because of its relatively recent establishment; are all circumstances that justified some flexibility in assessing the reasonableness of the timeline for seizure of the Court. 12 50. Furthermore, in Alex Thomas v Tanzania, the Court justified its position as follows: Taking into account the situation of the Applicant, who is an ordinary, indigent and incarcerated person, and considering the time it took him to obtain a copy of the record of proceedings and the fact that he attempted to use extraordinary remedies such as the application for review, the Court concludes that all these factors are sufficient elements to explain why he did not bring the application before the Court until 2 August 2013, three (3) years and five (5) months after the filing of the declaration under Article 34(6). For these reasons, the Court concludes that the application was filed within a reasonable time after exhaustion of local remedies, in accordance with section 56(5) of the Charter.'? 51. It is also clear from the Court's case-law that the Court declared admissible an application brought before it three (3) years and six (6) months after the Respondent Protocol State accepting deposited the the Court's Declaration jurisdiction, under having Article 34(6) concluded of the 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 recognition of the Court's jurisdiction State of the Declaration of to hear individual applications, 29 March 2010, is a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter."4 52.In the instant case, the Applicant was not imprisoned, there were no restrictions on his movements after the exhaustion of local remedies, he 22 Mohamed Abubakari v. Tanzania (merits) op.cit, § 92. 3 Alex Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), § 74. ** Mohamed Aubakari v. Tanzania (merits), § 93 15