B. Objection based on the failure to file the Application within a reasonable period of time 59. The Respondent State submits that in the event that the Court finds that the Applicant has exhausted local remedies, it should then find that the Applicant has not filed this Application within a reasonable period, because the decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on 1 June 2010, whereas this Application was filed before this Court on 31 August 2017. Moreover, the Respondent State deposited its instrument accepting the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 5(3) of the Protocol on 29 March 2010, therefore, “a period of seven (7) years and four (4) months elapsed” from the date the Respondent State accepted the competence of the Court to the time the Applicant filed his Application at the Court. 60. The Respondent State submits that even though, the Rules of the Court do not quantify or define reasonable time, this Court has held that it shall consider what amounts to reasonable time on a case-by-case basis.21 61. It contends that the general maxim holds that all admissibility requirements provided by Rule 40(1-7) of the Rules22 have to be met for an application to be deemed admissible as was in the case of Mariam Kouma and Ousmane Diabate v. Mali,23 where the Court held that “… the conditions of admissibility are cumulative and, as such, when one of them is not fulfilled, the Application cannot be admissible”. The Respondent State submits that this is the case in the instant matter, therefore the Application should be declared inadmissible and dismissed. * 21 Application No. 013/2011, Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso, § 121; Application No. 007/2013, Mohamed Abubakar v. The United Republic of Tanzania, § 91. 22 Rule 50(2) Rules of Court, 2020. 23 Application No. 040/2016, Mariam Kouma and Ousmame Diabate v. Mali, § 63. 17