0 0136 ? Appeal. As such, the latter Court was asked to only examine afresh issues that had been determined twice in fact and in law. Furthermore, as it emerges from the judgment on review, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for lack of merit after concluding that it did not meet the required criteria warranting the review. ln light of these considerations, it appears that such a review process would not have required over four (4) years for completion. This Court is consequently of the opinion that the complexity of the matter is not of a determinant relevance in assessing reasonableness in the present case. 6S.Conversely, the Court notes that the main issue in contention between the Parties is that of who bears responsibility for the delay. lt is therefore proper to undertake a joint examination of the two others factors in relation to that issue, which are the behaviour of the Applicant and that of the Respondent State's judicial authorities especially in light of their duty of due diligence. 69.The Court notes in this regard, that the Applicants aver that the delay is attributable to the Respondent State as "no substantial step was taken to determine the revieW'. They state in support of that contention that, after the notice was lodged on 24 March 2013, the case was adjourned sine die on 23 lvlay 2016 and no hearing had been scheduled more than two (2) years after the notice was filed and until the present Application was submitted. The Respondent State on its part alleges that the Applicants are responsible for the delay as they failed to avail a copy of their application for review to allow the case to be heard. 70. ln light of information on file, this Court notes that the Applicants do not prove intent on the part of the Court of Appeal to delay the review process. They do not either give evidence of a timely filing of the copy of the application for review. This court is of the opinion that intent or fault cannot be established merely by stating that substantial steps were not taken without providing evidence to that effect. Similarly, it would be improper to consider that, as the Applicants aver, adjourning a matter sine die automatically resulted in undue delay without assessing the reason for such decision. ln any event, the review 20 (-)) j-_> \