What is surprising is that, although the Court considered found a violation in each of them each case separately and on the basis of legal reasoning, when it came to the reasonable time limit, it did not specify that time limit in relation to each case. Indeed, with regard to domestic remedies, it is clear from paragraph 56 of the judgment that the Court did specify that in the second case "the Applicant did appeal to the High Court and that, despite several communications to the authorities concerned, the case was still pending at the time he brought the matter before to the Court .... The Applicant should be deemed to have exhausted local remedies". As to the discussion on reasonable time, in paragraphs 62 to 72 of the Judgment, the Court discussed this condition, which was raised by the Respondent State in relation to the first case, but failed to do so in relation to the second. It concluded on the basis of the four (4) years, nine (9) months and twenty (20) days’ time limit, the time limit used for the first case, that if it refers to the second case, it is just to consider it as a fact which will lead it to conclude that the time limit is reasonable in relation to the first case. With regard to the second case, it is clear that after having concluded that domestic remedies had been exhausted as of the date of the appeal of 27/10/2006 pending before the High Court until 19 March 2017, the date on which the Court of Appeal ruled, and well after the filing of the application in this considered the time limit reasonable, as it was open Court, the Court should have until the day of the filing of the application in this Court. By concluding in the same paragraph for both cases, the Court failed in its obligation to give reasons for its judgments as set out in Rule 61 of the Rules of Court. 3) The rejection of the application for reparation in respect of the material and moral damage to the Applicant and the indirect victims alleged by the Applicant In its operative part on monetary reparations Roman Court concluded that the application was dismissed paragraphs VI and VII, the on the basis of insufficient information. | do not agree with this conclusion for the following reasons: On reading Rule 39(2) of the Rules, it is clearly stated that" the Court may request the parties to submit any factual information, documents or other material considered by the Court to be relevant".