00032 $48.The Court further notes that the Application was filed on 2 October 2015, that is, after five (5) years and five (5) months from the date of the deposit of the said declaration. ln the intervening period, the Applicants attempted to use the review procedure at the Court of Appeal, but their application for review was dismissed on 19 March 201 5 as having been filed out of time. ln this regard, the key issue for determination is whether the five (5) years and five (5) months' time within which the Applicants could have filed their Application before the Court is reasonable. 49.The Court takes note that the Applicants do not invoke any particular reason as to why it took them five (5) years and five (5) months to seize this Court after they o had the opportunity to do so, the Respondent having deposited the declaration envisaged under the Protocol, allowing them to directly file cases before the Court. Nonetheless, although they were not required to pursue it, the Applicants chose to exhaust the abovementioned review procedure at the Court of Appeal. lt is evident from the file that the five (5) years and five (5) months delay in filing the Application was due to the fact that the Applicants' were awaiting the outcome of this review procedure and at the time they seized this Court, it was only about six (6) months that had elapsed after their request for review was dismissed for filing out of time. 50.ln view of these circumstances, the Court dismisses the Respondent State's objection in this regard. a B. conditions of admissibility that are not in contention between the Parties 51.The conditions of admissibility regarding the identity of the Applicants, the Application's compatibility with the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the language used in the Application, the nature of the evidence adduced, and the principle that an Application must not raise any matter already determined in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, the Constitutive Act 16 Y