42. The Applicant, for his part, argues that his application should be approached and considered with particular attention. This is because although the Respondent State deposited the Declaration on 29 March 2010, the Applicant only became aware of the existence of the Court between late 2015 and early 2016, after a lengthy search outside the Respondent State’s legal institutions. 43. The Applicant avers that the six (6)-month period should be applied with great caution bearing in mind that he is a prisoner bereft of legal representation. He submits that, the Court, upon examining all applications filed before it by individuals, in particular prisoners detained at Butimba Central Prison in Mwanza, will find that the establishment and existence of the Court was brought to their knowledge between late 2015 and early 2016. Accordingly, he submits that the present Application was filed within reasonable time and should be entertained. *** 44. The Court notes that the issue before it is whether the time taken by the Applicant to file the Application is reasonable, within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter read together with Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules 45. Under Article 56(6) of the Charter, restated in Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules, Applications must be filed “… within a reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time-limit within which it shall be seized with the matter”. Notably, these provisions do not set a time-limit within which cases must be referred to the Court. 46. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that: “… the reasonableness of the time limit for its referral depends on the particular circumstances of each case ...”.13 The Court further recalls that some factors taken into account in 13 Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (merits) (24 June 2014) 1 AfCLR 219, § 92. See Thomas v. Tanzania (merits), supra, § 73. 12