82. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent State reiterated that the Application had not been submitted to this Court within a reasonable time, pointing out that even if the time line was calculated from 2010 (the year in which it made the declaration accepting the competence of the Court to hear complaints from individuals and Non-Governmental Organisations), the period would still be around three years, well beyond the six months reference period. 83. In his Reply, the Applicant argued that it took time before bringing the matter before the Court because he has been in prison for sixteen years, and he was still unaware of the procedure to be followed before the Court. 84. At the Public Hearing, Counsel for the Applicant argued that the timeline within which it seised the Court is three years given that the Respondent State made the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court only on 9 March 2010. He argued that this time line was reasonable, given the particular circumstances of the Applicant’s situation - a prisoner, uneducated, indigent, layman plus the fact that he did not have the benefit of a lawyer’s assistance. 85. Referring in particular to the case law of the Court in the matter of Tanganyika Law Society and Human Rights Centre & Rev. Christopher Mtikila v. United Republic of Tanzania and Peter Chacha v. United Republic of Tanzania, Counsel for the Applicant explained that there was no fixed deadline to seise the Court, and that the issue should be decided on a case-by-case basis. 86. The Court wishes to point out, from the outset that Article 56 (6) of the Charter does not indeed specify any period within which recourse to the Court should intervene. Rule 40 (6) of its Rules which essentially reproduces the above Article, af ® simply speaks of . Ne a >