51. Consequently, the Court finds that local remedies were exhausted as envisaged under Article 56(5) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(e) of the Rules and therefore, dismisses the Respondent State’s objection in this regard. B. Objection based on failure to file the Application within reasonable time 52. The Respondent State avers that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Criminal Case No. 6 of 1998 was issued on 10 June 1999 and that the Applicant filed his Application before this Court on 19 February 2018. The Respondent State submits that it deposited the Declaration on 29 March 2010. Thus, according to the Respondent State, eight years elapsed between the Respondent State acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court and the filing of this Applicant. 53. The Respondent State submits that while it cannot be controverted that the Court did not specify what constitutes reasonable time for the filing of applications, a review of its jurisprudence reveals that the Court opted to deal with the reasonableness of time on a case-by-case basis as exemplified in Norbert Zongo and Others v. Burkina Faso and Mohamed Aboubakari v. Tanzania. 54. Accordingly, the Respondent State prays the Court to find that the period of eight years does not fall within the parameters of reasonable time. It is the Respondent State’s contention that since the conditions of admissibility are cumulative the Court should declare the Application inadmissible. * 55. The Applicant disputes the Respondent State’s submissions and contends that his Application was filed within a reasonable time. He avers that the Court’s position has been to deal with the matter on a case-by-case basis. According to the Applicant, the main factors to be considered in this regard are the fact that the applicant is incarcerated with limited movement, is illiterate, has limited access to information, is lay in matters of law and 14