000913 53. ln light of the above, this court notes that, in the Majuru communication, the commission applied a case-by-case approach and not the six-month standard as averred by the Respondent State in the present Application. 54. Second, this Court has consistently held that the six-month time limit expressly provided for in other international human rights law regimes is not set out in Article 56(6) of the Charter, which rather refers to a reasonable fime. As a matter of course, the court has thus adopted a case-by-case approach in assessing what constitutes a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter.T 55. The Court recalls that by its consistent case-law, in circumstances where there is uncertainty as to whether the time is reasonable, determining factors may include the Applicant's situation.s In the present case, the Applicant was deported within a week of the High court's judgment and issuance of the Notice of Prohibited lmmigrant. He therefore lacked the proximity that was necessary to follow up on his requests to the domestic authorities.e 56. ln lightof theforegoing,thecourtfindsthattheperiodof one(1)yearandtwenty_ six (26) days in which the Applicant filed this Application is reasonabte within the meaning of Articte 56(6) of the charter and Rute 40(6) of the Rules. As a consequence, the court dismisses the Respondent state,s objection in respect of the filing of the Application within a reasonable time. B. conditions of admissibility not in contention between the parties 57' The Court notes that whether the Application meets the conditions set out in Article 56 subsections (1),(2),(3),(4), and (7) of the charter and Rute 40 sub-rutes (1),(2), (3), (4) and (7) of the Rutes regarding the identity of the Appticant, compatibility of the Application with the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the 7 Application No. 013/2011. Judgment ot 21106120j3 (Preliminary Objections), Norbeft Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (hereinafter referred to as "Norbeft Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso (Preliminary Objections)'), g 121; Alex Thomas v. Tan zaxla (Merits), Sg 73-74 8 See for instance, Atex Thomas v. Tanzania (Merits), g 74 s See Application No. 012/201S. Jud gment 2210412018 (Merits), Anudo Ochieng Anudo V-United Republic of Tanzan,a, S 58 ),t--- 15 0 @-