000185 system, this is an extraordinary remedy that the Applicant was not required to exhaust before he seized the Court. s 48. ln the instant case, the Court notes from the records that the Applicant went through the required criminal trial process up to the court of Appeal, which is the highest Court in the Respondent State, before bringing his Application to this Court. The Court therefore finds that the Applicant has exhausted the local remedies available in the Respondent State's judicial system. 49. Accordingly, the court dismisses the objection that the Appticant did not exhaust local remedies It. Objection relating to not filing of the application within reasonable time a 50. The Respondent State contends that, should the Court find that the Applicant has exhausted local remedies, it should reject the Application since the Applicant did not file his Application within a reasonable time after exhausting local remedies, in accordance with the Rules. ln this regard, the Respondent State asserts that even though Rule 40 (6) of the Rules is not specific on the question of reasonable time, international human rights jurisprudence has established six months period as a reasonable time. 51. ln his Reply, the Applicant argues that he first learnt of the Court's existence in 2015 and considering that he is a layman and is not represented by a lawyer, his Application should be considered as having been filed within a reasonable time. 52. The Court notes that Article 56 (6) of the Charter does not indicate a precise timeline in which an Application shall be fited before the court. Rule 40 (6) of the Rules refers to a "reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Cou( as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized of the matter." t lbid. See also Mohamed Abubakai judgment, paras. 66-6g l3 /a) \,.--'