59.According to the Respondent State, however, since the Applicant filed his Application five (5) years after the Respondent State deposited the Declaration prescribed under Article 34(6) of the Protocol, the Court must consider this timeframe unreasonable and declare the Application inadmissible. 60. It also contends that the Application was filed after an excessive time lapse, in relation to the date considered by the Applicant as that on which the local remedies were exhausted, namely 29 May 2009, the date of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal in the first case. 61. The Applicant, for his part, submits that he is a layman, indigent, incarcerated and without the assistance of counsel which made it impossible for him to obtain information on the existence of this Court and of its procedural and timeframe and requirements. He consequently prayed the Court to admit examine his Application by virtue of the powers vested in it. tee 62. The Court notes that Article 56(6) of the Charter does not specify any time frame within which a case must be filed before this Court. Rule 40(6) of the Rules, which in substance restates Article 56(6) of the Charter, simply mentions “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.” 63.In the instant Application, the Court notes that in regard to the first case, domestic remedies were exhausted on 29 May 2009 the date on which the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment. However, the Applicant was able to file the Application before this Court only after 29 March 2010, the date that the Respondent State deposited the Declaration prescribed under Article 36 (4) of the Protocol empowering individuals to directly access the Court. A period of 19