months after the Respondent State deposited Article 34(6) of the Protocol accepting the Declaration under the Court's jurisdiction, having concluded that: “the period between the date of its referral of the present case, 8 October 2013, and the date of the filing by the Respondent State of the Declaration of recognition of the Court's jurisdiction to hear individual applications, 29 March 2010, is a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 4 45.In the instant case, the Applicant was not imprisoned or subject to any restriction of movement after the exhaustion of local remedies, nor was he indigent, and his educational background defend himself as evidenced not only enabled by the Application him to filed on 24 February 2017, but also made him aware of the existence of the Court and the proceedings it before within a reasonable time. Moreover, the Respondent State also deposited the Declaration recognising the Court's jurisdiction four (4) years, three (3) months and nine (9) days before the exhaustion of local remedies. 46. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the period of two (2) years and nine (9) months that elapsed before the Applicant filed the Application before it is not a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules. Consequently, Court finds that the Application is inadmissible on this ground. Vill. COSTS 47. The Court notes that Rule 30 of its Rules provides that "Unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs". 48. Taking into account the circumstances of this case, the Court decides that each party shall bear its own costs. 14 Mohamed Aubakari v. Tanzania (Merits), § 93 14