years and five (5) months after the Respondent made the declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. For these reasons, the Court finds that the application has been filed within a reasonable time after the exhaustion of local remedies as envisaged by Article 56(5) of the Charter. The Court therefore overrules this preliminary objection and dismisses the same. Respondent’s objection to the alleged introduction of new issues by the Applicant 75. Following the Respondent's Response dated 5 February 2014, to the Application, the Applicant filed, in conformity with the deadline provided by the Court, a Reply dated 8 April 2014 responding to the Respondent's Response. The Applicant sought the reliefs listed in paragraphs 17, 19 and 20 above. 76. During the public hearing, the Respondent raised an objection to the Applicant's Reply Respondent contended were of the not part to the Respondent's Response. The that “... the Rejoinder has raised new issues, which Application, being issues admissibility of the case.” The Respondent related to both jurisdiction and maintained that, ‘a Rejoinder is only meant to address and answer issues raised in the Reply and not to raise new issues. However, the so-called Rejoinder by the Applicant is a fresh Application, which raises new allegations.” The Respondent further stated that, this results in an unfair situation and is contrary to the principle of equality of arms. The Respondent also stated that the “Court should only address itself on the issues raised in the Application and not the issues raised in the purported Rejoinder. This is especially as there is no provision for a Sur-Rejoinder in the Rules of Court.” tr 31