Africa Human Rights NGO Network and Others v Tanzania, that awaiting responses on applications or judicial reviews are sufficient grounds to explain a delay in seizing an international body. It is the contention of the Applicant that the jurisprudence of the African Commission on the matter forms a highly persuasive source of law and that this Court be inclined to reach the same decision. 73. On the preliminary objection that the Applicant did not file the application within a reasonable time from the time local remedies were exhausted, the Court finds that in considering whether the application was filed within a reasonable time, time should have started running from 29 May 2009 when the Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's appeal. However, the Respondent deposited its declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol on 29 March 2010, therefore the time should be reckoned from that date. This Court has, in Application 01312011 Beneficiaries of the late Norbert Zongo, Abdoulaye Nikiema alias Ablasse, Ernest Zongo and Blaise 1/boudo & The Burkinabe Movement on Human and Peoples' Rights v Burkina Faso (Ruling on Preliminary Objections of 21 June 2013) set out the principle 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". 74. Considering the Applicant's situation, that he is a lay, indigent, incarcerated person, compounded by the delay in providing him with Court records, and his attempt to use extraordinary measures, tha is, the application for review of the Court of Appeal's decision, we find that these constitute sufficient grounds to explain why he filed the Application before this Court on 2 August 2013, being three (3) 30