68. The Applicant contends that this Application was filed within a reasonable period following the exhaustion of local remedies, given the circumstances and position of the Applicant, being a lay, indigent and incarcerated person. 69. The Applicant contends that, without prejudice to the above, should the Court consider that the period from the exhaustion of local remedies to the filing of the Application before this Court was unreasonably prolonged, there are sufficient reasons to explain the delay. 70. The Applicant contends that he embarked on a reasonable pursuit to have his complaints disposed of within his national jurisdiction by filing an Application for Review of the decision of the Court of Appeal. 71. In addition, the Applicant contends that he repeatedly wrote several letters to the Chief Justice and Registrar of the Court of Appeal requesting to have his Application for Review heard. The last letter was sent to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 12 July 2013 and the Applicant seized this Court on 2 August 2013. The multiple requests to agents of the Respondent State went unanswered. It is the Applicant's strong contention that he gave reasonable time to the Respondent State to finally remedy the violation of his rights. 72. The Applicant, in support of the above facts, relies on the jurisprudence of the African Commission which has held, in Southern 29