consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case.16 In the present application, taking into account the origin and status of the case before domestic courts, including the time it may take an applicant to secure legal representation for purposes of filing an application, the Court considers that a period of two years, four months and seven days is reasonable within the meaning of Article 56(5) of the Charter. 91. The Court considers that the Applicant could not challenge the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code, on the basis of which she was convicted, as the Constitutional Court had not been established. 92. Consequently, the Court considers that the Application satisfies the admissibility requirement of reasonable time to file an application in respect of the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code. 93. The Court notes that the Application does not concern a matter already settled by the State 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 any legal instrument of the African Union. It, therefore, meets the requirements of Rule 50(2)(g) of the Rules. 94. In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Application meets the admissibility requirements under Article 56 of the Charter as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules and declares it admissible, only with regard to the issue of divorce and the constitutionality of Article 236 of the Penal Code. 16 Armand Guehi v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits and Reparations) (7 December 2018) 2 AfCLR 477, § 56 ; Nguza Viking & Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (Merits (23 March 2018) 2 AfCLR 287, § 61. 25