indigent, does not have legal assistance during domestic proceedings and was not aware of the existence of this Court. *** 56. The Court reiterates that neither the Charter nor the Rules specify the exact time within which Applications must be filed, after exhaustion of local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(f) of the Rules merely provide that Applications must be filed “… within reasonable time from the date local remedies were exhausted or from the date set by the Court as being the commencement of the time limit within which it shall be seized with the matter”. These provisions thus set out two processes for assessing reasonableness of time within the meaning of Article 56(6) of the Charter. 57. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicant exhausted local remedies when the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 10 June 1999. However, given that this date precedes that of the deposit of the Declaration on 29 March 2010, the Court will assess reasonableness of time based on the second process provided for under Article 56(6) of the Charter, that is the commencement of the time-limit within which it ought to have been seized with the matter. Going by this standard, the date of deposit of the Declaration will be considered in assessing reasonableness of time to file the present Application. 58. The Court notes that between the deposit of the Declaration on 29 March 2010 and the filing of the Application, on 19 February 2018, a period of time of seven years, ten months and 21 days elapsed. 59. The Court notes, however, that the period between 2007 and 2013 marks the years of the Court’s inception. As the Court has previously held, during the said period, members of the public, let alone persons in the situation of the Applicant in the present case, could not be presumed to have been sufficiently aware of the Court’s existence so as to file their applications soon after exhaustion of local remedies. Therefore, the period to be taken 15