41. With regard to the requirement that the Application be submitted within a reasonable time, the Court notes that the final decision of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania was delivered on 18 October 2016 and the Applicant filed his Application before this Court on 1 November 2018. The Court finds a period of two years and 14 days that was taken before filing his Application before this Court to be reasonable in these circumstances, considering, among others, that the Applicant is incarcerated, lay and selfrepresented,16 and, therefore, holds that the requirement in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules has been met. 42. Further, 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, or the provisions of the Charter, in compliance with Rule 50(2)(g). 43. The Court, therefore, holds that all the admissibility conditions have been met and that this Application is admissible. 44. In light of the foregoing, the Court dismisses the Respondent State’s general objection to the admissibility of the Application. VII. MERITS 45. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his rights to equal protection of the law and to dignity protected under Articles 3(2) and 5 of the Charter, respectively. Taking into consideration his submissions, the Court considers that the main issue in this Application is actually the alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to have his cause heard, protected under Article 7(1) of the Charter, even though the Applicant did not make an explicit reference to this provision of the Charter. Therefore, the Court will 16 Diocles William v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (21 September 2018) 2 AfCLR 426, § 52; Thomas v. Tanzania, ibid, § 74; Deogratius Nicolaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application 017/2016, Judgment of 13 February 2024 (merits and reparations), § 58. 12