0008? the Applicants' case at the national courts was concluded on 14 April 2011, and it took four (4) years and three (3) months for the Applicants to file their case before this Court. 40.The Respondent State draws this Court's attention to the fact that, even though Rule 40(6) of the Rules does not prescribe the time limit within which individuals are required to file an application, the African Commission in Michael Majuru v Zimbabwe (2008) as well as the lnter-American Court of Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights have held a period of six (6) months to be a reasonable time. 41.The Respondent State further avers that the Applicants have not referred to any impediments which caused them not to lodge the Application within six (6) months, and for these reasons, submits that the Application should be declared inadmissible. 42.|n their Reply, the Applicants argue that the review of the decision of the Court of Appealwas dismissed on 20 March 2015, that is, three (3) months and six (6) days before filing the Application before this Court. 43. Citing the Court's jurisprudence in Peter Joseph Chacha v tJnited Republic of Tanzania and Christopher Mtikila v the United Republic of Tanzania, the Applicants contend that the Court rejected the six (6) months period that the Respondent State considers to be the standard for reasonable time in international human rights jurisprudence. 44.The Applicants also cited the matter of Norbeft Zongo v Burkina Faso in support of their contention that reasonable time should be considered on a case by case basis. ln this regard, they aver that the Court should take their being lay, incarcerated, and having not benefitted from legal aid service in the national courts as factors in their favour when deciding on whether the Application has been filed within a reasonable time. /€ 8