005060 June 2016, he challenged the findings of the Commission of Inquiry before the Court of Appeal on the basis of the lack of his representative’s involvement in the process. 85. The Court notes that although local remedies were exhausted on 29 July 2014 at the Supreme Court, the Applicant had a reasonable expectation that the criminal proceedings filed against him and the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry would be concluded in his favour. 86. The Count further notes that the time the Applicant spent awaiting the determination of the criminal proceedings instituted against him as well as the case at the Court of Appeal challenging the findings of the Commission of Inquiry is sufficient justification for filing the Application two (2) years, five (5) months and seventeen (17) days after local remedies were exhausted. 87. The Court finds that in the circumstances of this case, the Application has been filed within a reasonable time as envisaged under Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 40(6) of the Rules. 88. The Court therefore dismisses the objection on admissibility on the ground of failure to file the Application within a reasonable time. B. Conditions of admissibility not in contention between the Parties 89. The Court notes that there is no contention regarding compliance with the conditions set out in Rule 40, Sub-rules1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the Rules on, the identity of Applicant, the language used in the Application, compliance with the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the nature of the evidence adduced and the previous settlement of the case, respectively, and that nothing on the record indicates that these requirements have not been complied with. 23