cc 39. 01d4 The Respondent State avers that despite the fact that it deposited the Declaration required under Article 3a (6) of the Protocol in 2010, it took the Applicant five (5) years to seize the Court, that is, in 2015. 40.1t further submits that even though Rute 40 (6) of the Rules does not prescribe a time limit for filing an application before the court, international human rights jurisprudence has established six (6) months as a reasonable time-limit after domestic remedies are exhausted for filing such applications. The Respondent State contends that the Applicants failed to seize the Court within six (6) months without having been hindered from doing so. 41.The Applicants did not address this objection specifically but submit that their Application meets the admissibility requirement specified under Article 56 of the Charter, and Rule 40 of the Rules. 42.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 limitwithin which it shall be seized with the matter." 43.|n the matter of Norbeft Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, the Court held that "the reasonableness of a time limit of seizure will depend on the particular circumstances of each case and should be determined on a case- by-case basis."e Some of the circumstances that the Court has taken into consideration include: imprisonment, being lay without the benefit of legal s Zongo and Others judgment (Preliminary Objections)", S 92. See also Application No. 023/2015.Judgment of 23103120'18 (Merits), Kijiji lsiaga v United Republic of Tanzania, (hereinafter referred to as Kijiji tsiaga v Tanzania (Merits)), $. 56 13