not filed within reasonable timeframe. lt contends in this regard that whereas the supreme court Judgment to which Application refers, was rendered on 5 June, 2014, this court was seized of the matter only on 11 July, 2016, that is, two years and one month later' 33. ln reply, the Applicant recalls that the provisions of Rule 40(6) of the Rules do not confine actions brought before this Court to a specific time limit beyond which the Application may be found to be belated and inadmissible. According to the Applicant, Article 56 (7) of the Charter offers him the option of referring the matter first to the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS "before going continental" [slcJ. Accordingly, the Applicant alleges that the timeframe being challenged by the Respondent State is perfectly reasonable, especially as it concerns the duration of the proceedings before ECOWAS Court of Justice. n9\ (9.-- ,f--