001366 Majuru v. Zimbabwe, the Respondent State prays the Court to declare the matter inadmissible since the Applicants took more than six months to file the Application after exhaustlng local remedies. 47. The Applicants on their part contend that the Application must be considered to have been filed within a reasonable time given the circumstances of the matter and their situation as they are lay, indigent and incarcerated persons. They further pray the Court to take into consideration the time that they spent in trying to have their request for review heard before the Court of Appeal where the case was adjourned several times. 48.The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 56(6) of the Charter, applications before it are to be filed within a reasonable time after exhausting local remedies "... or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the mattef'. 49. The Court notes that, in the present case, the time within which the Application should be filed is to be computed from the date of the judgment of the court of Appeal, which is 22March 2013. Since the Application was filed before this Court on 26 March 2015, the period to be considered is of two (2) years and four (4) days. 50. lt is established case-law of this court that the requirement for an Application to be filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.T Among other relevant factors, the Court has based its evaluation on the situation of the Applicants, including whether they had tried to exhaust further remedies, or if they were lay, indigent or incarcerated persons.s 7 see Armand Guehi v. Tanzania (Merits and Reparations), SS s5-57. see also werema wangoko werema and Another v. Tanzania (Merits), SS 4s-s0; Norbert Zongo and others v. Burkina Faso (Preliminary objections) (2013) 1 AfcLR 197, S 121;and Atex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), SS 73-74. 8 S See Chflstoph er Jonas v. Tanzania (Merits), $ 53. See also Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzanii (Merits), 92; and Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), S 74. t6