00033 0 regard, the Respondent State asserts that even though Rule 40 (6) of the Rules is not specific on the question of a reasonable time, international human rights jurisprudence has established six (6) months as a reasonable time but the Applicants in the instant Application seized the Court five (5) years after the Respondent State deposited the declaration required under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol providing the individual complaints mechanism. 44.1n their Reply, the Applicants dispute the Respondent State's submission and argue that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court, the determination of a reasonable time depends on the circumstances of each case. ln the light of the specific circumstances of their case, the Applicants contend that their Application a should be considered as having been filed within a reasonable time. *** 45.The Court observes that 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 Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized of the matter." 46.1n the Matter of Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, the Court stated 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 o 47.|n the instant case, the Court notes that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 1 82 of 2010 was delivered on 1 March 2006. However, the Applicants were able to file their Application before this Court only after 29 March 2010, the date on which the Respondent State, in accordance with Article 36 (4) of the Protocol, deposited the declaration allowing individuals to file cases before the Court. e Norbert Zongo and Others v Burkina Faso Ruling, $ 92; See also Kijiji lsiaga v. Tanzania Judgment, $ 56 15 I Y