illiteracy, lack of awareness of the existence of the Court, incarceration at the death-row9 and the use of extraordinary remedies.10 36. The Court notes that in the present Application, the Applicant is selfrepresented before this Court. Also, proceedings involving him before domestic courts and the alleged violations occurred between 2001 and 2003 before the Court came into existence. 37. The Court further notes that the Applicant was incarcerated and was therefore limited in movement and with limited flow of information which this Court has held in previous similar instances could cause delays in filing applications.11 The latter factor is compounded by the Applicant’s incarceration on death row. 38. This situation of seclusion from the general population has without any doubt caused the Applicant to be cut off from possible information flow, and be restricted in his movements. The Court notes that these extenuating factors mitigate in his favour. 39. In view of these circumstances, the Court finds that the period of four (4) years that it took the Applicant to file the present Application, was reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules. 40. The Court further notes that the Application does not concern a case which has already been settled by the Parties in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the provisions of the Charter or of any legal instrument of the African Union in fulfilment of Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 9 Evodius Rutechura v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 004/2016, Judgment of 26 February 2021, § 48. 10 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 56; Werema Wangoko v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 520, § 49 Alfred Agbes Woyome v. Republic of Ghana (merits and reparations) (28 June 2019) 3 AfCLR 235, §§ 83-86. 11 Supra note 8. 10