36. The Court notes that the Respondent State raises an objection to admissibility on the ground that the Application was not filed within a reasonable time after local remedies were exhausted. The Court will, therefore, first consider the said objection (A) before examining other admissibility requirements (B), if necessary. A. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable time 37. The Respondent State argues that the Application is time-barred and therefore does not meet the requirement set out under Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules12 which states that an Application must be filed within a reasonable time from when local remedies are exhausted. 38. The Applicants on their part refute the Respondent State’s objection and assert that the Charter does not define what is to be considered as reasonable time. According to the Applicants, in assessing whether the time was reasonable in this Application, the Court should consider the fact that the Applicants are incarcerated. *** 39. The Court notes that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact time within which Applications must be filed after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules merely provide that 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”. 12 Rule 40 of the Rules, 2 June 2010. 11